Sitting of 23 July 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill [Lords],
Ordered,
"That, in the case of the Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 339 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chair-man of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered,
"That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill,
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.
For County of Middlesex (Twickenham Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Sir William Joynson-Hicks, baronet, now Viscount Brentford, called up to the House of Peers.—[Commander Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for
"Return showing the number of experiments on living animals during the year 1928, under licences granted in pursuance of the Act 39 and 40 Viet., c. 77, distinguishing between the nature of the experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 109, of Session 1928)."—[Mr. Short.]

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).
Address for
"Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1929–30."—[Mr. Benn.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WATER SUPPLY (CATCHMENT AREAS AND RESERVOIRS).
    Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consider the desirability of approaching local authorities in areas likely to suffer from water shortage in the event of drought to suggest schemes for the provision of catchment areas and reservoirs, which besides proving of great utility would provide work for the unemployed?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has recently drawn the attention of local authorities to the necessity for initiating schemes for new water supplies in advance of requirements and has emphasised the advantages of regional water committees, Approved schemes of the character indicated would be subject to the appropriate Unemployment Grant.
    Sir G. PENNY: In view of the Lord Privy Seal's statement yesterday, that it was only that day that it had occurred to him that this question might open up a useful source of employment, might I ask the Government whether they will consider the advisability of those responsible for unemployment studying more closely the Order Paper, so that they can see the proposals that are made?
    Mr. THOMAS: All I can say is that the Ministry of Health, whose business it is to consider the water supply, had already taken steps to deal with the matter. I was concerned purely from the employment point of view, and I do not think that very much delay was occasioned by my action.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. WATSONasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the utilisation of part of the Royal Dockyard at Rosyth

    1049
    for a scheme for the relief of unemployment in view of the unemployment created there by the closing of the dockyard?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider with my right hon. Friend whether anything can be done to give employment at Rosyth Dockyard.

    SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Government anticipates that a report will be made by the small expert committee appointed in 1926 to investigate the proposed Severn barrages?
    Mr. THOMAS: As the House is already aware the expert committee recently reported to the Severn Barrage Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research. That sub-committee has since submitted to the Government a report which is now under consideration.

    TEXTILE OPERATIVES, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSONasked the Lord Privy Seal in view of the fact that the Government have decided not to put into operation the Report of the Woollen and Worsted Committee in respect of the safeguarding of that industry, what scheme or schemes he proposes to put into operation at an early date for the relief of unemployment amongst the textile operatives of the West Riding of Yorkshire?
    Mr. THOMAS: The assistance which the Government is offering to schemes for the promotion of economic development and the reduction of unemployment will be available for the West Riding of Yorkshire equally with other areas suffering from unemployment.
    Mr. TOM SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the President of the Board of Trade to institute an inquiry into the woollen and worsted industry, in regard to the adverse effect that trusts and combines have already had?
    Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the legalising of the Eight Hours Convention will help the textile trades very much?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure that the Government had these and many other satisfactory reasons in mind before they arrived at their original decision.

    ROLLING MILLS, WOOLSTON.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will take into early consideration the utilisation for productive purposes of the Government rolling mills at Woolston, Southampton, in connection with his unemployment schemes?
    Mr. THOMAS: These works were dismantled several years ago and only the bare buildings remain. I do not consider that the Government could make productive use of the buildings, and efforts are being continued to dispose of them.

    COAST DEFENCE WORKS.
    Mr. PYBUSasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that, although sea defence rates in the seaside towns in Essex are high, coast erosion cannot be properly checked owing to financial limitations; and whether, in view of the suitability of such works for providing employment, he will instruct the officers of the appropriate Department to visit these and other affected areas and report on the local conditions for the purpose of creating a special form of grant for sea defence?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield) on 18th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

    LOCAL LABOUR.
    Major NATHANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether in connection with the Government's unemployment plans, any and, if so, what steps will be taken to ensure that as regards work in any particular locality the available unemployed in that locality will be given priority as regards employment?
    Mr. THOMAS: Except in so far as it is a condition of Government assistance that on certain works in the more prosperous areas employment should be given to a proportion of men from the depressed mining areas, the engagement of labour is within the discretion of the undertaking authority concerned, who

    1051
    should pay due regard to the claims of the local unemployed.
    Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making it a term of any contract, grant, loan or guarantee that the contractor shall, as far as possible, engage local labour from the local Employment Exchange?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Government do not make contracts, and it is very difficult in dealing with local authorities to turn round and say that we must control what is their own responsibility. In any case, the local authority ought to have first regard to their own unemployed.
    Mr. KEDWARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that miners are being sent from Durham down to Kent, and that it is a condition of the unemployment grant that 50 per cent. of the unemployed are taken from distressed areas, although there are unemployed in the areas to which they are being sent?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have dealt with the question very fully on two occasions in this House. Regard ought to be had to the local unemployment situation, but, if local authorities can help those in the distressed areas, they ought to be encouraged to do so.
    Mr. KEDWARD: Do the Government make it a condition of the giving of a grant that so many men shall be taken from the distressed areas, although the district in question have unemployed of their own?
    Mr. THOMAS: No; it is not a condition, but additional Government assistance is given where they are taken.

    DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (LAND ACQUISITION).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consider the advisability of applying to Parliament for special emergency powers in order to enable him to obtain land, etc., in the shortest possible time, so that schemes for national development may be pressed forward with all expedition?
    Mr. THOMAS: As the hon. Member is aware there are already considerable powers under the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920, and other Statutes. I am fully alive to the necessity in present circumstances of facilitating the procedure to enable schemes of development
    1052
    to be pressed forward. The matter is being examined and I should not hesitate to ask Parliament for further powers in the matter if necessary.

    SLAG HEAPS (LEVELLING).
    Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has had under consideration schemes for the provision of work in levelling mining slag heaps and tips in areas where the reclaimed land might be of great value to local authorities as housing sites, playing fields, or allotments, and where the slag might be utilised to obtain valuable byproducts?
    Mr. THOMAS: A proposal for levelling slag heaps in the Midlands area is at present under examination by the appropriate Departments. I do not know whether the slag contains valuable byproducts, but I will certainly have this suggestion examined.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TRADE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can make any statement regarding the proposed appointment of the new Trade Commissioners?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have consulted my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, with whom the appointment of the new Trade Commissioners rests, and he informs me that he is not as yet in a position to make any announcement. There will be no avoidable delay.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will these appointments be made from among gentlemen who are already in Government employment?
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot answer that question, but I should assume that due regard will be had to the qualifications. It would be no good to appoint someone because he had been in a Government Department, if he was useless for the job. All things being equal, certainly.

    MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in supplement to the question answered in the House of Commons on 27th February last, he can state the value and quantities

    1053
    of safeguarded manufactured goods and non-safeguarded manufactured goods imported into this country and retained for domestic consumption for the first half of 1925 and 1929, respectively, and the value and quantities of exports of safeguarded manufactured goods and export of non-safeguarded manufactured goods for the same two periods?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): Having regard to the amount of labour involved, I do not think the preparation of a table, corresponding to that contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 27th February, would be justified in respect of the periods asked for. I will consider in due course the publication of a table covering the whole of the year 1929.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether the foundation for these figures is not given in statistics which have already been published? Could not my right hon. Friend find the figures from them?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The matter is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend indicates. I suggest that he would be in a far better position if he had a table covering the period I have mentioned in the reply.
    Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how early a table could be prepared in 1930?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is difficult to say offhand, but I will have a table prepared

    Country from and to which consigned.

    Articles wholly or mainly manufactured.

    Total Imports (into the U.K.).

    Exports (from the U.K.).

    U.K. Manufactures.

    Imported Manufactures.

    £

    £

    £

    Australia

    …

    3,093,743

    51,639,818

    1,689,489

    Canada

    …

    9,385,624

    28,199,770

    525,694

    British India

    …

    13,212,154

    78,209,084

    612,545

    Irish Free State

    …

    1,964,410

    21,176,465

    1,968,253

    Newfoundland and Coast of Labrador

    …

    1,289,315

    716,400

    37,759

    New Zealand

    …

    149,526

    16,564,191

    579,359

    British South Africa

    …

    588,970

    30,122,420

    1,114,602

    France

    …

    40,401,052

    13,909,541

    3,177,560

    Germany

    …

    53,900,569

    27,991,300

    3,794,768

    Belgium

    …

    33,485,099

    9,198,331

    1,297,117

    United States of America

    …

    65,327,645

    35,185,371

    2,554,757

    Italy

    …

    8,671,680

    7,452,996

    408,149

    Netherlands

    …

    12,078,092

    16,574,058

    1,339,700

    The above figures are provisional.

    without delay. I cannot indicate a date this afternoon.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the exports of manufactured goods to, and the imports of manufactured goods from, the following countries during the year 1928: Australia, Canada, India, Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, South Africa, France, Germany, Belgium, United States of America, Italy, and Netherlands?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The answer contains a long table of figures. The hon. Member will, therefore, perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows the total declared value of articles classed, in the United Kingdom Trade Returns, as wholly or mainly manufactured, imported into and exported from the United Kingdom during the year 1928, and consigned from and to the countries specified in the question.
    The table covers about 80 per cent. of the total exports of British manufactures to all British countries, but only about 40 per cent. of the total exports of such goods to all foreign countries. It also covers about 80 per cent. of the imports of manufactured goods from all foreign countries, and from 80 to 85 per cent. of the imports of such goods from all British countries.

    UNITED STATES TARIFF.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will get in touch with foreign Ministers of Labour and Commerce in Europe and discuss the possibility of the formation of an economic united states of Europe as the only means of fighting the high American tariffs?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I do not see my way to act on the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the time is now ripe, seeing that M. Briand is anxious to discuss the matter and that Italy and Germany are also anxious for a discussion; and every discussion will be helpful?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have given a reply only in general terms, but, after careful consideration, the Government are quite satisfied that there is nothing to be gained by any policy which involves discrimination.

    TRADE BALANCE.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade an estimate of the creditor position of this country before the War and on the latest available date, together with comparative debtor or creditor figures concerning the United States of America?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that the available information is not sufficient to make these comparisons possible.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures of the Board of Trade on the balance of trade lose a great deal of their value without an estimate of this character, and will he take some steps to see that some kind of estimate is prepared?
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not the Kindersley Report give nearly all the information for which the hon. Member asks?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The matter is not by any means simple. I have seen the Kindersley Report and certain other reports issued by departments of commerce in America, and, while I will do my best
    1056
    to make a comparison of this kind, we have not the material in this country to make it completely effective.

    COTTON TRADE INQUIRY.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the promised inquiry into the cotton trade?
    Mr. HERBERT GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the proposed inquiry into the cotton industry; has the Committee yet been appointed; and, ii so, can he give the names?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The inquiry will be conducted by a sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research. I am not able at the moment to announce the names of the sub-committee, but it will consist of two Ministers, one prominent industrialist, one leading trade unionist, and one accountant. The names will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information in respect to the terms of reference; will they be broad, and will the inquiry be public?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The terms of reference will be drawn in the widest possible fashion; that is, they will have regard to the condition of the industry and its power to recover the home and export markets. An inquiry of this character is, of course, not public, but all information is obtained. There are great advantages in conducting an inquiry on these lines.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May I take it that the inquiry will obtain evidence from all sections of the trade?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Beyond all doubt. That is the whole object of the investigation.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman form any estimate as to how long it is going to take?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Beginning immediately after the holiday season, I think the inquiry will be completed in three or four months at the outside, but I warn the House that no one can commit himself to a definite date.
    Mr. WISE: Will the terms of reference cover the methods of marketing in India and China?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, the terms of reference, are so wide that any evidence bearing on this industry will be in order.

    PATENTS (APPLICATIONS).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications for patents that have been before his Department for three months without being adjudicated upon and the number that have been similarly before his Department for six months or more?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to applications accompanied or followed by complete specifications in which the result of the examination has not yet been communicated to the applicant. The number of such applications which have been before the Patent Office for three months or more is 4,848; and, of these, 1,176 have been before the Office for six months or more. Applications accompanied by provisional specifications only are dealt with shortly after receipt.

  TRANSPORT.

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now give any further information concerning Charing Cross Bridge?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. As the outcome of a meeting between the Chairman of the Improvements Committee of the London County Council, representatives of the Southern Railway Company and myself, provisional heads of agreement for the construction of a new Charing Cross Bridge and for the removal of Charing Cross station to the south side of the river, have been settled between the representatives of the council and the railway company with my concurrence. The provisional agreement is subject to the approval of the London County Council and of the shareholders of the railway company. Meetings to arrive at a final decision have been convened both by the council and by the company, and will be held on the 30th of this month. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that I appreciate the efforts of my
    1058
    predecessor in office, the right hon. Gentleman who represents the New Forest Division, and of all the parties to this prolonged negotiation to bring about a satisfactory settlement of so great a scheme of improvement.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long he thinks it will be before the temporary bridge and the new Charing Cross station are opened?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir; it is impossible at this stage to answer that question.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the original recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the bridge should cross the Strand, has been abandoned, and does the hon. Member approve of this change of policy, which will mean that more traffic will pour into the Strand?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have already stated that I have concurred in the agreement which has been arrived at.

    MOTOR CYCLES AND SIDE-CARS (DUTY).
    Mr. NOEL BAKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the motor cycle with side-car attachments has been proved to be the safest vehicle on the road and notably safer than the motor cycle with pillion, he will consider the encouragement of the use of such side-cars by withdrawing or reducing the tax on them?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have been asked to reply. The licence duties for motor cycles (£1 10s. per annum for the light cycle and £3 for the heavy cycle) are not onerous, and the additional duty of £1 per annum for a sidecar attachment to a motor cycle does not appear to be unreasonable when the additional facilities obtained are taken into account. Further, it is common knowledge that the attachment of a sidecar does not prevent the carrying of a pillion passenger on the motor cycle.
    Captain GUNSTON: Does the Minister agree with the view expressed in the question that the motor cycle with sidecar is the safest form of transport?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have not sufficient information before me to confirm the implication contained in the question.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that figures were given by the ex-Home Secretary?

    EDUCATION (SCHOOL LEAVING AGE).
    Captain BOURNEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the committee to investigate the problem of the raising of the school leaving age which he proposed to appoint has, in fact, been appointed; and, if so, when he expects to receive the Report of such committee?
    Mr. THOMAS: This committee was an ordinary inter-departmental committee to examine among other matters the unemployment aspect of the problem of the school leaving age. The Government, however, have decided that the matter should be dealt with on educational grounds, and the committee was accordingly instructed that it need not pursue these inquiries.
    Mr. SINKINSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the decision to raise the school leaving age on 1st April, 1931, as announced by the President of the Board of Education, is to be applied to Scotland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The answer is in the affirmative. But in Scotland legislation will not be necessary. The Scottish Education Department is empowered by Section 33 (2) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to fix the appointed day.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of resignations or alterations that have occurred in the advisory committee appointed by his Department according to the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act since this committee has been set up; and whether, in filling up the vacancies that have occurred, he has taken into consideration the claims put forward for representation on this committee by any other association in addition to the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Four members of the advisory Committee have resigned
    1060
    since it was set up. No vacancies have occurred this year, and therefore it has not been my duty to make fresh appointments.
    Mr. DAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether other associations besides the Cinematograph Association will be consulted if it is necessary to make these appointments?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, if any vacancy arises, I will certainly consider representations made by anyone.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    BANKRUPTCY OFFICES.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcy offices in England and Wales are classified as salaried offices; what is the number of salaried officers employed at these salaried offices; how many of the staff are classed as temporary employees who are doing identical work at lower wages as the scheme employees; what is the number of non-salaried offices; what is the number of salaried officers employed there; what is the number of temporary employees employed thereat; can he state what is the number of temporary employees who have had continuous service in one or more bankruptcy offices for the last 20 years or more; and what are the obstacles to the promotion of these long-service employees to inclusion in the salaried category?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer is a long one, and with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fairness of placing all the non-salaried officers of many years service on the established staff, or set up a committee to investigate their claims?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think my hon. Friend will find an answer in the detailed reply I have given.
    Mr. JONES: If I bring any cases of exceptional hardship to the personal notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he consider them?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly.
    Following is the answer:
    Twenty bankruptcy offices in England and Wales are classified as salaried offices. The number of officers (exclusive of messengers, paper-keepers, etc.) employed in these offices is 257. Of these 257 officers 206 are permanent (195 established and 11 unestablished) and are on the scales of pay of the permanent pensionable posts. The remaining 51 are on general Civil Service scales of pay appropriate to their present gradings, and these scales fall within the scales of pay of permanent staff engaged on similar work. The total of 51 persons is made up of 10 temporary employés occupying posts in typing grades which will be filled as soon as practicable by women who qualify for permanent appointments at the usual competitions; 16 ex-service men who have failed to qualify for pensionable posts but have been assured of permanent employment ("P" Clerks); and 25 men and women who fill temporary posts in a "fringe" which is maintained to facilitate adjustments of staff to fluctuations in the volume of work. No member of the temporary staff employed in these offices has had continuous service in a Bankruptcy office for the last 20 years or more.
    The non-salaried Bankruptcy offices number 30. No salaried officer of the Board of Trade is employed in any of them. Non-salaried Official Receivers m Bankruptcy are normally Solicitors in private practice, and they are remunerated for their bankruptcy work by fees in accordance with a fixed scale. They are required, by the terms of their appointment, to provide, at their own expense, such staffs as they may need for the proper performance of that work. These staffs are thus in private employment, and the question of their appointment to salaried posts under the Board of Trade does not arise.

    ADVERTISEMENTS.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government's decision to refuse all advertisements relating to the sale or manufacture of beer or spirits applies only to the Post Office or to all public Departments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The decision applies to all departments.

    CLERICAL CLASSES (COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of candidates it is proposed to assign to the established clerical classes in the Civil Service from the recent competitive examination?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENGE: 100 candidates were declared successful in the first instance, and I am authorising an extension of the successful list to the 200th candidate.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the claims of ex-service men who have been able to carry out these duties in a very satisfactory manner?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: They will be borne in mind.

    P-CLASS AND WRITING ASSISTANTS (PROMOTIONS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of promotions made in each Department from the P-class to established clerical grade under Clause 6 of the Government memorandum of 12th January, 1925, for the period 1st January, 1929, to 30th June, 1929; and the number of writing assistants promoted to established clerical grade in each Department for the same period?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question contains a number of figures, I propose with his permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the sympathy of the Government be extended to these men of the P-class so as to give them as many opportunities of improving their position as possible?
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it not a fact that the Treasury have already received representations about this case, in the last few days?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Government at least be more sympathetic than the last Government?
    The following is the reply:
    Number of promotions to the established General and Departmental Clerical Classes from 1st January, 1929, to 30th June, 1929:

    From the P Class.

    From Writing Assistants.

    Agriculture and Fisheries, Ministry of

    2

    —

    Air Ministry

    1

    3

    Charity Commission

    1

    —

    Colonial Office

    1

    —

    Customs and Excise Department

    15

    1

    County Courts Department

    2

    —

    Dominions Office

    1

    —

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    —

    1

    Friendly Societies Registry

    1

    —

    Health, Ministry of

    —

    13

    Inland Revenue

    —

    20

    Labour, Ministry of

    —

    32

    Land Registry

    2

    —

    National Savings Committee

    1

    —

    Paymaster-General's Office

    —

    1

    Pensions, Ministry of

    7

    —

    Post Office

    12

    49

    Prison Commission

    4

    —

    Public Trustee

    5

    2

    Registrar-General

    4

    1

    Scientific and Industrial Research Department

    1

    —

    Stationery Office

    1

    —

    Trade, Board of

    22

    4

    Transport, Ministry of

    5

    —

    Treasury

    1*

    —

    Unemployment Grants Committee

    1*

    —

    Office of Works

    12

    —

    Department of Agriculture, Scotland

    1

    —

    Department of Health, Scotland

    9

    —

    Welsh Board of Health

    4

    2

    116

    129

    * Promoted to vacancies in other Departments.

  FOOD PRICES.

    MILK.
    Mr. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken by the Food Council in view of the 80 to 100 per cent. margin for distribution as compared with the farmers' price, in the scheme now under consideration for fixing milk prices by the National Farmers' Union and the milk distributing interests?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that the Food Council will have this matter
    1064
    under examination at their meeting tomorrow, and I have asked them for a report.
    Captain CAZALET: Have the Government been approached by the National Farmers' Union with a view to getting a fairer price for their produce?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no doubt that representations have been made to the Council in the past, but I cannot; recall any representations which have been made during my own term of office.
    Miss WILKINSON: Will the price of full cream condensed milk be covered by this inquiry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I cannot reply to that question offhand, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of to-morrow's meeting, when I shall be in a position either in the House or by other means to give further details.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true, as the "Daily Herald" says, that the drought is in some measure responsible for these higher prices?

    BREAD.
    Mr. KEDWARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the intention of the London Master Bakers and the principal wholesale and retail bakers to increase the price of bread on Monday, 29th July; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and, if so, upon what lines?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The Food Council have the course of bread prices under continuous review, and this matter is already before them.

    EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, seeing that Belgium has agreed to suspend, with effect from 7th June, 1929, the liquidation and retention of German private property not at that date liquidated or taken over by the State, His Majesty's Government is prepared to take similar action;
    (2) whether, in view of the recommendations of the Experts Committee that the liquidation of ex-enemy private property

    1065
    seized during the War should be discontinued as soon as the Young plan is ratified, any special instructions have been given to the British clearing office to suspend or expedite the liquidation of ex-enemy property not yet disposed of; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Pending the definite acceptance of the Experts' Report by all the Powers concerned, I see no ground for suspending liquidations, which proceed normally, and no special instructions have been issued in this matter. I understand that the Belgian Government have offered to suspend liquidation as from the 7th June, as part of an agreement under which they would receive very substantial compensation on other heads; so that their position is by no means analogous.
    Mr. MACPHEBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of German ex-enemy property expropriated under the Treaty of Versailles which ha" been released under the recommendation of the Blanes-burgh Committee, and the number of individual cases in which either the property has been restored or cash compensation has been paid to the ex-enemy owners?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Releases of property have been made to 2,401 German nationals on the recommendation of Lord Blanesburgh's Committee, amounting in value to £2,941,843, of which £857,867 represents the value of property restored in kind and £2,083,976 represents proceeds of sale. The total amount of all releases is £5,229,740.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on Friday.
    Mr. AYLESasked the President of the Board of Trade the total result of the sale of German private property in Britain in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles; to what extent this has met all British private claims against Germany and German nationals; whether there is any surplus after all claims have been met; and whether, if so, he will see that the example of France and America; in releasing their surpluses to the former owners is followed by this country?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The total proceeds of realisation of German property in this country pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles amount to date to £55,500,000. All British private claims against Germany and German nationals which have hitherto been admitted have been paid in full; it is estimated that after all such claims have been met there will be a surplus which will be retained in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and credited against Germany's reparation obligations. His Majesty's Government have under consideration the recommendations with regard to German property of the Committee of Experts on Reparations, but these recommendations relate Only to such property as has not already been liquidated or disposed of at the date of the acceptance of the report.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the probable credit balance?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I could not, at this stage, give a firmly accurate figure on that point.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH CLAIMS.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount the Soviet Government, as successors to the Russian Imperial Government, owe to British investors in governmental, railway, and municipal securities?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The capital amount of the bonds in sterling and roubles of Russian State Loans, Guaranteed Railway Loans, and Loans of Municipalities and other Institutions in respect of which claims have been lodged with the Russian Claims Department is approximately 41 million pounds sterling, and 242 million roubles, respectively. In addition, there is an unascertained amount of accrued interest due on the securities.
    Mr. SMITHERS: If and when the Government can resume diplomatic relations with Russia, will the right hon. Gentleman press upon his colleagues in the Cabinet the necessity of at least getting some payment for these debts or recognition of them?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: What is the market value of this paper now?
    HON. MEMBERS: Nothing.
    Sir F. HALL: Surely in the case of a defunct or bankrupt country you cannot take that at its face value?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Plainly, no one familiar with this controversy can pronounce on the value this afternoon. As regards the other supplementary question, I have no doubt that this and other points will be borne in mind in any negotiations that take place.

    BRITISH MISSION, 1918.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purpose for which the sums advanced by Abram Efros to His Majesty's Representative in Moscow in 1918 were required, and upon what services the sums were spent?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): I have been asked to reply. So far as I am aware, the sums advanced by Abram Efros to His Majesty's Representative in Moscow in 1918 were devoted to the expenses of the Mission. Owing, however, to the circumstances of the withdrawal from Soviet Russia of His Majesty's Representative and His Majesty's Consular Officers, there exist no detailed accounts of the Mission's expenditure.

    McKENNA AND SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider his decision not to put into operation the recommendations of the Safeguarding Committee on Wool, in view of the fact that it has been followed by the closing down of certain mills, with resulting unemployment?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer is in the negative, for the reasons which I gave to the House in the Debate on the Address.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large mill in Wharfdale has closed down, and is he going to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. LEACH: Does my right hon. Friend not know that there is not the remotest connection between the closing of any Yorkshire mill and the refusal of Safeguarding?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the desirability of ascertaining the full employment results before repealing or allowing the McKenna and Safeguarding duties to lapse, he will take steps to insist upon the fullest information being given regarding employment both now and prior to the imposition of duties by all the industries concerned;
    (2) whether in view of the recommendation of the Balfour Committee that every Safeguarding Duty should automatically be submitted to a Committee for review about a year before the date fixed for its expiration in order to obtain the necessary material for a decision by the Government as to the desirability or otherwise of proposing an extension of the duty, he is prepared to take this course with regard to the Safeguarding and McKenna Duties?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The decisions of the Government both as to the Safeguarding and the McKenna Duties Have been announced in the debate on the Address. I do not propose to institute any special inquiries in these cases. The ordinary statistics of imports and exports and of employment will, of course, continue to be available.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statistics, so far, with regard to unemployment, are in no way complete, and could he not insist, in order that this House may know the results, that the true state of employment should be shown in every industry that is benefiting from this Safeguarding?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no doubt that every effort will be made to get as complete figures as possible in the ordinary field of employment, but I read the hon. and gallant Member's question as referring more particularly to Safeguarded industries.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about exports and imports, but does he not agree that in order to have a complete picture of an industry it is necessary to have the figures of production as well as the exports and imports, and will he try to obtain from

    1069
    these industries, following what the last Government did, complete figures of production?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No doubt every effort will be made in that direction. I am all in favour of the most complete statistical material, but I have made the position plain as regards these Safeguarding Duties.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it the policy of the Government not to follow the recommendations of the Balfour Committee and to have no re-examination of these industries as recommended by that Committee?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That was plainly indicated during the debate on the Address. The Government have decided to abandon the White Paper, and, that being so, it would be futile to hold inquiries into the condition of these industries.
    Commander WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman could get the complete figures, would it not help the Government's thinking department?
    Major THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before any of the existing Safeguarding and McKenna Duties are discontinued, he will enter into conversations with representatives of those foreign countries whose tariffs are a hindrance to British exporters, with a view to securing reciprocal reductions of duty?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), a copy of which I am sending him.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CHEMICAL RESEARCH WORK.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have ceased all work on chemical warfare; and has he any information as to whether similar action has been taken by America, Germany, Italy, France, or Russia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): His Majesty's Government have declared their intention of
    1070
    ratifying the Geneva Gas Protocol at an early date. In the meantime no change has been made by a departure from the research work which has been for a long time in progress. It is understood that similar research work is being carried on in the countries referred to.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to see that the Officers' Training Corps at the public schools are genuinely voluntary bodies, and that no compulsion to join, direct or indirect, is applied?
    Mr. SHAW: Arrangements for recruiting for contingents of the Officers' Training Corps rest with the school authorities. So far as the Army Council are concerned there is no question of compulsion, direct or indirect.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there exists in effect a system of conscription in the public schools of this country?
    Mr. SHAW: I am not aware of what the conditions in the public schools are. I am only responsible for my own Department, and, as far as that Department is concerned, it gives no instructions at all, nor has it any powers in the public schools.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Is it not the case that such training corps always have been, and must be, on a voluntary basis?
    Mr. SHAW: I can express no opinion on what has happened, and I cannot prophesy with regard to the future.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make grants to these corps conditional upon the fact that no compulsion is employed by the headmasters to get boys to join?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that it has an extraordinarily beneficial effect on the boys?

    MECHANISED YEOMANRY REGIMENTS.
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the advisability of placing mechanised yeomanry regiments under cavalry control; and whether he will take any action to this effect in the future?
    Mr. SHAW: No change in the status of the armoured car companies of the Territorial Army is intended at present.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Does the same answer apply to the mechanised yeomanry artillery brigade?
    Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member will please put that question on the Paper.

    TROOPS IN CHINA.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for War how many battalions of British troops are in China; where they are located; and whether he intends to increase or decrease their number in the near future?
    Mr. SHAW: There are at present in China six British battalions and one Indian battalion distributed as follows: at Hong Kong, two British and one Indian battalion; at Shanghai, two battalions and in the Tientsin Area two battalions. The question of the number of troops in China is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government but no conclusion has yet been reached on the matter. There is no intention of increasing the number of battalions in China in the near future.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present number of troops is adequate, or that it is too large?
    Mr. SHAW: I have already said that the matter is under consideration, and, to give an opinion before that consideration would, I think, not be quite safe.
    Captain CAZALET: What is the annual cost of maintaining these troops?
    Mr. SHAW: That question had better be put on the Paper.

    BANDS (CIVIL ENGAGEMENTS).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Secretary of State for War how many civilian engagements were taken by military bands during the past 12 months; what remuneration was received for such engagements; and how much was received by the bandsmen for their personal use?
    Mr. SHAW: I regret that I have not the information for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. DAY: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage the engagement of these bands as in the past?
    Mr. SHAW: At present, I have no intention of changing it.

    DEFENCE WORKS, SINGAPORE.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the main heads of the defence works at Singapore estimated to cost £1,150,000; what garrison it is proposed to station there; and whether any estimate has been made as to the annual cost of such garrison?
    Mr. SHAW: The estimate of £1,150,000 on page 202 of Army Estimates, 1929, relates to Works services only and covers defences, cantonments, roads, piers, workshops and other building services. It would not be in accordance with custom to particularise in greater detail the items of a defence programme, but, as was stated on 17th July last, all questions in connection with the Singapore Base are under the consideration of the Government. As regards the last part of the question, the size of the garrison that would be required for the new de-fences has not yet been determined.

    PEMBROKE DOCK.
    Major G. LLOYD GEORGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the serious distress that exists in Pembroke Dock owing to the closing down of the Royal Dockyard, he will favourably consider the replacing of the regiment now ordered to leave the town by one of the regiments that will be brought home when the Rhineland is evacuated, so that, pending some alternative employment being provided, the present distress may be relieved to some extent?
    Mr. SHAW: The question of the replacement of the battalion which will shortly leave Pembroke Dock will be considered on the return of the British troops from the Rhine.

    ARMISTICE DAY SERVICE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange that during his period of office any troops employed in the Armistice Day

    1073
    ceremonial service shall parade without arms or, alternatively, with side arms only?
    Mr. SHAW: The arrangements for Armistice Day will be considered in due course, and I will see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is not overlooked.
    Mr. SIMMONS: Does not the Secretary of State for War realise that ex-Service men regard this display of military force as an insult to the memory of brave men?

    ENLISTMENTS (BOYS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take the necessary steps to prevent the enlistment of lads under the age of 18 without the consent of their parents?
    Mr. SHAW: Under the Recruiting Regulations, a boy may not be enlisted as such without the written consent of his parents or guardians. As regards recruits presenting themselves for enlistment as men, there is a standing instruction that where there is the slightest suspicion that the recruit is under the age of 18 years, full inquiries are to be made before his enlistment is finally approved.
    Mr. THURTLE: When it is found that a lad under 18 years of age has enlisted by misrepresenting his age, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the parents un application afterwards to get him released?
    Mr. SHAW: I would prefer to have time to consider that suggestion.

    CHURCH PARADES.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the unpopularity of compulsory church parades with many of the troops, he will secure that in future such parades are not to be compulsory?
    Mr. SHAW: This question, among others, was very fully investigated by a Committee whose report was presented to Parliament in 1925 and published as Command Paper No. 2376. The Committee recommended that there should be no change in the existing arrangements as regards church parades. If the hon. Member has fresh evidence which suggests that the matter should be reconsidered, I shall be glad if he will send it to me.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider substituting for these church parades private Bible study in the barrack room?
    Mr. J. JONES: Why not compel Members of Parliament to attend church?

    DARDANELLES COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).
    Major NATHANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the final Report of the Dardanelles Commission [Cmd. 371] was made in December, 1917, and that the evidence given before that commission has not been published; and whether he will now cause it to be published?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I am not prepared to reverse the decision of my predecessors against publication at the present time. The evidence given orally before the Commission is contained in 1687 printed pages, comprising over 1,600,000 words, and the statements are equally voluminous. Before it could be published, the evidence would have to be scrutinised in Government Departments. In view of the positive assurance given to Parliament and to the Nation that in the body of the Commission's report
    "nothing material has been omitted which can in any way throw a light either on what occurred or on the responsibility resting on the several individuals or departments concerned."
    I do not consider that the expense and labour involved in publication would be justified.

    EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (RELATIONSHIP).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to forward the policy of a United States of Europe:
    Mr. DALTON: If my hon. Friend is referring to an economic United States of Europe, his question has been answered by the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given to question No. 18. If on the other hand he has in mind a political union, I can only say that the difficulties in the way of the realization

    1075
    of this project would seem to be even more formidable than in the case of an economic union.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    CAPITAL (EXPORT).
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of capital exported from this country to countries abroad last year; and what proportion of it went into enterprises in countries within the Empire and what proportion to countries outside the Empire?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): As the answer is rather long, I will with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The net export of capital from this country in 1928 is estimated by the Board of Trade at £149,000,000. This figure must be regarded as a balance left after setting off against one another a far larger gross amount of capital operations, both long and short term, not only in new issues but in existing securities, which are merged in the dealings of the investment markets of the world as a whole. It is impossible to say in general whence imported capital comes or whither exported capital goes.
    With regard to new capital issues on the London market which, so far as they are disposed of to British investors, only form one item in the gross export of capital, no official statistics are available. The following are from unofficial sources:

    New Capital Issues for Overseas, 1928.

    —

    Midland Bank's Figures.

    Economist's Figures.

    £

    £

    To British Empire

    86,000,000

    63,000,000

    To Foreign Countries

    57,000,000

    42,000,000

    Total

    143,000,000

    105,000,000

    PREFERKNTIAL DUTIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the Empire produce imported into the United Kingdom during the financial year
    1076
    ended 31st March, 1929, which was charged at preferential rates of duty; and what was the total reduction in duty resulting from the fact that preferential and not full rates were charged?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not possible to give the value of Empire produce delivered for home consumption at preferential rates of duty, as the figures are not available. The total net reduction in duty in respect of goods delivered for home consumption at preferential rates of duty during the year ended 31st March, 1929, after deducting the amounts repaid in respect of goods exported on drawback, was approximately £7,975,000.

    SAFEGUARDING DUTIES (REVENUE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue received from the operation of the Safeguarding Duties in each of the four financial years ended 6th April, 1929?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The net receipts from the Safeguarding Duties, including Kew Industry Duty, for the years ended 31st March, 1926, 1927 and 1928 may be found in Table 4 (page 13) of the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Custom" and Excise (Command Paper No. 3172). For the year ended 31st March, 1929, the figures are:

    £

    Key Industry Goods

    633,263

    Lace and embroidery

    230,402

    Cutlery

    100,886

    Gloves

    584,199

    Incandescent mantles

    2,612

    Paper, packing or wrapping

    551,907

    Pottery, translucent or vitrified

    57,447

    Buttons

    128,280

    Hollow-ware, enamelled

    46,342

    £2,335,338

  POST OFFICE.

    BUILDINGS (CAPITAL EXPRNDITURE).
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the precise recommendation

    1077
    contained in the first paragraph of the second Report of the Public Accounts Committee which recommends that capital expenditure on Post Office buildings should be included in future in the annual Estimates, he will give an undertaking that such a course will be followed?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on this subject on the 11th July.

    SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
    Sir G. PENNYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way to increase the rate of interest to 3 per cent. on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) on the 11th July of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir G. PENNY: What has made the hon. Gentleman change his opinion in regard to the amount to be paid on these deposits, since he stated at the beginning of the year that there was no reason for higher interest not being paid?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is no discrepancy at all. The hon. Member asked what steps are going to be taken, and the answer is that the matter is receiving consideration.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is really no public demand for any increase of this interest at all?

    PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Captain PETER MAC DONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is prepared to reconsider the cases of the pension claim of ex-Warder J. Williams and the claim of pension arrears alleged to be due to Mrs. Silvester, widow of the late Warder Silvester, Newport, Isle of Wight, in respect of re-established service at Park-hurst Prison?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: These and similar cases were considered in 1926, 1927, 1928, and again this year by
    1078
    my predecessors, and I regret that I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 14th April, 1927.

  FISHING INDUSTRY.

    PORT HENRY HARBOUR.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that application has been made by the trustees of the harbours of Peter-head for advances in order to deepen Port Henry Harbour and to construct a slipway; that the present facilities and accommodation are insufficient for the requirements of the fishing fleet; and will he take steps to provide the necessary financial assistance in order that the work may be taken in hand as soon as possible?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that a Report has now been furnished by the Fishery Board for Scotland to the Development Commissioners. On receiving the recommendations of the Commissioners, the Treasury will consider what financial assistance, if any, can be given to the scheme under the Development and Road Improvements Act, 1909.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: If the Report of the Fishery Board is favourable, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to give it his very sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: More sympathetic than the last Government?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member may be quite sure that any favourable Report will be sympathetically considered by the Treasury.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a considerable portion of the drifter fleet will shortly become obsolete; and, in view of the urgency of the matter, will he cause immediate inquiry to be made into the advisability of instituting a credit scheme in order to assist the fishermen to replace their craft?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the similar question by the hon. and gallant Member

    1079
    for the Montrose Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) on 9th instant.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these inquiries will be completed at any period that he can state?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present amount of the Treasury grant provided annually to the Fishery Board for Scotland in aid of its piers and quays fund; and whether he is prepared to make representations for the grant being again increased to the sum of £3,000, at which figure it previously stood?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: The amount provided on the Fishery Board's Vote as a direct Grant-in-Aid towards the fund mentioned is at present £100. This is exclusive, however, of sums payable to the fund in respect of Surplus Herring Brand fees and of advances made from the Development Fund to enable the Board to maintain their dredging service. I propose to consider, in consultation with the Treasury, the question whether the Grant-in-Aid should be increased in next year's Estimate.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that immediate further effort is made to meet the needs of the smaller harbours in Scotland under the Fishery Board Regulations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider this question in the course of his investigation in connection with the whole fishing industry?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would that include the English fishing industry?

    ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY (GUARANTEED LOANS).
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total of the guaranteed loans raised by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company and its associated companies under the Trade Facilities Act; how much is repayable by the company each year in respect of capital and interest; and
    1080
    whether the Treasury has a first claim on the assets of these companies prior to the first and second debentures?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENGE: The following loans raised by subsidiary companies of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts: £950,569 and £185,317 raised by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Meat Transports, Limited, and £325,000 by Messrs. MacAndrews and Company, Limited.
    The first of these is not due for repayment until 1930, the second has been repaid, and the third is being repaid by instalments over the years 1928–36.
    The security in each of these cases is a first specific mortgage on the vessels constructed out of the loan, together with, in the case of the first loan, the joint and several guarantee of the shipbuilders and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and in the case of the third loan, first specific mortgages on other ships belonging to Messrs. MacAndrews.
    Mr. JONES: Are the Government auditors satisfied that sums advanced under Government guarantees are amply secured?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    Mr. BRACKEN: How much employment has been created through these loans? Are there any figures available?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to have notice of that question.

  SCOTLAND.

    IRISH IMMIGRATION.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take measures to control the volume of Irish immigration into Scotland?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: Negotiations begun by the late Government with His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State are still in progress.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Before any action is taken, will it be submitted to the House of Commons for consideration?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: When does the right hon. Gentleman think these negotiations will be completed?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot answer that question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that it is contemplated to restrict immigration? Is that under consideration?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have already stated that negotiations are still in progress, and I can give no more information than that.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Since these negotiations are being undertaken between this Government and another, will the result of them be submitted to this House before any action is taken?
    Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when these negotiations began, because this is the first time the House has heard of them?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor made a definite statement on these negotiations, and is it his policy to carry out that definite statement of his predecessor?

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
    Sir FREDERICK THOMSONasked the (Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders in Scotland; and whether he will take early action to deal with these recommendations?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Circulars dealing with recommendations which do not involve legislation have been issued by the Scottish Office and Scottish Education Department. Other recommendations are under consideration with a view to the introduction, when Parliamentary time permits, of legislation amending the Children Act, 1908, and dealing with probation and other matters.

    UNFIT DWELLINGS, RENFREW.
    Dr. FORGANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the closure of houses in Elderslie, Thornliebank, Neilston, and elsewhere in
    1082
    the county of Renfrew, represented by the medical officer of health as unfit for human habitation, is being held up by legal difficulties, and that houses which have been made the subject of closing orders are still occupied; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy these matters?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I understand that out of 51 tenants affected by closing orders in the area referred to by my hon. Friend, 13 have not obeyed an order to quit. In view of the poverty of these 13 tenants, no proceedings for recovery of the penalty imposed by the statute have been taken. I am in consultation with the Lord Advocate as to the steps that should be taken.

    FISHERY HARBOUR AUTHORITIES, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is prepared to introduce legislation for the purpose of simplifying and cheapening the procedure by way of Provisional Order for the constitution of Scottish fishery harbour authorities, and for their acquisition of necessary powers, either by adaptation of the provisions of the Fishery Harbours Act of 1915 to Scotland, or by the adoption of a system based on the procedure followed in the case of the several oyster and mussels fisheries orders issued in Scotland?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I cannot at present give any undertaking as to the introduction of legislation; but the matter has been noted for consideration in my general review of fishing questions.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that many fishery and harbour authorities are severely handicapped by the present difficulties of obtaining Provisional Orders, and is he aware of the urgent necessity of simplifying the procedure?

    SMALL HOLDINGS, INVERNESS-SHIEE.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applications for small holdings, up to 31st December, 1928, that the Scottish Office has not yet dealt with in Inver-ness-shire,

    1083
    including Skye, Harris, North and South Uist, and Barra?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: As the reply involves a tabular statement of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    County of Inverness, including the mainland, Skye, Harris, North and South Uist and Barra.

    Applications which have not been met by the provision of new holdings or enlargements up to 31st December, 1928, excluding applications withdrawn.

    (Abstracted from Appendix No. I to the Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1928).

    —

    New Holdings.

    Enlargement.

    Total.

    Ex-Service.

    Others.

    Ex-Service.

    Others.

    Ex-Service.

    Others.

    1. No. of applications reported on:—

    (1) Effective

    …

    135

    82

    (2) In Suspense

    …

    133

    66

    9

    455

    321

    696

    (3) Ineffective

    …

    44

    93

    312

    241

    1,017

    2. No. of applications not reported on

    …

    229

    160

    3

    488

    232

    648

    880

    Grand total outstanding

    1,897

    RENT (LEGAL PROCEEDING, GLASGOW).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that at present in Glasgow house factors are taking tenants to both the small debt and eviction Courts for arrears of rent while they are not owing any money; that the sum sued for is advance rent, and that at present both Courts are congested; and if he will take steps to provide a remedy for tenants in such a position?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, actions are frequently brought in respect of rent payable in advance, but not till after the date on which it becomes payable. There is an abnormal number of cases in both Courts, and to meet the pressure an additional sitting of each Court was arranged some time ago. As regards the last part of the question, I am taking steps which I hope may tend to relieve the situation.
    Mr. SKELTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to expedite the provision of small holdings in Scotland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Following is the statement:

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state the Government's intentions regarding the mining industry.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Government have now had the advantage of consultations with the Executive Committee of the Miners Federation, a Sub-Committee of the Executive Committee, the Central Committee of the Mining Association, and a smaller body of representative coalowners.
    As a result, the Government have informed the Miners' Federation that legislation dealing with hours of work and other factors in the coal industry will be introduced during the autumn session. In the intervening months the Government will be in regular consultation with the Federation as to the terms of that legislation.

    1085
    The representative coalowners who were met yesterday were informed that the Government desired the owners to develop the organisation of district marketing arrangements and a central scheme for co-ordinating the activities of the district organisations.
    In the legislation to be introduced in the autumn, the Government will take powers to enable them, if necessary, to compel colliery owners to conform to the rules of a district organisation inaugurated with the approval of owners of collieries producing the majority of the output of the district. The Government will also take power to enable them to initiate a scheme in any district which fails to constitute an organisation having the approval of the majority, and will take similar power to set up a central co-ordinating authority, if one is not constituted voluntarily.
    The owners have also been invited to remain in constant consultation with the Government as to the terms of the legislation.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Government are in a position to say now whether the reduction of hours will be to the hours prevailing prior to the Act of 1926?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The reply which I have given to the House indicates that the Government will be in close consultation with the Miners' Federation and with the owners during succeeding months. Plainly, in view of those negotiations, which must take all the factors of the industry into account, I cannot anticipate the precise terms of the legislation. In other words, I cannot go beyond the statement that it will deal with hours of work and other factors in the Industry.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Will the question of the reduction of hours be contingent on any of the other factors which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, or shall we go ahead with the reduction of hours?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that, in view of the nature of the reply which I have given, and which was as comprehensive as we could make it, I must ask the House not to press me on details.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that the Labour party gave a definite pledge to reduce hours, and is it not time that we had a straight answer to the question?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I can assure the House that all these facts are before the negotiating parties.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask the right Hon. Gentleman—if he is not ready, I will not press him—whether these proposals will involve any subsidy, either from the Government or by means of any compulsory levy inside the trade itself, in order to meet the question of wages and hours?
    Mr. GRAHAM: At this point there can be no question of a general subsidy. As regards the details of the selling schemes, they must be left to the owners in the preparation of a plan, but we will be in constant consultation, and the Government must approve of schemes in the long run.
    Mr. LAMBERT: In regard to selling schemes, does that mean that the price of coal to the consumer will rise?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is precisely one of the details of the scheme—[Interruption]—well not a detail, but a very important point in the scheme, which must be considered by the parties. No consideration of that kind will be overlooked in the coming months.
    Mr. WISE: Will the Government take into consideration the £5,500,000 per annum given to the royalty owners?

    ANNUAL HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will endeavour to arrange, in connection with any settlement of the mining problem, that an annual holiday, with pay, is secured to every miner in the country, as recommended by the Samuel Commission?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): The view expressed by the Royal Commission was that "annual holidays with pay should be established when prosperity returned to the industry" and I hope that the matter will be considered in the industry when circumstances permit.

    TRADE UNION NEGOTIATIONS (CHECK-WEIGHERS).
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines if he will take the necessary steps to inquire as to why elected representatives of the workmen at various collieries in Durham, Kent, and Nottingham, known as check-weighers, are denied facilities of conducting negotiations on behalf of these organisations?
    Mr. TURNER: The conduct of trade union negotiations is not part of the statutory duties of a check-weigher but in most cases he conducts minor negotiations with the mutual consent of both owners and men.
    Mr. LAWTHER: Will the Secretary for Mines take steps to see that where these facilities are refused, they are allowed to have some facilities?
    Mr. TURNER: That does not arise out of the question.

    ROYALTIES.
    Mr. MUFFasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of money received by mineral royalty owners from colliery proprietors during the past financial year and the amount, if any, which should have been paid but has been withheld for various causes?
    Mr. TURNER: The amount paid by collieries in respect of royalties and way-leaves during the year ended 31st March last was £5,500,000. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about Business?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Business for to-morrow will, as previously stated, be Committee of Supply (Supplementary Estimates for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery and for Radium) and the Second Reading of the Land Drainage Bill, and, if time permits, the Committee stage. A Motion to amend Standing Orders in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Private Members' time will also be taken. Arrangements will be made for any time that is required for that.
1088
To-morrow I shall answer a question at the end of Questions on the Naval Programme.
On Thursday, we propose to take the remaining stages of the Land Drainage Bill, the Second Reading of the Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Bill, if received in time from another place, and the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates.
On Friday, we hope to have the Motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. BALDWIN: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us to-day when the House will re-assemble?
The PRIME MINISTER: I wonder if my right hon. Friend would be good enough to repeat that question tomorrow?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEVELOPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Sir BASIL PETO: One of the objects of this Measure is to set up machinery for dealing with the unemployment problem. We have been told that the grants and guarantees under this Bill are not in any way final, but that the Bill is intended to carry us over until the House re-assembles. I think it is appropriate this afternoon to consider the policy for which this Bill provides the machinery. The principal part of the policy of the late Government in dealing with unemployment was to relieve productive industries of a part of their burdens. In this Bill the effect upon productive industries is not direct, although hon. Members will realise that to supply assistance to public utility undertakings which provide transport, water, gas, electricity and power is undoubtedly calculated to be of indirect assistance to productive industry. But there is no doubt that whatever may be done under this Bill must be of very small account. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out that the effect of the great scheme of the late Government which comes into operation on 1st October, will be to afford direct relief to productive industry to the extent of £30,000,000 a year, which means, capitalised, a grant to industry direct of something worth £600,000,000. I think it is appreciated in all quarters of the House that the only real solution of the unemployment problem lies in taking such steps as may be open to us to increase the prosperity of productive industry. Any other measures must be either palliative or else a method of indirect assistance. I am encouraged to think that this Bill, when it is passed, will do more than that. My reason for holding that view is that at the very outset of our Debates on 3rd July the Lord Privy Seal let the House into his confidence and showed the House the
  1138
  working of his mind. At the very commencement of his speech dealing with the Government's policy for the cure or mitigation of unemployment, he asked himself this question:
  "What is there that we import to-day that we can make ourselves? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 93, Vol. 229.]
  That is the most momentous admission of the working of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and it was very remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party followed that up by saying:
  "'Substitute steel sleepers for wooden ones'; where you are going to buy them and whether any steps are to be taken to ensure that they are manufactured here?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 148, Vol. 229.]
  4.0 p.m.
  Those are not statements which conform to the existing interpretation of Free Trade. We have always been told that imports—steel sleepers or anything else—from foreign countries, are very good for employment in this country, for they encourage manufacturers here to produce something else in exchange for them. Yet we find, I am very pleased to notice, at the very outset of Government policy, on this positive side of it, this good, sound Protectionist sentiment: "What is there that we import to-day that we can make ourselves?" But there is another branch of the Government's policy, and I should take a more hopeful view of the operation and effect of this Bill if it were not for that other branch. We have been told in the last few days that it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to speed up the time when the school-leaving age can be raised to 15, in spite of the reports of three expert bodies who have considered this question, and that it is now intended by legislation to throw a great fresh burden upon local authorities and upon industry, either by increased rates or by increased direct taxation, or by both. At the other end of the scale we are told that it is the Government's policy to take steps—they are now having an inquiry into the subject, one of the many inquiries that are going on—to get people out of industry at an earlier age. You cannot take people out of industry at the age of 60, or any other age, without providing them with the means of subsistence, and there, again, you have a part of the Government's

  1139
  programme which means an enormous addition to the annual Budget of this country, an immense addition to the burden that is placed upon industry.
  Therefore, we find that on one side the Government are taking steps, as they do under this Bill, in the same direction as the policy of the late Government, and in the other part of their policy they intend to initiate legislation which will re-impose burdens which we have been taking off industry, and will, in fact, neutralise this branch of their own work. Coupled with the Government's policy to remove all the Safeguarding Duties and the duties on which we can give Imperial Preference, it seems to me that the part of the Lord Privy Seal is indeed the part of Sisyphus. As I see it, he is by this Bill busily trying to roll painfully up the hill a great mass of unemployment, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, behind his back, all the time is acting like the immutable law of gravity in order to undo that work. While the Lord Privy Seal is busy trying to fill the bath with his little pint pot, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pulling out the plug of the waste pipe, by repealing the Safeguarding Duties, doing away with Imperial Preference, and, indeed, undoing his work by a part of his programme which involves placing burdens upon industry. As far as I am concerned, so long as the Government proposals, and particularly this one of the Lord Privy Seal, proceed on the lines of this Bill, and even indirectly assist the productive industries of this country, he will have my whole-hearted support, but when he proceeds with other Measures that have been outlined, not only in the Speech from the Throne, but in the election programme of the party who are now on the opposite benches, and imagines that he is going to cure, or help to cure, this problem of unemployment by putting a fresh burden of rates and taxes upon the industry of the country, then I shall oppose him at every stage.
  It will be in order, I think, to point out, in passing, that this Bill and the Colonial Development Bill, where finance is to be provided to carry out transport work, such as the Zambesi Bridge, and other work, will be neutralised by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the use of developing
  1140
  transport if we take no stops to see that the goods transported will be raw material for our industries at home, and manufacturing produce which is finding employment in this country? I think these general considerations ought to be brought to the attention of the House. I do not want to strike any gloomy note as to the success of this part of the Government's programme. I not only wish it every success, but I believe it may be of very great use. Therefore, I am satisfied that we of the Opposition are pursuing a wise course in lending the assistance we have to the passage of this Bill, and not giving it any serious opposition, or, still more, dividing against it; but I wish to contrast the operations of this Bill with the other, as I think, injurious part of the Government programme as far as the unemployment problem is concerned, in case we should be accused of inconsistency in having started by supporting the Government and assisting them in dealing with unemployment, if when we meet again in the Autumn and later, we find it necessary to point out that they are themselves, by the proposals they will then bring before the House, defeating the very purpose which is enshrined in this Bill.
  Mr. PALMER: I have ken somewhat surprised at the urge which has come from the Opposition in support of the Government in making good much work which should have been done to cure this outstanding problem of unemployment. This must be said in support of the Third Reading of this Bill, that it is part of the price which we have to pay. We have got to make provision under this Bill to enable the Government to get utility works going to the full extent, and at the earliest possible moment. We have got to face the tact that certain undertakings have been made, and that certain expectations, as to helping the ranks of the unemployed, are looked for fulfilment from this House and this Government. The question was asked yesterday by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer: Can you, by borrowing money and spending it on public works, diminish the problem of unemployment? The question again arises out of the old philosophy that production must always be for profit instead of for use. When something like £19,000,000 was taken out

  1141
  of the Road Fund, the amount of employment that that represented positively accentuated the unemployment problem, and it is the work of the Lord Privy Seal, and those of his colleagues associated more intimately with him in this great problem, to see that money which has been diverted into wrong channels is placed at once in the right channel in order that employment may be found. When I use the word "employment," I am not thinking of digging holes and filling them up again for the sake of finding work. When I say "employment" I take the implication to be that as soon as you put the next thousand men into employment, those men have their spending power, which means that clothes, boots and other things, of which people have gone short, will be provided, and so the wheel will go round, and consequently trade will improve and things become better.
  We have in this Parliament to hasten the time when unemployment shall be reduced, and we have got to give unstintingly all that is required. I repeat what I said the other day on this subject. We have got to face the fact that unemployment is a costly business, and we have to make it even more costly, if need be, in order to bring it home to the consciousness of the legislature that they have got to pay, and pay dearly, for the ghastly mistakes of bad administration in the past. I have never shared the view, and never shall share the view, that unemployment on the present scale is necessary. The old philosophy seems to be that you must have two men for one job in order to keep the rate of wages down. Recently there has been a wage war, and, while profits have been showing a tendency to go up, the rate of wages has been falling. A 2½ per cent. cut has been suggested in the case of railway workers, and what does that mean? There has also been proposed a 12½ per cent. cut in wages in the cotton trade—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be travelling rather wide of this Bill. On the Third Reading, we must confine ourselves to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. PALMER: I will conform to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and come back to the Bill. This Measure is one to authorise the Treasury to guarantee certain loans. Money has to be found.
  1142
  and consequentially it has to be found by the Government. That is the first and obvious step to take in order to find work for the unemployed, and to give the workers the essential spending power. Unless we get an increased spending power in the hands of the people we cannot hope to secure that trade prosperity' about which we hear so much, and which was referred to by the last speaker. We require not only the provisions of this particular Bill, but we need further Bills in order to carry out the unswerving policy of this Government. We must continue making such provisions as those which are proposed in this Bill in order to mitigate the great problem of unemployment.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The object of this Bill is to enable the Lord Privy Seal to deal as quickly as possible with the problem of finding work for the unemployed. The intention is to assist national equipment by providing a certain amount of national facilities for public works, and it is proposed to provide a subsidy for the sheltered trades. I want to inquire whether the giving of assistance to sheltered trades will really help to solve the unemployment problem. The burden of unemployment in this country is well known to exist largely in the basic export trades, and there is nothing in this Bill which will make it easier to export another yard of cotton cloth or an extra ton of coal or steel. We are all aware that something like 700,000 more men could find employment at the present moment if we were exporting the same volume of goods as we exported before the War. One wonders why it is that these particular basic trades, which provide such a large volume of employment in this country, are specifically excluded from the operation of this Bill. We have been told that rationalisation is taking place in a considerable measure in our basic industries, and that it would be a mistake to interfere in the way suggested at the present time, because Government interference might prevent the Successful working of this process, produce inefficiency, and interfere with the proper reorganisation of our basic trades which many of us know to be so necessary. One of the essential conditions of the giving of Government relief under this Bill is the acceleration of programmes put forward on behalf of

  1143
  the people who require money it seems quite reasonable to suppose that it might be possible for the Government, if not by this Bill, to bring forward at some future time a Measure whereby the basic industries could be dealt with on the same terms in order to secure acceleration.
  One other matter which has been mentioned for our consideration is the so-called Treasury view. I have no knowledge of the Treasury view, but I have had some experience of ordinary economics. The view is that the volume of credit in this country under existing conditions is practically fixed. It seems to me that when we come to consider that state of affairs we find that over and above the amount of the fiduciary issue you cannot increase the amount of guarantee or credit in this country except by backing the increased amount of currency issued pound for pound by gold. Therefore, if you wish to expand the volume of credit, you must have the ability to attract gold, and you can only do that by selling goods. The same cause—our inability to sell goods abroad—is responsible for the main volume of unemployment, and makes us unable to expand our volume of credit. This particular Bill makes no reference to those main essential criteria which must be attended to if the unemployment situation is going to be dealt with in a successful or a drastic fashion. I believe that the intentions of the Government are good, but, on the other hand, it is quite clear to any student of unemployment that the real question at issue has been burked. It may be that at some later stage the Government will come forward with some more drastic proposals, and, if that is so, there are Members sitting on this side of the House ready to welcome any really sound method of dealing with this problem. I do not think hon. Members on this side of the House will offer any opposition to this Measure.
  Mr. HOPKIN: I ask the indulgence of the House, because this is my maiden speech. I want to pay a tribute to the work which has been done by the Lord Privy Seal during the month he has been in office. It must have been a month of strenuous effort on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to produce the schemes which he has already announced, and
  1144
  which we on this side believe are only the foreshadowings of much greater schemes which will be brought forward later on. I wish to offer one or two suggestions to the Lord Privy Seal. My first is that work must be co-ordinated. I also suggest that Wales should be treated as a separate entity, and that we should set up a national development board for Wales. Wales has its own special problems, advantages and disadvantages, and, instead of dealing as the right hon. Gentleman has to do now with twelve separate bodies in Wales, I am sure it would be an immense advantage to him to have to deal with one body which would be responsible practically for the whole of the unemployment problem in Wales. There are certain problems in Wales which will form the test as to whether this Government or any other Government will be successful. Take, for example, the problem of the Rhondda Valley. My submission is that it is impossible to solve the problem of the Rhondda Valley from Whitehall, and it must be dealt with by men on the spot who know the whole district and the psychology of the people there. They must be men who are intimately associated with these problems which cannot be dealt with from London at all.
  Take the problem of the Pembroke Docks. It is unfair to throw the onus of finding a solution of that problem on the one Member of this House who represents that constituency. It is a national problem and can only be solved on national lines. I ask the Lord Privy Seal to harness Welsh sentiment for the solution of these purely Welsh problems. Another example is afforded by the problem of afforestation. In Carmarthenshire we have 6,600 acres of land ready for planting, and since the War over a period of 11 years we have planted only about 720 acres. If we bad a central body they could make it part of their duty to cultivate this land which now lies idle, and work could be found for some 400 or 500 of those who are now unemployed in the Rhondda Valley.
  With regard to road development, it is well known that in Wales the trunk roads run from east to west, and there are hardly any roads running from north to south. Something should be done in order to make better road connections in Wales. We have had a good example of what can be done by this kind of development

  1145
  by the successful harnessing of water power under the Shannon scheme. It has changed the whole face of Ireland in that particular area. Let the Lord Privy Seal stand back a bit from the picture, and see in South Wales a huge storehouse of power, a storehouse that contains 28,000,000,000 tons of coal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked what inducement could be given, say, to Courtaulds or to tobacco companies to go into the Rhondda or Merthyr Valley. The inducement is that it would be perfectly simple to give any firm that wished to go into these valleys power for nothing.
  The great experiments which are being carried on now in low temperature carbonisation show that the gas which can be produced by these methods could be given away with advantage. These firms could be given power free, if only, as I very humbly suggest to the Lord Privy Seal, he took a big view of South Wales. What has been done in Lens can be done in South Wales. I was in Lens during the War, and I saw there the pits which had been completely destroyed by the Germans. To-day those pits are creating power which supplies Paris with its light. In Wales we have a tremendous storehouse of power which I say could be sent to practically all parts of the country: I mean that industrial concerns could be given power at a very low rate. In conclusion, I would' ask the Lord Privy Seal to earmark, out of this £25,000,000, a sum of £1,000,000 for pensions for aged miners. There are about 68,000 miners over the age of 60. We must, in order to be fair to other workers, show that the mining industry itself can bear these pensions. I submit that the amount of money required, namely, about £4,500,000, could be obtained by a penny on the Welfare Fund, by 5s. in the £ out of royalties, and the £1,000,000 which I suggest should be earmarked out of the £25,000,000.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am loth to interrupt a maiden speech, but the hon. Member must understand that on the Third Reading we can only discuss what is in the Bill itself. The matters which the hon. Member is now raising are entirely other than what is proposed in the Bill, and, although they might have been raised at
  1146
  a previous stage of the Bill, the discussion on the Third Reading must be con-fined entirely to what is in the Bill itself.
  Mr. HOPKIN: I will conclude by assuring the Lord Privy Seal that there are men and women in South Wales who are looking to him for a broad scheme that will utilise, not only the power that exists in the coal-mining valleys of South Wales, but the many hundreds of acres of land in Carmarthenshire which have not been used at all.
  Commander WILLIAMS: It falls to my very pleasant lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) on the very charming maiden speech that he has made this afternoon. Quite clearly and obviously he speaks for Wales, and I derive additional pleasure in congratulating him from the fact that I bear a name which has been so largely copied by Welsh people. The hon. Member has drawn the attention of the House to two points which are not, possibly, of very considerable importance, but which still are points of real importance in connection with this Bill. I do not think that in any of our discussions the question has been answered, or, for that matter, has even been put, as to whether, under any of the three parts of this Bill by which money is granted, it will be possible for any of that money to go to the help of forestry. I feel sure that in replying the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be able to inform the House whether it is intended, among other things, to help forward schemes of forestry under any of these three heads.
  The second point which the hon. Member raised is that one of the most important things for the development of industry at the present time is that we should have a very considerable development of power supplies in this country. That development, as the hon. Member will know, has been going on in regard to electricity during the last 4½ years, and I believe that at the present time in this country schemes are coming forward, roughly speaking, as fast as materials can be obtained for them. The real need at the present moment is to accelerate the supplies of such materials, and that, I think, is met under this Bill, so that there may be an additional output of the machinery and materials necessary for the growing electrification of this country. As we are dealing with the subject of

  1147
  electricity, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy if he can give some answer to this question: There are two distinct forms of electrical thought and development in this country, the one concerned with the generation of electricity from coal, and the other with the generation of electricity by water power. It would be a great help if, during the Debate on this Bill, we could be told whether the Bill will be used rather for the development of coal, or for the development of water power, or for both. I would ask the hon. Baronet, in his reply, to give some guidance on the point, so that people who may be applying to him under these various schemes will know which of the schemes the Government think will be most useful for absorbing unemployed labour at the present time.
  Passing to the financial questions involved by the Bill, I have noticed that during the whole of these discussions there has been a curious, and, perhaps, wise reluctance on the part of the Treasury to be present very much in the House, but we have arrived, or, rather, we arrived by the end of last evening, at a very curious position. We find that under this Bill there are three distinct forms of loans, the total of which, I understand, will possibly amount to £75,000,000. That is a very large sum, whether it be in the form of guaranteed interest or of guaranteed capital, but it is the fact that, with the passing of this Bill, we definitely commit this House to a possible expenditure of £75,000,000. I am not at all sure as to how long a period that will cover; it has not yet, I believe, been definitely decided; but, according to one of the Clauses at the end of the Bill—and I think it is well worth while to bring this to the attention of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who apparently believe that already under the Bill work is being produced—we do not begin spending, or, indeed, guaranteeing these schemes under Clause 6 of the Bill until the end of August. That, of course, is, naturally, put in to give the Treasury time to consider these matters, but the point to which I desire to draw the attention of the House is that, in regard to these commitments which are being entered into, although every one of us sympathises with and would do what he can to help the Government to relieve unemployment, there is a point of view
  1148
  in this country at the present time, though it is not very often expressed, that, by diverting money from the natural course of trade, as the Government are doing here, you are not ultimately giving more employment in this country. May I illustrate it in this way? You have under this Bill some £75,000,000, possibly. You have under the Colonial Development Bill a further sum. Yesterday we
  passed a Housing Bill, which will take more money. The whole thing adds up, and it means that, during the three weeks for which we have now been sitting, the House as a whole has committed itself to an expenditure not far short of £100,000,000.
  The effect of this expenditure on the money market must be, in the first place, a certain shortage of money in different directions, and, secondly, it must mean that if the Government, as a Government, enter into the money market for the purpose of guaranteeing these loans, or for any other purpose, as they will under this Bill, the standard of interest which the Government has to pay will tend to get higher. That can be seen on the Stock Exchange practically every day at the present time, and I believe that the gradual realisation of the burdens which the nation is shouldering is making it, or is liable to make it, more difficult for the Government when, in the next year or two, they have to arrange for the repayment of various loans. Their difficulties then will be great. I make that point not with any desire to handicap the Government in this respect, but because, in my experience of this House, I have seen Government after Government come forward with various schemes such as we have in this Bill—Governments representing practically every party and under different Prime Ministers, These schemes, whether for helping to develop harbours, railways, mines, or whatever it may be, have all been described as excellent and likely to give a certain amount of work, but in the end I do not believe they have really helped the unemployment question at all, but rather that they have tended to put off the day of our doing the two main things which must be done if unemployment is to be relieved—the one to help to put our heavy industries on a sound basis in the future, and the other to recover our foreign markets throughout the world.

  1149
  May I point out another difficulty which has always occurred whenever Governments have said that they would help this or that form of industry? Sometimes we call it a subsidy, sometimes we call it another name, such as a grant-in-aid; but the ultimate effect is always the same. It tends to make people connected with industry, and local authorities also, for that matter, always think that perhaps if they go to the Government they can get money a little cheaper and a little easier, and that that is the best way of doing it. It tends to make the trades and industries of this country too reliant on the Government, and not reliant enough on their own skill and enterprise in going out into the markets of the world. After all, a subsidy is a subsidy, whether it be paid as it is in the case of the sugar industry, or whether it be paid by guaranteeing a loan. That was put much more clearly than I can put it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) earlier in the year. It is a subsidy all the time and every time.
  I say frankly that I believe it would be very much better for trade and industry if the House could agree that, instead of the Government always stepping in and guaranteeing this or that trade, the real effort of the Government should be in the direction of removing barriers with foreign nations, encouraging the collection of knowledge as to the different markets of the world, and the making of it available to those engaged in industry, and giving direct encouragement to capital in every shape and form, not by means of a partial subsidy or partial lift-up by Bills of this kind, but rather by encouraging a reduction in many directions of the general expenditure of the nation as a whole. I know that in days such as these, just after an election, it is not always a very popular thing to advocate economy. It is not always the person who will advocate what he or she may think is the most popular thing at the minute that is doing the most valuable work, but after a series of years here, having seen other Governments fail, although I hope the efforts we are making in this Bill, which is going through practically unopposed, may do something to help trade and industry, yet I am convinced in my own mind that really the best method of helping to re-establish
  1150
  trade and industry on a sound basis is that those engaged in the industry should realise that they have to work out their own salvation whether they are employers or employed people.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Everyone in the House, and probably in the country, is agreed on the immense importance of electrical development, but I cannot help expressing a wish, in view of the electrical development that is going on at present, that the Government will not be too hasty and will not embark on any large schemes until they have seen how the schemes that are at present being developed will turn out. In the course of the Debate suggestions have been made as to the development of electrical power on two lines. One is by means of the Severn Barrage and the other is by means of the development of electricity on a gigantic scale in the Welsh coalfield and transmitted, if not to the entire country, at any rate to the whole of the South of England. On the other side of the water we have an opportunity of judging the result of two schemes that are at present being developed on those lines. In Ireland we have the gigantic scheme of the Shannon Barrage, which is now approaching completion, by which means they hope to supply cheap electricity to the entire Irish Free State. In France we have a corresponding scheme of putting down—to some extent it has already been done—gigantic power stations in the Lens coalfield to provide electricity, both for lighting and power, to the whole of Northern France. With those two schemes in full operation we shall have the opportunity of judging which is likely to be the more successful in this country, development by water power by means of the Severn Barrage, or electrical development by means of the Welsh coalfield. I suggest that the Government should wait a year or two years to see which is likely to be more successful.
  Before we pass from the Third Reading of this Measure, I do not think it would be unfair to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy whether he can give us any estimate of the effect this expenditure is likely to have on unemployment, I do not mean this year or next year, but over the course of some five or six years in the immediate future. It seems

  1151
  to me that the principal object of these schemes is to expedite undertakings which normally would not be undertaken for two or three, or perhaps four or five years—to undertake work now which, under normal circumstances, the firms or undertakings could not commence for four or five years. That is to some extent mortgaging employment for the future. We are doing work now which normally would be done four years hence and, it seems to me, unless that work is of such a productive character that is will in itself produce further employment, we stand a chance of providing work now only to find that in three or four years' time it is still more difficult to provide. I have listened perhaps to as many Debates on unemployment as nearly any Member present, and I can remember 10 years ago, when unemployment first burst upon us, it was looked upon as a passing phase. It was expected that all we had to do was to provide temporary relief work and the evil itself would pass away. Unfortunately that has proved to foe wrong. We are now wiser and I hope we shall not fall into the error of imagining that in four years' time everyone in the country will be in full work. It is therefore essential that all work that is undertaken under these schemes shall be of such a productive character that, when it is completed, it will of itself produce further employment, and that not only shall it increase the wealth of the country but actually increase the potentialities of employment for the workers, otherwise we run a great risk of mortgaging the future for the sake of the present.
  I should also like to express a wish that no part of this money should be employed in endeavouring to resuscitate what are to all intents and purposes moribund industries. An instance was given in an earlier Debate of a port on the East Coast which formerly was the head port of a fleet of trawlers. The fleet has now gone to a harbour which has more natural advantages and is better suited for that undertaking. I sincerely hope no attempt will be made, as was suggested, to bring it back to the port from which it formerly worked, because to do that will not increase the net total of employment
  1152
  at all. It will simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul. You will be depriving one port of work simply for the sake of giving it to another, which is less fitted as a headquarters and where the work will be done less economically than where it is being done now.
  With regard to the finance of the scheme, one has heard a good many views expressed of what has come to be called the Treasury view. I do not entirely hold that view. Although one naturally rather concludes, that what applies to an individual applies to some extent also to the State and that if money is spent in one way it cannot be spent in another way as well, I do not think that applies quite as rigidly with regard to a Government as it does to an individual and I think it is possible to make a wise use of credit provided, of course, it does not go as far as inflation. A great deal can be done in the way of providing employment without starving existing industries or normal employment of their necessary finance. But all this goes back to the absolute necessity of choosing schemes which, although they may not be immediately productive, shall within two or three years, if not show an actual return upon what has been expended, at any rate produce further employment, otherwise the money that will be expended under this Bill will be expended in vain and in the immediate future we shall find that the state of unemployment is no better and may easily be worse than it is row.
  Mr. T. LEWIS: I should like to put a point which I am sure will receive favourable consideration from the Chancellor of the Duchy. I am sure the Lord Privy Seal must be very pleased with the way the Debate has been conducted. On the whole, the schemes outlined have been very favourably received and, except perhaps for the natural pin pricking which one expects from an Opposition, there is very little to cavil about. I am sure my right hon. Friend is as anxious as I am that, in any steps that are taken to subsidise schemes, nothing shall be done which would perhaps cause unemployment in other industries. We do not want anything in the nature of make believe. We want to feel sure that practically all the money to be spent will mean additional employment. I represent a seaport town. One ought to take, not a narrow,

  1153
  parochial view, but a broad national view, and I hope I do. Nevertheless, one has to face facts, and when one's attention has been called to the possibility of the coastwise shipping industry being materially affected unless there are some safeguards in connection with the further grants to the railways, one is bound to take notice and call attention to it, and ask the Lord Privy Seal to give it his attention. The industry is only a small one, perhaps, but an important one, because it employs a large number of people and serves foreign-going ships as well.
  5.0 p.m.
  In reply to questions, the Minister of Transport said the De-rating Bill did not adversely affect coastwise shipping traffic. My information goes to show that it will have a distinctly adverse effect upon the shipping industry by virtue of the fact that, if the railway companies expend the money that has been voted to them in a proper way, it will reduce freights and compete adversely with the coastwise shipping traffic. He further stated that a certain proportion of the monies voted would go to harbours and docks, and they would be expected, although I know of no mandatory authority, to give some of these monies over to the coastwise shipping traffic in order to enable it to meet competition. I know something of harbour boards, and I know something of docks under the control of our shipping companies. I think that the coastwise shipping would have all their work cut out to extract very much from the Harbour Board, and they would certainly have greater difficulty in extracting much from the docks owned by the railway companies of this country. It is now urged in connection with this Bill that still further facilities should be granted to the railway companies, and I understand that these constitute one of the big features of the proposals of the Lord Privy Seal. He seems particularly to be looking after the railway companies of this country. I am assured by those engaged in coastwise shipping traffic that, if greater facilities are given to the railway companies in connection with reliefs in their freight charges it will have a very adverse effect upon coastwise traffic. I hold no brief for the shipping interests of this country. As a matter of fact, I have had occasion for the greater part of my life to fight the shipping interests
  1154
  of the country on behalf of the men employed. Notwithstanding that if it is intended to give relief to various trades in this country, that relief must be given equitably so that no particular trade shall suffer an injustice. As the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy represent the party to which I belong, I am sure they are going to give, and probably have given, the utmost consideration to the points I have raised, but I repeat that, coming from a shipping port, I naturally must put my particular point of view. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Duchy will give this matter his utmost consideration, so that no hardship shall be inflicted upon a very important part of the community.
  Mr. REMER: We have debated this Bill for several days, and the more I look at the Bill the more I find myself in opposition to it. In my opinion, it is a thoroughly bad Bill. So far from finding any employment for the working people of this country, it will, in itself, actually create unemployment and will delay employment coming to the people of this country. For a few minutes I am going to outline the ways in which the Bill will actually create unemployment. The Bill, in effect, tells the people that in considering schemes of one kind or another the Government are going to give guaranteed loans. What is going to be the effect upon these public utility undertakings? Obviously, these undertakings are going to wait until the Bill has gone through before embarking upon schemes which would be carried into effect in any case, so that they can get the Government guarantees which will enable them to borrow money at a quarter, or a half per cent. cheaper, or even better, than would be the case if this Measure were not in operation.
  If this Bill is passed to-day, as I have no doubt it will be passed, where is the money coming from which will be subscribed to the loans to be guaranteed by the Government? It seems to be in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a kind of bottomless purse out of which, either by taxation or by loan, they can secure money in order to provide public works. There is only one source from which these funds can come, namely, from the deposits at the Joint Stock Banks. It is because of

  1155
  the deposits at the Joint Stock Banks that traders can go to their bankers to secure overdrafts to enable them to carry on their businesses and to obtain the necessary capital for the development of their businesses. If the Government come along and borrow £100,000,000 out of those funds at a time when it is common knowledge to the business community of our country that the Joint Stock Banks are lending up to the hilt—they are lending, I believe, to the extent of one half of the deposits whereas in pre-war days it was not considered safe to lend more than about one-third of the deposits—the effect will be to deplete those deposits and make it more difficult for the traders of the country to borrow money from their bankers. I venture to repeat, therefore, that the Bill will actually create unemployment instead of creating employment.
  There is one further point which I want to submit. Those who were in this House when the late Sir Fredric Wise was a Member will remember that he never failed to raise the point which I am about to submit to the House this afternoon. On every occasion when there was a Government guarantee suggested, whether by a Conservative Government, a Coalition Government, or by the first Labour Government, the late Sir Fredric Wise advised the House, in very much more able financial terms than I am able to use, against taking such action. By this guarantee you are creating a new Government security in competition with existing Government securities, and by that means you are delaying the time when the Government will be able to convert their 5 per cent. War Loan into stock at a lower percentage. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their hatred of the capitalists, would have disapproved of a scheme as a result of which the capitalist would pay a higher rate of interest. By this Measure they are actually creating a position under which the owners of Government stock will continue to be paid the existing rate of interest, and the Government also very probably will have to pay higher rates of interest. I do not think that it can be too often demonstrated that the best means of securing a reduction of taxation is by refraining from making competitive issues of capital with Government
  1156
  guarantees and so forth, and by converting our 5 per cent. War Loan into stock at 4½ per cent., and, as I hope eventually, into stock at 4 per cent. By these means, it would be possible to secure a reduction of taxation quicker than by any other means. This Bill will not find a single man a job. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is solving the unemployment problem by this means, let him get the idea out of his mind as quickly as possible. He is only deceiving himself. As I have said, the Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. I have put down an Amendment for its rejection, but, unfortunately, the hon. Member who agreed to second it on the Second Reading is unable to be here. Although I am not going into the Lobby against the Bill, I believe that it is a Bill which ought not to be passed as it will cause grave injury to employment in this country.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley)The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley) rose—
  Mr. SMITHERS: Can the Chancellor of the Duchy give us the names of the proposed committee?
  Sir O. MOSLEY: The names of the Lord St. Davids Committee, which is continuing to function under Clause 4, are already well known to the House. I am very sorry that I am not in a position to state the names of those who will be engaged on the Committee which will deal with Part 1 of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) has stated in rather a different form the dilemma which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has so often presented to the House during the consideration of this Measure. In brief the argument, as I understand it, runs that any loans for Governmental purposes will merely compete on the money market with existing industries and will, divert from current industrial uses, money which industry needs for its ordinary purposes. That dilemma is, on the face of it, not entirely logical, or it would apply equally to every new concern which is launched on the money market. Every new company that came on to the market would strike a blow at existing industries, and, on the balance, would throw men out of employment if this argument was pursued to its logical conclusion. It is

  1157
  so easy by pursuing that argument to its extreme to demonstrate its logical absurdity.
  Mr. REMER: The difference is that, if you give a Government guarantee, it is easier to go on to the market and obtain underwriting facilities than it would he if there was no Government guarantee.
  Sir O. MOSLEY: Yes, but the point still holds good. If a new company comes up and successfully raises money on the market, it is taking that money from existing industries—if it is successful in securing the money which it wants.
  Mr. REMER: Not to the same extent as it would if there was a Government guarantee.
  Sir O. MOSLEY: By whatever means a company secures money, if it is successful in securing money, it is taking it from existing industry, and on the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer it is, therefore, damaging existing industries. I will not deny, and I never have denied, that on the basis of a restrictive credit policy there is some force in the dilemma. If you pursue as the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pursued for a period of years, a policy of acute deflation, well then, there is a great deal of force in the dilemma that, with a restricted pool of credit, any fresh demand upon the money market, whether by the Government or by a private company, is liable, if successful, to deprive existing industry of money which it greatly needs. Any Government pursuing a vigorous employment policy in this country must take cognisance of that situation. Our problem raises this question: Is it possible within the limits of the gold standard to supply a sufficiency of credit both for the current needs of industry and for combating the unemployment problem? That is a question which I shall not attempt to resolve this afternoon, as I have said before, by any arbitrary pronouncement of Government policy. It is sufficient to say that all the experts are by no means on one side, that there is a great body of expert opinion and authoritative opinion which holds that it is possible to supply sufficient credit for the needs of industry and for the
  1158
  unemployment struggle without any risk to the gold standard and without any risk to inflation or risk of serious loss of gold. That is a large and authoritative body of opinion, and any Government dealing seriously with this subject must face up to the dilemma which confronts us owing to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has pursued for many years past.
  When the right hon. Gentleman talks of Treasury policy he means his own policy, which ho has pursued during recent years. It is that policy of severe and acute deflation which is responsible for very many of the industrial troubles which now confront us. If I do not wander too much on to controversial matters, I would say that that policy was chiefly responsible for the great struggle of 1926. But I do not want, on the occasion of the passing of Measures which, on the whole, have been so very happily received, to wander on to controversial grounds. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have, subject to the limitations which have been imposed upon us, given a very cordial and helpful reception to the Measures which we have been considering. I would merely point out that there are many people, people whose opinions we must respect, who do not hold that credit problems are ineluctable phenomena of nature, absolutely outside the control of man, whose effects operate very much as the effects of sun spots operate. There is a great and responsible body of opinion which holds that just as the Federal Reserve Board of America has been able largely to meet these problems, so it may be possible, after due deliberation, for the Government of Britain to arrive at a solution of such problems.
  The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) asked how many men would be settled at work fey this Bill. That, obviously, depends upon two factors, to neither of which I can give a complete answer at the present time. In the first place, it depends how many useful schemes we can produce for the consideration of these Committees, and how many schemes under Part II of the Bill the local authorities can produce. In the second place, it depends upon how much money the House of Commons will permit us to spend upon

  1159
  the schemes that we produce. We are now working under the statutory limitation of Clause 1, and under the limitations in respect of Clause 2 and Part II, which have been imposed by the House of Commons. Subsequently, Clause 2 and Part II will be subject to annual Parliamentary Votes, and the amount which we can spend will depend upon the will of Parliament. These two factors, of how many and how large schemes we can produce and what money Parliament will permit us to spend, governs the number of men which can be set to employment under this Bill, but if adequate schemes are forthcoming and if the money is allocated, then we have here the machinery with which to press on a very considerable way.
  I do not pretend, and I never have pretended, that this Bill and the other Bill which we have considered this Session, are anything approaching a solution of the unemployment problem. They are merely the beginning of a great work, and the major Measures of the Government may be expected at a later stage. The hon. Baronet who opened the discussion said that he was prepared to support these Measures because they were relatively small, but that when we came to such Measures as the raising of the school age and the removing of those old people who desire to retire from industry, he would very vigorously oppose them. I should not be in order upon the Third Beading of this Bill in following the hon. Baronet very far in that direction. His argument mainly consisted in the contention that such Measures would involve considerable taxation, which would place burdens upon industry. He discounted altogether the possibility of contributing largely to such costs through economy in such matters as armaments, which are now under the consideration of the Government and are the subject of international activity. Apart from that, why does the hon. Baronet assert with such dogmatic emphasis that taxation must of necessity be a burden upon industry? We have the recommendations of the Colwyn Committee, both the Majority and the Minority reports, in support of the view that such burdens are not to anything like the extent formerly supposed, a burden upon industry.
  1160
  The hon. Baronet referred to rates. By the admission of all parties, rates which fall as a charge upon industry, as an overhead charge, prior to the distribution of profits, are a burden upon industry, but it has been strenuously combated from this side of the House by many of my right hon. Friends for many years past that Income Tax, and taxes which fall within that category, are a burden upon industry in the same sense that rates are a burden upon industry. The hon. Baronet went much too far in saying that any such Measures would pile up an enormous burden of expenditure as he called it, or would impose any crushing burden upon industry. I was glad, after his expression of those fears, to hear him say that the effect of the Measure we are now considering would do something to introduce greater efficiency and prosperity to industry.
  One hon. Member asked what this Measure would do for the export trade. There is no direct assistance to private export trade in a Measure which deals with public utility companies, but will anyone for a moment deny that Measures to improve transport and to improve every public service which industry utilises, do nothing to improve the export trade, together with the general industries of the country I This is a Measure designed to assist in the great task of bringing Britain up-to-date, to assist us in giving new force and new life to the great public services upon which industry subsists, and it is idle to deny that such Measures, if carried though on any large scale, will not do a great deal for the general industrial life of the country, and develop our powers to compete even in foreign markets. There are one or two minor points with which I have not dealt. One of my hon. Friends asked me whether in giving assistance to the railways we would also bear in mind any possible increase in their competition with other services of a similar character in the transport world. Of course, we must in all such developments hold a proper balance between all existing services of that kind. It would be definitely wrong if public money was used to kill one development and to benefit another at its expense.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), in a very interesting maiden speech, asked about afforestation. That

  1161
  is a matter which comes primarily under the Forestry Commission and is already receiving the attention of the Government in another sphere. I think I have covered the main points raised in the Debate and as we have other Orders on the Order Paper, and I believe this Measure is wanted rather urgently in another place, I should be very grateful if the House would give us the Third Reading of the Bill as soon as possible. We have accepted such limitations as the will of the House desires to impose upon us and as I understand from the Debate to-day that this is now practically an agreed Measure, I thank hon. Members for the consideration that they have given, and trust that the Measure will lead to some contribution to the solution of our unemployment problem and some improvement in the industrial life of the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

POOR LAW ACT, 1927.
Mr. CHAMBERLAFN: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Orders, dated 27th June, 1929, entitled (1) the Bodwellty Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1929; (2) the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1929; and (3) the West Ham Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1929, be annulled."
This Motion, which stands upon the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and myself, prays His Majesty that certain Orders having reference to the unions in which appointed guardians are now functioning, should be annulled. The actual Orders in question purport to extend the period of office of the present appointed guardians until the 2nd August next. We, on these benches, have no objection to that, but we understand that it is the intention of the Minister of Health to dismiss these guardians upon the 2nd August next and, by a new Order, to substitute for them other appointed guardians, who will function until the 1st April next. There are words in the Orders which indicate clearly the intention of the Minister:
1162
"Whereas the Minister proposes to vary the said Order as from the first day of August, 1929, by substituting for the existing guardians other persons to be appointed by a further Order, and in order to enable the said substitution to be affected it is necessary that the term of office of the existing guardians should be extended."
Then it goes on to extend the term of office until the 1st August next. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has inserted these words in the Order to give us an opportunity of challenging the course which he proposes to take, and as it seems likely that the Order making the substitution cannot be laid in time for discussion in this House, I appreciate the motive which has caused him to put these words in the present Orders, thereby giving us the opportunity of raising the question at this stage.
That the House may be fully in possession of the situation, it is necessary that I should say what is the difference between the proposal of the present Minister of Health and the proposals which the late Government intended to carry into effect if we had still been in office. Under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the guardians who were appointed were appointed in the first instance for 12 months, but under Section 1 (2) of that Act the Minister is empowered at any time and from time to time to extend the terms of office of the guardians for a period not exceeding six months. Under the Local Government Act, the boards of guardians come to an end on the 1st April next year, and their duties and powers will be transferred to the larger local authorities—the county borough councils and the county councils, but in one Section of that Act the Minister was empowered to make special exception in the case of the unions where appointed guardians were functioning. Those hon. Members who were Members of the last House of Commons may recollect that, in the course of Debate upon the Local Government Bill, I stated that it was not the intention of the Government to exercise those powers so far as two of the unions were concerned, namely, the Bedwellty Union and the Chester-le-Street Union, but that in the case of the West Ham Union it was my intention to exercise those powers in so far as the two County Boroughs of East Ham and West Ham were concerned. The remaining parts of that union were to follow

1163
the ordinary course of procedure laid down by the Local Government Act.
It will be seen, therefore, that there are two periods to consider. One is the period after the 1st of April next. There, there is no difference between us as far as Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street are concerned. In both cases the old board of guardians will disappear and their functions will be taken over by the the county council. In the case of West Ham there is a difference. I understand that the Minister of Health does not intend to use his powers under the Section of the Local Government Act but intends that the functions of the guardians shall be performed by the county borough councils of the two county boroughs. I may perhaps have something to say about that a little later, but I want now to devote myself to this period between the 2nd of August and the 1st of April next year. It is a comparatively short period; it is a period of only eight months, and one wonders what is the purpose of the Government in making this great change, in substituting for the present appointed guardians not a board of guardians but other appointed guardians appointed under a system invented by the Minister of Health himself, appointed guardians who will only be able to function for a few months, who will be strange to their duties and take some considerable time before they can make themselves acquainted with the problems in front of them, and who will displace men who have had now some considerable experience of these unions, who have formulated plans which they were carrying out, and who are working smoothly in all cases.
One wonders as to the reason why the Minister thinks it is necessary to make this disturbance in the present arrangements all for the sake of a change which is only to last for a few months between now and April next. No one can imagine that he really thinks that the administration of the Poor Law is going to be improved by this change it is hardly possible to believe that it will not be worsened, seeing the great inexperience of the guardians who are to be put in. On the face of it, it is clearly obvious that this is not a move to improve the administration of the Poor Law but a political move.
Mr. J; JONES: So was yours.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a move designed to satisfy the more extreme supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. It is purely political in its character, and that is very obvious indeed from the proceedings which have taken place since the change was announced. It is further a wanton and gratuitous slight upon a body of public servants who have had to work in an atmosphere of misrepresentation and calumny, who have shown very great courage, perfect honesty and sincerity, in their work, and who have performed a most valuable public service not only to the locality itself but to the country at large by the example they have set. There is one other consideration, and really to my mind it is the most serious of all considering the change which is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. This change will be taken, in fact is taken, by hon. Members opposite and by other people in. the country as a gesture on the part of the Government, an indication, that they wish to discourage the reforms which have taken place in these areas and encourage a return to the old methods of the boards of guardians who were superseded.
When I introduced the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill into this House I stated that my purpose was not the destruction but the salvation of local government. To me it had been clear for some time that the system under which boards of guardians functioned, a system under which the persons elected were elected in order that they might administer relief to people who were their own constituents, was a system which had indeed worked for a number of years without disclosing the dangers which lurked within it but which finally disclosed these dangers owing to the deliberate adoption in certain particular areas by boards of guardians of a policy which has come to be known familiarly as Poplarism. One feature of that policy, which was not confined to Poplar, was the giving of unconditional outdoor relief to able-bodied men, but it was accompanied in various places by different variations. The general effect of it was to give relief according to a scale, not according to the merits of the individual; to subsidise wages, to make no proper inquiry into the circumstances of the home, and consequently to encourage

1165
the pauperisation of the population to such a degree that where it had unrestricted sway the result was enormously to increase the number of per-sons upon relief, put up the rates to a condition which made things almost intolerable for the industries of the neighbourhood, and finally to bring the local authorities concerned in sight of bankruptcy.
In Poplar that condition of affairs was concealed or to some extent avoided by the fact that Poplar, being a Metropolitan Borough, had the benefit of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and were able to draw from that fund so large an income at the expense of the wealthier boroughs, who had no control whatever over the expenditure, that they pursued their course without bringing upon themselves the natural economic results which followed in other places. That was a state of things which clearly could not go on. It was a state of things which in my view was bound to lead to the breakdown of local government, and it seemed to me that sooner or later we should have to decide whether we were going to continue to try and work democracy or whether we should have to substitute a bureaucracy in its place. The Boards of Guardians (Default) Act was avowedly from the beginning nothing but a temporary measure. It was never intended to deal more than temporarily with a situation which had rapidly become intolerable. It was my hope when I introduced the Bill that it would not be necessary la extend its operations beyond the area of West Ham, which was the actual cause of its introduction.
Mr. J. JONES: Why West Ham?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hoped that it might have been confined to West Ham.
Mr. JONES: Why?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was not.
Mr. JONES: Why not?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Everyone who was a member of the last House of Parliament will recollect the reluctance with which I extended it to other places and the long period of patience which I showed in dealing with a place like Chester-le-Street, which flouted the Ministry of Health over and over again, and broke faith with it after
1166
they had obtained advances of money on conditions which subsequently they refused to carry out. Indeed, I am surprised that I did not draw upon myself greater criticism than I did for having waited so long before putting into operation the powers which lay ready to my band. At any rate, this Act, which of course is now repealed, has served its purpose. It has demonstrated what many hon. Members opposite refused to believe, that the bankruptcy of these places was not the inevitable result of the economic and industrial conditions in those places. It was true that in each one of these three unions the position was exceptionally difficult. All of them were poor unions; all of them suffered from great unemployment. In every ease the task before any board of guardians was an exceptionally difficult one, but the work of the appointed guardians has shown that the difficulties were multiplied many times over by the policy deliberately adopted by the old boards of guardians; and it has shown that if they had stuck to the sound principles of Poor Law administration there would never have been any necessity for them to get into the financial difficulties they did. Hon. Members opposite, with the exception of one or two, will agree that the experience in these unions has shown that the old system of these bodies giving relief to their own constituents is a system which was bound to break down. I suppose that hon. Members opposite will doubtless disagree with many of my actions when I was Minister of Health—[An HON. MEMBER: "All of them"]—but I think they will agree that experience has shown how impossible it is for a body of popularly elected persons to undertake with any propriety the distribution of outdoor relief to their own constituents—[Interruption]. That statement I notice is received not only with dissent but with derision by hon. Members opposite, and I also notice that an hon. Member of the Government associates himself with that dissent.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Certainly.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have inadvertently disclosed one of those deep differences which lie in the heart of the party opposite, because the words which I have just used, and which I have just

1167
read, are not my words. They are the words of a member of the present Government. They are taken from page 963 of the second volume of the great work on the Poor Law by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb. Indeed, the authors of that book point out that it is not merely the unemployed or even the applicants for relief who are subject to the sort of temptations which arise from a system of this kind. They point out that in one of these areas the shopkeepers, the licensed victuallers, the proprietors of picture houses, even the landlords themselves—all of them are interested in there being as much money as possible circulating through the neighbourhood. It is that consideration, no doubt, which has led the authors to the conclusion which is received with so much dissatisfaction by Members of their party. They go on to say:
"When, as in recent years 10 to 20 per cent. of all the wage-earners in a given locality are involuntarily unemployed and almost all the others are apprehensive of unemployment, it is quite impracticable for members elected by popular vote and dependant for re-election on that vote, to determine with accurate and unbiased judgment to which of their constituents they will grant the legal dole which saves the household from dire privation, and from which of them this saving succour shall, on any ground of law or policy, be sternly withheld."
It will be seen that the authors of this book go a good deal further than I should be prepared to go myself. They say that any system under which a body of elected persons is made responsible for out relief is wrong. If they are right in that view, then the Local Government Act itself is wrong, because, although the Local Government Act provides for the disappearance of boards of guardians, it still hands over their powers and functions to elected bodies. I personally do not go so far as the authors of the book. I draw a distinction between the two sets of bodies; I draw a distinction between the set of bodies whose sole function is the administration of the Poor Law, and those like the councils of the counties and county boroughs, in which case this is going to be only one of many functions. I am sanguine enough to believe that with these new larger bodies general problems of local government will still be the deciding issue at elections, and that we shall not find that
1168
the return or otherwise of members to these bodies will be determined by the amount of their promises as to the relief that they will be prepared to support. But no one who has read these passages and others of a similar kind in the book referred to or who has followed carefully what has been happening, will Le disposed to deny that there is a certain element of risk even when these functions have been transferred to the councils of counties and county boroughs.
It is because it seems to me that the action of the right hon. Gentleman in making this unnecessary and uncalled-for change at this time does increase that risk, and does seem to indicate that the Government have a certain view about the right way in which to administer the Poor Law, that to my mind the change is unfortunate, undesirable, and dangerous, and for that reason I have put down the Motion which stands in my name. It will be remembered that the operation of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act turns upon financial considerations. It can only be applied in cases where, owing to the policy of the Board, they were unable any longer to carry on their functions, where in fact they were unable either from the rates or from the banks or from the Ministry of Health to obtain those loans which were necessary for them because their expenditure had so far outrun—
Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. In connection with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it not a fact that the old board of guardians at West. Ham met all their responsibilities?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member knows perfectly well that, if it is a point of Order, he must ask it of me and not of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. JONES: Then I will ask it of you.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.
Mr. JONES: The statement was made that the guardians were unable to meet their responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is not telling the truth.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind the House for a moment of the financial position of the several unions at the time when the guardians were superseded. In the case of the West Ham Union, which of course was much the largest of the three, there was a debt to the Ministry of Health of nearly £2,000,000; there was a bank overdraft of, I think, nearly £200,000; and the guardians at that time, in Older to meet current expenditure, were borrowing at the rate of £700,000 a year. That was bound to increase too, because they were only meeting their loan charges out of fresh loans. So they kept piling up the charges which they were unable to meet except by borrowing afresh, and indeed one may say that bankruptcy stared them in the face. At Chester-le-Street, where the whole assessable value of the union was under £350,000, the old board of guardians had accumulated liabilities of £178,000. That included a bank overdraft of £79,000, a Goschen loan of £41,000, and at the time when they were superseded they were demanding another Goschen loan of £35,000. In Bedwellty the debt to the Ministry of Health was about £1,000,000, and there were other liabilities of over £170,000 upon the guardians.
What has happened since the appointed guardians have been at work? All further borrowing has ceased. In several cases they have begun to repay the debts to the Ministry of Health or to the banks, as the case may be, and there is no doubt that in each case, in spite of the extraordinary difficulty of the situation, the financial position has been materially improved. It is going to be still further improved by the operation of the Local Government Act. I am not now referring to the actual relief in general rates in those areas owing to the operation of the Act, but merely to the mitigation of liability for those various loans, Under the extremely generous provisions of the Clause which mitigates liabilities the bodies which take over the liabilities of the guardians will receive from the taxpayer a contribution which will to a very large extent reduce the liability which now lies upon them. So far that is satisfactory enough from the financial side, but, as was frequently pointed out, during the discussions on the Local Government Bill in this House, by hon. Members of the Labour party, even so,
1170
after all its operation, the financial position of some of these local authorities will still remain somewhat precarious, and any alteration which involves the expenditure of large new sums of money by the guardians might well make their financial position impossible.
Therefore, since the Minister is making all these disturbances, I think we are entitled to ask him how he is going to treat these new bodies. Is he going to give them a free hand? Are they to be allowed to do what the old guardians did, to set up a scale of their own, to make up wages to that scale even if there were only a difference of ed. or 1s. between them? If so, how does he think they are going to meet their liabilities? Is he going to insist that any extra charges shall be met out of the rates, because if so, I would warn him—I think it is not necessary, for I am sure he knows—that in a Union like Bedwellty, for instance, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to collect more from the ratepayer than is being asked of him now, for indeed the arrears of rates are still very heavy. But if he is not going to do that there is only one other alternative, and that is to give these guardians a loan. Is he going to give them a loan? If he is, is he going to make any conditions to be attached to that loan? There again I would point out that at the time when these guardians were superseded hon. Members opposite, or some of them at any rate, used to complain bitterly that the Minister of Health would not advance money to these boards without attaching conditions to it. They always lost sight of the fact that in all human probability some part, if not the whole, of any loans which were then granted to these boards of guardians, never could be recovered from them, and so what they were asking for was that a free grant of the taxpayers' money should be given to these extravagant boards without any conditions being laid down as to the way in which that money was to be spent.
I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to give loans in future without conditions, as his party demanded in the past, or whether he will give us some assurance that at any rate these new guardians who, I understand, will be appointed or nominated by local authorities, will be

1171
6.0 p.m.
so guided that they will preserve financial prudence and will not put the local authorities who will have to take over their liabilities next April in a position which will be financially embarrassing, if not impossible for them. I would like to say a little more about the case of West Ham in particular, because West Ham was the first offender, and, in some ways ways perhaps the worst offender. We have more information about it than we have from the other places and it is right that hon. Members should appreciate the remarkable revolution which has been brought about in this place since the appointed guardians first took over their work in 1926. For some reason or another, although the appointed guardians regularly issued reports which were laid as Command Papers while the late Government were in office, that practice has been discontinued and the right hon. Gentleman has given no encouragement to the appointed guardians to present any report upon their most recent doings. That seems a strange proceeding on his part just at a time when he is going to bring them to an end and substitute somebody else for them. That is just the moment when one would suppose he would desire to give the public the fullest possible opportunity of judging what were the reasons for such action on his part, but, although the right hon. Gentleman has not called for any report, the guardians have issued a report to the ratepayers giving a very interesting account of some of the changes which have taken place since they have been in office.
If the figures for the last week in June of this year, be compared with the figures for the last week in April 1926—a date which is taken because it comes before the General Strike and is, therefore, not complicated by any exceptional circumstances of that kind—it will be found that the number on outdoor relief has been reduced from 27,853 to 6,759; weekly costs have come down from £28,000 to £3,860, and, if we take the figure of unemployed only, it has been reduced from 15,700 to 1,046. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to suggest that these people have been driven off relief and are starving somewhere in the neighbourhood, but that is not borne out by one shred of evidence. On the contrary, the appointed guardians
1172
have taken particular pains to ascertain what has become of these people and have been able to show that, of those into whose cases they inquired 60 per cent. to 84 per cent. have obtained work, whilst 13 per cent. to 32 per cent. of those who have not been able to obtain work have obtained unemployment benefit. The guardians, knowing the sort of people with whom they had to deal, took the precaution of obtaining the names and addresses of the employers of those people so that their evidence could not be refused. Indeed it is only in accord with the general policy of the guardians throughout that, at the same time as they discouraged people from coming to obtain relief unless they were really unable to get work, they should have done all in their power to help these people to get work, and one of the great sources of satisfaction in the account of what they have done is that they have been able to instil into so many of these people who had really lost it, the desire to find work and the ability to find it too.
Mr. McSHANE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the commissioners asked the employers of labour with whom these men had been employed, for characters or testimonials?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not what I said. [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) insists upon interrupting any more, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
Mr. JONES: I am very sorry. [HON. MEMBEES: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, you may say "Hear, hear," but you do not know. I can answer everything which that man has said.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can do it at the proper time.
Mr. JONES: I will. I withdraw and apologise.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that the appointed guardians took the view that the people who ceased to apply for relief had, in the great majority of cases, obtained work. To test that view they took a number of sample cases and found that in those cases the people had obtained work. In order that it might not be said that they were making statements which would not bear investigation,

1173
they also obtained the names and addresses of the employers of these people. That is all I said, and I said it in order to show how careful the guardians had been to buttress their statement with unimpeachable evidence.
Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures for the last week in April of this year instead of the last week in June?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot find it at the moment, but I think I can give it to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain further as to the cases into which inquiry was made? There is a considerable suspicion that those were selected cases.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Suspicion on the part of some hon. Members is ineradicable. Whatever statement is made it is always challenged by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They never really believe that there is any honesty in anybody but themselves. I believe, however, that these figures can be substantiated with a completeness which would satisfy the hon. Member. Whilst it was obviously impossible for the guardians to inquire into every case, I am certain that the oases were not selected, but were merely a fair sample of all the cases dealt with by them. Altogether, as compared with the old administration, the appointed guardians in the West Ham Union are saving £1,000,000 a year for the ratepayers. In addition they have reduced their call upon rates from £766,000 in a half-year to £463,000, and in this last report they say that there will be a sufficient surplus available to justify another reduction of about £60,000 for the half-year ending 1st April next. When I add that they are repaying principal and interest of the debt at the rate of £300,000 a year, I think it will be agreed that, as far as the financial side is concerned, they have done their duty admirably and provided an object lesson for the whole country.
There are other matters, however, to which I would call the attention of the House in this interesting report. The appointed guardians have not given their attention solely to the reduction of expenditure but have given a great deal of time and thought to improving the
1174
arrangement for the people to whose needs they were attending. For instance, they give a list of various improvements which they have carried out at the hospital. They have increased the efficiency of the medical and nursing service by appointing four consultants—a gynaecologist, an orthopaedic surgeon, an ophthalmic surgeon and a neurologist; by the appointment of a dentist and an anaesthetist; by the addition to the staff of one medical officer and by the substitution of 14 staff nurses for a corresponding number of probationers. They have put in hand a considerable extension of the arrangements for giving occupational training. In the childrens' homes they have provided a new and more varied diet at additional cost, and they have changed the clothing of the children which was heavy and unsuitable for lighter and healthier clothing. They have encouraged games and outdoor exercises for the children and also encouraged them to join the local groups of boy scouts and girl guides. [Laughter.] Hon. Members will not sneer at this sentence in the Report:
"The excellence of the training received is evidenced by the fact that the children on leaving the homes become in almost all cases self-supporting."
Further, in place of part-time district medical officers, full-time medical officers have been appointed and the number of district nurses has been increased. The report brings home to one's mind that, not only was the administration of the old guardians extravagant, but also grossly inefficient; and these hardhearted callous bureaucrats, as they are described by those hon. Members who do not approve of anything which the last Government did, have really effected a revolution in the efficiency of the service as well as in its financial implications. Now these people are to be swept away and dismissed as if they had done something to be ashamed of instead of having pulled West Ham out of chaos into order, and in their place are to be put people to be nominated by the local authority. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has seen any account of the proceedings when the names of the people to be nominated by the town council of West Ham were discussed. It is a very illuminating document. It throws a lurid light upon the atmosphere in which this matter is discussed in West Ham.
Mr. J. JONES: Un a point of Order. West Ham is only a part of the Union area, and if the right hon. Gentleman is singling out West Ham for special attack, we want him to deal with the other parts as well.
Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes that of these guardians four are to be nominated by West Ham, two by East Ham, one each by Wanstead and Woodford, and one, I think, by Walthamstow. [Interruption.] I am told that there was an understanding among the parties on these authorities that in making their nominations they should have regard to the rights of minorities, and that there should be a fair distribution of the places on the new board. I am told that understanding was honourably carried out everywhere except in West Ham, but that in West Ham the local Socialists insisted on having all four places for themselves. A certain Alderman Devenay, who seconded the proposal for the nomination of four names belonging to the Socialist party, said it probably required some explanation as to why the Labour party should take the whole of the representation. I should think it did. As, at the Parliamentary election, the actual votes recorded for the Socialist party were considerably less than the votes recorded for candidates on the Liberal and Conservative sides, it would appear indeed that some explanation would be required. He went on to explain:
"Now, they wanted to ensure—"
At that point there seems to have been some interruption, but he continued:
"Wanstead and Woodford would send one representative, and that representative would not be a Labour representative. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor Leyton."] Leyton could send two of one colour, and even if they sent only one, the fact remained that they were anxious, and he thought it was the desire of the Ministry of Health—"
Someone there said "Question," and the Alderman continued:
"At any rate, he recognised they had a Labour Government.
Councillor Ridgwell: What is party to do with the administration of the Poor Law?
Alderman Devenay: It has to do with it.…
1176
Now they had a Minister of Health who was a Labour man, and he (the speaker) was certain, although he had not got his views, that it was his wish that the predominant party of the whole of the parishes should be representative of the people, and if they took the last election in the West Ham Union, there was a predominance of Labour representatives … They wanted to ensure that the Labour party got a majority of the 12 guardians."
I think that may be left to the judgment of the House as a whole. Here you have an open admission that the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman has given is to be seized by the local Labour party in order to exploit it for their own political ends, and it is a curious thing that even then the nominations which were put forward did not by any means please other members of the Labour party, who had hoped to get the nominations themselves. There is a gentleman whose name used to be familiar in our Debates on West Ham, Councillor Killip, who was one of the old guardians and took a prominent part in all the discussions and arguments that used to go on between the old board of guardians and the Ministry of Health. When the time came for these appointments to be made, Conucillor Killip thought he had established some claim, by his honest service to his party in the past, to be one of thorn. He was very bitter about it. He said:
"He was not one to kick over party traces, although he had sat there many a lime and bitten his cheek till the blood flowed down his throat. He had bitten his tongue, too."
That must have been after he had made one of his old speeches. But it was left for another member of the party, Councillor Rumsey, to say:
"When there were any plums of office—and this plum had an extra amount of sugar with it—"
including, I suppose, the travelling expenses and other reasonable expenses that were to be covered—[Interruption.]
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
Mr. J. JONES: You have just drawn £5,000 a year.
Mr. SPEAKER: If any hon. Member says anything unparliamentary, I shall call him to order.
Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. What right has a man who has just drawn £5,000 for his services for a year to object to workmen drawing their expenses?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Councillor Rumsey said:
"When there were any plums of office—and this plum had an extra amount of sugar with it—the 'house of lords' at Cumberland Road got to work, and the division was settled before it came to the group."
It is true that Alderman Devenay called him a liar shortly afterwards, but that was the expression, no doubt, of his views at the time. When the House considers that those are the people to whom is to be entrusted the administration of the Poor Law in that particular area, when it considers that under the Local Government Act something like a quarter of a million of public money is to be handed over from the Exchequer to be distributed in that area towards the local rates, I say that that indicates the class of material with which we have to deal in West Ham, and it indicates the danger of the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take. I know it is thought by some people, who do not in the least agree with the methods of the old boards of guardians in these places, that, nevertheless, the change which the right hon. Gentleman is making is really a trifling one and is not one about which any particular fuss should be made, seeing that not much mischief could in any case be done in the course of eight months. I wish I could take that view. To my mind, the real difficulty is that it is the attitude of the Government which is here in question. One of the speakers I have quoted put certain views into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, but I do not believe he holds those views, and I hope that, when he comes to reply, he will say something which will indicate that he does stand up for the best principles of Poor Law administration and that ho is not prepared to commit himself to practices such as those which led to the introduction and the passing of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act.
I have not infrequently heard it suggested that the stamina, the independence, the self-reliance of the people of this country is not what it used to be. I do not believe, myself, that there is any real deterioration in the character of
1178
our race—not for one moment—but I do say that, human nature being what it is, to show people that they can be maintained by somebody else—[Interruption]—in idleness, at the same standard of living as those who are doing an honest, full, week's work, is something which might, if it were carried on, undermine and weaken the fibre of the character of our people; and I have been—[Interruption], Hon. Members may scoff, but I know very well that there are many hon. Members opposite who agree with every word I am saying now. It is not the desire of the regular, ordinary, working man to see the wastrel put in the same position as himself. I know it is not an easy thing, it is not a popular thing, to have to try and tighten up the administration of the Poor Law where it has been unduly lax and extravagant, but that it has been both lax and extravagant is freely admitted by both Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in their book, and it is agreed, I think, by every impartial person. Every politician must expect to have his reverses of fortune and occasionally see his opponents reverse his policy, but there is nothing which the right hon. Gentleman opposite could do which would give me so much distress, because I believe it would be so bad for this country, as if he were to do anything which would encourage a return to those methods of laxity and extravagance and make no proper distinction between the man who works and the man who does not.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have no desire whatever to shirk the action which I have taken on the question of the appointed boards of guardians, and I welcome this Debate. At least it can be counted to me for righteousness that I did what I could to avoid it coming on after Eleven o'clock at night. I would like the House first to understand the position in which I found myself a few weeks ago. The three Orders made by the right hon. Gentleman affecting the boards of guardians in West Ham, Chester-le-Street, and Bedwellty would have come to an end on the 30th June. I had to do something, for had I taken no action at all, then, from the 1st July onward, no poor relief could have been paid in those areas without further legislation. I had, therefore, to take immediate

1179
action. Mad I had the time, Is should not have prolonged the lives of the present guardians by one month. I had to take time, and, therefore, I appointed them for what seemed to me the shortest period, to enable me to make the new appointments that I desired, and I should imagine that hon. and right hon. Members opposite would have been astonished if I had reappointed the old appointed boards of guardians.
Now let me explain to the House what it is that I propose to do. I propose to get back to normality for all boards of guardians on the 1st April next year. The right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), in his Local Government Bill, gave himself power to retain the three appointed boards of guardians for a further five years, and during the actual passage of the Bill he changed his mind and decided that he would not prolong the lives of the appointed guardians in Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty, but he kept his stranglehold on that bête noire of his, West Ham. It seems to me that to retain a little enclave in the London area, under an Act of Parliament now abolished, would have been absurd, and I am prepared to take what risk the right hon. Gentleman thinks there may be in bringing that West Ham Union area within the general framework of the Local Government Act at the earliest possible moment, for, believe me, the muddle which would have been left in that area if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to prolong that appointed board of guardians would have been infinitely greater than any muddle that might arise by trying to fit that area into the normal structure of local government. That is on the general question.
As regards the three particular boards of guardians, I should have liked to have reintroduced the representative principle. I was unable to do that. Under the Local Government Act, elections ceased, and it would in any event, I think, have been absurd to have had three boards of guardians elections, with the preparations hanging on for several weeks; and, on the whole, it seemed to me undesirable to go to the trouble of elections. I decided, therefore, to get as near to the representative principle as I could, and what, in fact, I have tried to do is to pre-date the operation of the Local
1180
Government Act. With an exception to which I shall refer in a moment, I am putting in charge of Poor Law administration people who will be responsible for it after 1st April of next year. I am doing that in this way. On three different occasions I asked representatives of the Durham County Council, the Monmouthshire County Council, and the various local authorities comprised within the West Ham Union, to meet me. I asked, in the case of Durham and Monmouthshire, that the county councils should each appoint three people who would be prepared to act as guardians until 1st April next year, these three persons being members of the county council. In the case of West Ham, where there are two county boroughs and part of a county area, it seemed to be better, in order to get some balance of representation for the various areas, to have a somewhat larger body. I am therefore appointing for West Ham a board of 12 members, distributed as the right hon. Gentleman has already explained, the representatives of West Ham, East Ham, Leyton, and so on, being appointed by the respective local authorities. The local authorities agreed to take on this responsibility, and the names have now been presented.
The third point which arose was the question of remuneration. I did not feel that it would be right to pay the guardians whom I appointed the salaries which the existing appointed guardians received. I thought that the people who might be invited as representative persons to take this responsibility on their shoulders would much prefer that loss of time and out of pocket expenses should be met than that they should receive a salary, and I have no reason to believe that these appointed guardians will try to swell their expenses to the handsome emoluments that the right hon. Gentleman gave. I am quite convinced that one result of this economy will be that more money will be available for relief and less for salaries.
I would like to remind the House of the objection which was always taken in the last Parliament by the two Opposition parties to the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act. On the many occasions when we had a Debate on a Prayer, the two Opposition parties opposed the Bill primarily on constitutional grounds. I

1181
have never from that Box on any occasion glossed over extravagance or lax administration on anybody's part. I have never defended the individual acts of particular hoards of guardians. The front of our opposition was constitutional in its character. The right hon. Gentleman, faced with one or two difficulties in one or two areas four years ago, cut the Gordian knot by destroying local government. It was an unprecedented action. I remember the then Minister of Health bringing forward what he alleged were precedents, where a Department might act in cases where local authorities were in default. None of those cases was parallel to the action which he took, which was to wipe out of existence completely the whole directly elected authority carrying on a complicated piece of administrative work over a large area. That, so far as I know, has never been proposed before in the history of Parliament, and even the very limited rights which State Departments have obtained to compel local authorities in default to act in a particular way have been very rarely and sparingly used. The right hon. Gentleman, however, rushes into the breach, and in one Act of Parliament, takes powers which would enable him to destroy half the local government of this country. It was to that that we took objection—to the proposal that he should appoint persons who would have the full powers of guardians, the full freedom of guardians, and over whom he himself had not the vestige of control.
There never was a more absurd constitutional situation created by an Act of Parliament. It was not as though the Minister himself had said, "I am going to be responsible for the administration, and then I can stand in my place in the House and defend my action." Not at all. He appointed three people, and, once they were appointed, they were in precisely the same position as any other board of guardians. He had no powers over them and he could not really answer questions about many of their actions in the House of Commons. You had a house of nabobs appointed in three parts of this country, and it needed a good deal more Justification than it has received. It meant that, while the ratepayers were being called upon to pay rates for Poor Law purposes, the whole expenditure of their money was in the hands of people over whom they had no control whatever.
1182
The principle of no taxation without representation has created rebellions and wars in this country. It is the thing on which the whole British constitution has been built. The party which prides itself upon being the great defender of the Constitution, when faced with a real difficulty, is the first to throw that Constitution to the wind. We stand, as we stood when that Bill was first introduced, for the principle of no taxation without representation, and, although it may be for a period of only eight months, I have got as near to that principle as is possible in the circumstances.
Let me say something about the particular points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He shook a minatory finger, and asked, "What is the purpose of all this? Is it to improve administration 1 No, it is political in character." What, may I ask, is the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act? It is political in character in this sense, that I could never have dared to face this House if I had not taken this action. On every conceivable occasion when the opportunity arose, not merely on the discussion on the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act itself, but whenever there could be a Prayer, and even on the Estimates of the Ministry of Health, this question has been in the forefront; and it was a duty to myself, as well as to my party, that I should deal with it in a way that we thought was right. To suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that I have somehow or other been captured by somebody he called extreme supporters, is absurd. On this question, there never has been, and there never will be, any division in the ranks of the party. I am told that this action of mine is a wanton and gratuitous insult to public servants. I did not put them there. I took this act as an act of policy. So far as I know, I have never seen any of these gentlemen. They may be distinguished public servants, but I am told that in one board of guardians, at least, two out of the three have not been known in public life before. I am not sure that we are losing a lot of valuable experience. In the board of guardians which I have in mind, I think that at least two if not three, out of the three, had never been inside a board of guardians office. They knew nothing about the administration of the law. Some of them are still

1183
novices, and their places will now be taken by men of wider and longer public experience.
It is suggested that this action has been taken to discourage reforms, and to encourage a return to the old methods. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree as to what are reforms. I am not quite certain that we agree about what would be called sound administration. If he means that these people have been put there deliberately in order to plunge local authorities into bankruptcy, it is an absurd suggestion. The people who are going to be responsible from now to 1st April are the people who will have to be responsible after 1st April. I think that that is the best reply to the right hon. Gentleman on that point. We get to a real clash of opinion when the right hon. Gentleman reminds us of his statement on the Second Reading of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, that he regarded it as the salvation of local government. That is a very large claim for it. I do not believe that by suppressing democratic government in three areas you are going to save local government in this country. Nor does anybody else.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this had to be done, because there had been an adoption of a policy of Poplar-ism. All the right hon. Gentleman's energy in the sphere of Poor Law administration was devoted to discovering Poplar-ism. I know of no single case where he has admonished a board of guardians for being too mean. What about the deliberate policy of anti-Poplarism? What about the deliberate policy engineered by the right hon. Gentleman in the last three years in an entirely contrary direction? If it be true, as it well may be, that there has been lax administration and extravagance, the right hon. Gentleman has encouraged parsimony which has brought down relief to far below what it ought to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There is the real grievance. I would myself oppose waste, I would oppose the excessive distribution of anything, but, on the other hand, I am equally opposed to the niggardliness which characterised the late Government. There is a happy mean, and it is the happy mean which I would try to reach—that in our administration we should
1184
at least give justice. I am not asking for generosity, but for justice, at least, and not the kind of administration which the right hon. Gentleman regards as sound.
We have had a long quotation from Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb's latest book from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston, but I think he drew the wrong moral. I would commend the whole chapter to him. I do not propose to go over all that ground. He spoke of the grave possible danger of almost certain demoralisation which must come from people giving relief to their own constituents. It does not matter very much whether the authority is a county borough council or a board of guardians, they are giving it to their own constituents; and the right hon. Gentleman's argument that in the ease of the County Borough Council they are doing other work as well does not alter the case, if there is anything in the case at all. The logical comment on the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the danger of boards of guardians giving relief to their own constituents is that he ought to have abolished all boards of guardians and have taken over the job himself; but that is a large question which I feel he shirked when he had the Local Government Bill before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me how I was going to treat the new bodies. He knows that those new bodies do not yet exist. I have never seen them. How should I know how I am going to treat them? I was asked whether I was going to give them a free hand, and give them loans without conditions. Those are hypothetical questions which I cannot answer until the questions have been put to me, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. [Interruption.] They cannot have been put to me by a body which does not exist and whom I have never seen. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I have held some communication with them, let me assure him that he is entirely wrong. I have not seen these new bodies, I have had no communication from them, and obviously it would be absurd for me to say anything until I have seen them—if I am called upon to see them.
Let me say something about the famous West Ham report. Complaint is made that I have not asked for a report from

1185
the West Ham Guardians. Why should I? I am not responsible for them. The right hon. Gentleman has not asked for a report from the Chester-le-Street or the Bedwellty Boards of Guardians. If he insists that reports should be presented, why did he not carry out his own policy a little more effectually? In any event I have before criticised the publication as Command Papers of the reports of these boards of guardians. I do not think the Government are called upon to publish as a Command Paper the annual report of a board of guardians which it cannot control, and in regard to which its relations have been precisely the same as its relations with any other board of guardians. That, I think, is the answer to that point.
I do not want to go into details of the report of the West Ham Guardians. No doubt there are other things that might be said about it in addition to the unstinted praise given to it by the right hon. Gentleman who appointed them. If he thinks that many of us on this side are suspicious, let me tell him that we often have grounds for our suspicion. It may well be that there is another side to that report which, as a matter of fact, I have not personally examined: I have only skimmed through its pages and found much what I expected to find there. I am amused to think that the right hon. Gentleman should regard these three imported persons as the people who have redeemed the name of West Ham, My view is that the name of West Ham can only be redeemed by West Ham, and by no imported dictators sent down by the late Minister of Health. They have not redeemed the name of West Ham. They have saved money, as the right hon. Gentleman has said and that I am not denying, but they have done nothing whatever to redeem the name of West Ham. The name of West Ham will begin to be redeemed. I believe, when the newly-appointed guardians take up their offices.
The right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing his researches into what has been happening at West Ham. He knows a great deal more about it than I do. He has got a long newspaper report of the meeting of the West Ham County Borough Council. I wonder he did not get reports of the meetings at East Ham, Leyton, Walthamstow and all the other parts of the area. He complained
1186
because in the West Ham Council meeting there was some discussion—a pretty vigorous discussion I gather—referring to four people of the same party. When I saw the representatives of the West Ham local authority I never raised the question of party at all. I could not. I was bound to leave it to the free choice and discretion of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman is complaining that in the composition of the new board there will be seven who are Labour members and five who are not. I understand that had the Board been chosen on a party basis the representation would have been ten to two. In those circumstances, though I have had nothing whatever to do with it, and though much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said is news to me, I think that the local authorities in that area have, on the whole, acted very fairly, and, taking the area as a whole, have secured a large minority representation—having regard to the political colour of a large part of that area.
I was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to maintain the self-reliance of the people. I believe in human nature. We do not believe in quite the same kind, I think. When I am told by our political opponents that human nature is what it is, I know there is going to be some insult to the human race behind it. That human nature is what it is is responsible for all the volume of public spirit there is in the country to-day; and there is another side to human nature Besides that which rouses the antagonism of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentle-man's method, given free scope, is pure, sheer, unadulterated deterrence. He quotes with approval the number of people who have got work in West Ham. They may have got work in West Ham, I am not denying it, but if that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy why did he not abolish all out-relief everywhere? Because he dare not, because he knows in his heart of hearts that merely to chivy the poor from pillar to post, harrying them to look for jobs, does not create one new job the more. Whilst you might get rid of a number of out-relief recipients from the Poor Law in one area, believe me you probably produce nearly the same number somewhere else. There is no solution of the problem of unemployment along that line, and so long as

1187
people are genuinely unemployed—and the overwhelming majority are genuinely unemployed—and so long as there is no work for them, they are entitled to something which will enable them to keep their homes together and to keep their personal dignity.
Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] May I ask the Minister, if that be so, how did the unemployed figure fall from 15,000 to 1,000? What work did they get?
Mr. GREENWOOD: Believe me, the Noble Lady will make inquiries, she will find that unemployment did not fall.
Viscountess ASTOR: But they got jobs.
Mr. GREENWOOD: The figures which were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman do not necessarily cover the whole field of out-relief cases in the West Ham Union. The point I am making is a perfectly simple and reasonable one. It is that boards of guardians have their statutory duties to perform. If they go beyond their duties they are obviously breaking the law; but the law does require them to relieve destitution. I wish to see boards of guardians doing their honest duty in an enlightened and a humane way, without extravagance and without placing an enormous burden on the other people who are paying the rates, and who in many cases are little better off, as I realise; but I want to see enlightened and humane administration of the Poor Law. I have no reason to believe that we shall not get wise and fair administration from the newly-appointed boards of guardians when they take office. All of them, I believe, are persons of considerable experience. All of them, I imagine, or most of them, will be engaged in carrying on this Poor Law administration eight months from now. They are being given a trial trip. They will be able, ultimately, to introduce the county councils and the county borough councils in those areas to the real problems which they have to face in those three districts.
7.0 p.m.
I claim that my action in taking this line is really in support of good administration for the right hon. Gentleman's own Measure, and the fact that these people will be permanently responsible,
1188
as members of their local authorities, for Poor Law administration will mean, in effect, that they will do their best by the responsibilities that have fallen upon them, and will do their best by the local authorities who have appointed them to this office. I can think of no other way of dealing with the question than the one I have taken. I could not have squared it with my con-science to leave the three appointed guardians there for another eight months. Action had to be taken, and I commend the action I have taken to the House in the full knowledge that the majority of this House to-day stands with me on this question of taxation and representation, stands with me on the rights of the ratepayers to persons who are elected. The persons I am choosing have not been elected for a Poor Law purpose, but I cannot help that. They will be so elected after April of next year, and I therefore have done a little more than did the right hon. Gentleman himself to smooth the transition period before the coming into operation of the Local Government Act.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: We are now in a very different House and atmosphere from that of the last Parliament. I should have thought that the late Minister of Health would have been in favour of the action which has been taken, and I shall try and make my point clear to the hon. Members behind him. After all, what was the main thesis of this Local Government Act, as regards the first part which deals with Poor Law administration? Its main thesis was that it was a good thing to take away the administration of the Poor Law from the guardians and transfer their functions to the county boroughs or county councils. I have never been able to understand the sentence which is at the root of our discussion to-day and which appeared in the original Clause 17.
"And except otherwise expressly provided by this Act."
That is the provision that gave the right hon. Gentleman power to exclude three particular boards of guardians from the main stream of his own development. I have never been able to understand why he imported into the untrodden area of the future the arguments and facts of the past. He is generally one of the most relevant speakers in the House, but nine-tenths

1189
of his speech to-night was utterly irrelevant to the action of the Minister of Health. He brought forward figures and facts which convinced him so that in these three areas he appointed dictators instead of elected guardians. But those facts and figures had all to do with the past; they have nothing to do with the future, because the new bodies have not yet begun to develop. In those discussions in the past, it always seemed to me, sitting in opposition then as I am to-day, that the right hon. Gentleman had rather a "down" on West Ham. I heard a story of a batsman who complained to the umpire that his captain had a "down" on him. When he was asked why he thought that, he said, "Well, he always puts me in in the middle of the hat trick." It always seems to me that West Ham is in the middle of a hat trick.
The House, as a whole, is entirely against extravagance in Poor Law administration, but that is not the issue now. The issue is a double one. First of all, there is the simple administrative issue which need not detain us more than a minute or two, namely, as to what kind of machinery is to operate the Act in these particular areas. Had they been treated as normal by the right hon. Gentleman there would be no difficulty whatever. In West Ham part would go to the Essex County Council, part to the County Borough of West Ham, and part to the County Borough of East Ham, while Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty would go to the Durham County Council on the one hand and the Monmouthshire County Council on the other. It all comes back to the area formerly governed by the elected guardians of West Ham and now by the three appointed dictators of the right hon. Gentleman. It has always seemed to me that this country can be either one thing or the other, either slave or free, but it cannot be half slave and half free. Either we have to trust the elected bodies to govern the country, whether in this House or in our local authorities, or we have to submit to dictatorships throughout the whole of our political and administrative life.
I can see no reason whatever why the late Minister of Health should complain of the action taken by his successor, because he and his party gave that power to the Minister. He gave a number of
1190
powers to the Minister of Health by that Act, and some of us objected very strongly to some of them. It is rather ironic to those of us, who objected in vain to the giving of those powers and who were voted down by the mechanical majority of the last Government, that the very first thing that was done should be done, not by law, but by an order of the Minister. I have no doubt that to the Minister of Health there is an ironic satisfaction in what has happened. The fact is that these areas have to be administered, and the question is how are they to be administered. I see no reason for prejudging the action of future bodies. I have no doubt whatever, since the right hon. Gentleman embodied it in his Act, that it is wise to transfer the functions of boards of guardians throughout the whole country, and he must accept the logic of his own Act and not say that it is wise to transfer their functions to county councils and county borough excepting West Ham. He must say that West Ham must also come within the general ambit of his own Act of 1929.
There is another issue. There is always heat in these Debates, and there always will be, not merely because there are charges and counter-charges, allegations of meanness on the one hand and of waste on the other, but because this country up to this moment has not really faced the underlying problem which is at the root of our Poor Law services in the necessitous areas of this country. It was the main flaw in the Local Government Act of the late Government that, when they came to deal with Poor Law reform, they did not reform the Poor Law, because they shirked the main problems at the root of it. I moved an Amendment in the last Parliament to make the able-bodied poor, who are the most difficult of all the problems of Poor Law administration, a national instead of a local charge. If the right hon. Gentleman had met us on that point, we might not have been faced with this discussion to-day in the sense in which we are now discussing it, namely, that we have to argue whether or not we are to have this or that piece of machinery. The right hon. Gentleman's Act shirked the real problem of Poor Law administration. Until these problems are faced by the country and by all parties in the House, there will be these poverty

1191
stricken areas where thousands of men have been unemployed for years, and consequently there will be heat in every debate on this subject. It is interesting to me as one who has heard all the debates on Poplarism to recall that one of the districts where these Guardians were not appointed was Poplar, which gave its name to the whole of these discussions.
I am always interested when men and women talk about human nature. Perhaps I might be allowed to add my view about human nature and that of my friends. I hold two views. I believe that on the whole human nature is more good than evil. There may be a doctrine of original sin, and it may be true, but there is also a doctrine of original goodness. If I understand my history and theology right, man was more original than his sin. Those behind me may smile, but I think that is sound theology. At any rate, it is my root view. The second view I have is one that makes me a democrat. If I did not hold these two views, I should not be sitting now as a Liberal Member of Parliament and fighting for Liberalism in the country. My second view is that, over a long space of time, larger masses of people are more likely to do justice to their fellows than small cliques of people, whoever appoints them. I held those views in the last Parliament, and I see no reason to change them. I appeal to the House not to prejudge these new bodies. Let bygones be bygones. If in the months ahead the new bodies prove to be wasteful and extravagant, then let us do one of two things. Let us face the logic of the situation and alter the whole administration of our Poor Law system or let us see if we cannot face our Poor Law problems in a new way.
Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I would not have intervened in the Debate but for the fact that the whole of my constituency is within the Bedwellty area. Therefore, I feel I am entitled to reply to the observations of the late Minister of Health. The worst thing I can say about democracy is that it has tolerated the right hon. Gentleman for four and a half years. Had we in our district had the opportunity, he would not have been left there so long. After it was known that the Labour party had been returned to this House
1192
strong enough to form a Government, there was a sigh of relief in the Ebbw Vale not only from Labour men but also from Liberals and Tories. The right hon. Gentleman in the Debate this afternoon has compared the administration of the present commissioners and of the old board of guardians. The Chairman of the present commissioners is a member of the Abergavenny Board of Guardians, and we are told by the Monmouthshire County Council that, where he has a tree hand as an elected guardian, his administration is reasonable and humane, but, as chairman of the commissioners, he has had a reputation of being more barbarous than any other administrator ever known in that district. Why? Why is it that one man as an elected representative of one board of guardians is considered to be humane, and yet when he is under the supervision of and appointed by the Tory Government he introduces administration which is admitted to be barbarous in the extreme? Are we to understand that the complaint which is being levelled against the action of the Minister of Health is that he is selecting representatives who have been appointed to the county council? If that is so is the right hon. Gentleman apprehensive of the administration upon which those gentlemen are going to embark? If that is so is the right hon. Gentleman not equally apprehensive of the body to which they belong? Is it reasonable to expect that these men are likely to embark upon an unreason-able and extravagant administration? The gentlemen who have been appointed were members of the old Bedwellty Board of Guardians who have had considerable experience of Poor Law administration, and I am satisfied that when they come to do their job they will do it in a much more humane manner than it has been done under the Commissioners.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said that these appointed commissioners have reduced expenditure in the Bedwellty and other areas, and he also hinted that they had relieved the burden of the rates. Perhaps hon. Members will be surprised to hear that the poor rate in the Bedwellty area has not fallen by a single halfpenny, and the appointed guardians have not reduced the poor rate. It may be true to say that they have reduced the Poor Law expenditure, but my point is that the Poor Law was never intended

1193
to carry such burdens as those which have been imposed upon Poor Law areas like Bedwellty. For a long time a heavy charge has been placed upon the administration of the Poor Law in those areas on account of the interest which had to be paid on the Goschen loan. It was under these circumstances that the Government made an appeal for relief to be sent to those areas from the Mansion House Fund. A more unreasonable state of affairs could not be imagined than that.
When comparisons are being drawn between the expenditure of the Bedwellty Guardians and the appointed Commissioners, let us have the real facts. The Medical Officer of Health for Monmouth-shire reported that a very grave deterioration had taken place in the physical condition of the children in Monmouth-shire. The ex-Minister of Health asked that an investigation should be made into the physical condition of the children in Monmouth-shire and his own medical officer reported an alarming deterioration in the physical condition of the children who had to be relieved. That kind of thing has been going on for years. In those poverty stricken areas the ministers of religion have condemned the Poor Law administration carried out by the gentlemen of whom the ex-Minister of Health is so proud. Even the Conservative clubs in those areas have passed resolutions condemning the Poor Law administration. The Free Church Council stated that the administration of the Poor Law in those areas, both inside and outside the workhouse, was inhuman, and they asked for some alleviation.
The last contribution which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston made to the humanising of the Poor Law was the introduction of tests in the workhouses, and many poor people were told that they could not have relief unless they did the test work. I know cases of colliers who had to walk four or five miles in the morning to do work connected with building walls, cracking stones, and weeding turnips. In some cases these men worked from 7.30 o'clock in the morning to 5 p.m.; in one case a man was paid 16s. a week for doing that kind of work, out of which he bad to pay 4s. 6d. per week rent, and he had a wife and two children to maintain. In face of these facts, how can the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston
1194
expect hon. Members on this side of the House to listen to his remarks with patience? The wonder is that the right hon. Gentleman's merciless administration was tolerated so long. I never thought it possible that any man from a detached position in. this House could encourage an administration so in-human, but after listening to the speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman I am not at all surprised.
Three weeks before I came to this House a medical officer of health, representing a Poor Law authority, asked that a man suffering from asthma should be taken into the infirmary. The man was almost in a dying condition. He was taken into the infirmary at Bedwellty, and he was scarcely able to sit on a chair which was provided for him. That man was kept for hours sitting in a chair without any refreshment and without anybody seeing him at all, and he received no attention whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it is now admitted in the Bedwellty district that if you go into the Bedwellty Workhouse you had better shuffle off this mortal coil as quickly as possible. In the Bedwellty Workhouse the inmates get up at eight o'clock and they are given for breakfast a chunk of bread and margarine; at 12 o'clock they have a cooked dinner, and the tea is a repetition of the breakfast. It is a fact that from five o'clock in the evening to eight o'clock the following morning they receive no food at all—I am speaking of people between 70 and 80 years of age. I have known them during the winter months being driven out of the rest room into the yards to walk around in the perishing cold.
If I lived with my mother-in-law or my father-in-law, I should be expected not only to maintain my wife and children, but every member of the family who lived under the same roof. I know a case where a woman was refused relief because she had an aunt living in the same house. In another part of my area a collier had a son 23 years of age living with him. The son had been a prisoner of war for a year and a half and he had never done any work since he came back from the War, because he suffered so badly from neurasthenia. This poor man had six children and he appealed to the guardians for relief, but they refused him relief on the ground that his father-in-law could keep them out of earnings

1195
amounting to £2 4s. 6d. per week. That is the kind of administration we have had in the Bedwellty area. Of course anyone can save money by reducing the amount of the Poor Law relief. It requires no courage to do that, and the gentlemen who do it simply motor into the district and out of it as quickly as possible after insulting and bullying the people who come before them.
It does not require any courage to do that. If that is the sort of courage which the ex-Minister of Health admires and if he really wanted to be courageous he should have taken the job on himself. I know that it will be difficult within the financial limitations for the three men who have just been appointed to make substantial improvements unless they get financial help. I do not think it is the desire to increase the poor rate, but if they do increase the poor rate the burden will fall on the people who are suffering the most at the present time. In some districts the industries are exempted from three-quarters of the rates, but although those particular areas may be relieved the increase in the poor rate will fall mostly upon the cottagers in those districts. It would be impossible to increase the poor rate, but what is being said throughout my Division is that, while it may not be possible for us to get much more money, while we may not have the revenue out of which to pay a little more money, we ought at least to be able to get decent civility and courtesy from these men, and we have not got it. It is amazing to me that men from my Division, who have earned from the benches opposite very eloquent eulogies because of their courage, should, after all these years, have tolerated the inhumanity for which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible. I hope that their patience will not be further taxed, and that, in the eight months ahead of us, those three gentlemen who have been appointed are going to succumb, not so much to pressure from their constituents, but to a higher kind of pressure—the pressure of their recognition of common humanity.
I hope that, if it is necessary that they should have financial assistance, sufficient support will be forthcoming from the opposite side of the House as well as from this side, in order that they may
1196
have whatever assistance they may require. We all hope that they will not be extravagant, and I do not believe that they are extravagant. We do not admit that in their general administration the guardians who were deposed were extravagant. All that we say is that they had to carry a burden which the Poor Law was never intended to carry. We have asked of Government after Government that that burden should be taken off the Poor Law. It is not a retrospective judgment; it was prospective reasoning. We knew that the Poor Law could not carry this burden; we knew that the mining industry would have to face this burden of high rates. We appealed to the House of Commons by deputation and by demonstration. Men went to the guardians—I led 7,000 of them one day—to demand that the guardians should bring pressure to bear on the Government to take the burden of maintenance off the shoulders of the Poor Law authorities. The unemployed in our districts do not ask for more relief, but simply that the Poor Law authorities of the country should do their normal work, and should not be asked to carry the burden of abnormal difficulties. No doubt we shall experience some difficulties in humanising the administration of the Employment Exchanges, but those difficulties can be easily tackled. If the administration can be improved, the burden will not be so great, and I am satisfied that, whatever the present Minister of Health may do, there is nothing that will earn for him the gratitude of those who are poor and harassed more than the action which he has now taken.
Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: The Labour party would have been very disappointed if their spokesmen had not made some gesture of disapproval of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) in appointing commissioners to supersede the popular representatives in the three areas of which we have been speaking. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, if I may say so without wishing to be offensive, appeared to me to be a long tirade against democracy. In particular, I listened with regret to his attack upon the individuals who are going to replace the dictators whose term of office is now approaching an end. We of the Labour party, the alleged party of revolution, are here defending constitutionalism.

1197
The Conservative party arrogates to itself in particular the designation "Constitutional party." We are here defending constitutionalism. I remember reading that Mr. Gladstone once said, in comparing the Liberal and Conservative parties, that the Conservative party professed to be the party which upheld tradition and precedent and the Constitution, but that the Conservative party were much more ready than the Liberal party to violate tradition and precedent if it suited their purpose. They are doing that now. I heard a cynical laugh from the back benches opposite when the Minister referred to the fact that one of the bases of our Constitution was that taxation and representation went together. We have had a deliberate violation of that principle, and I consider that we of the Labour party are doing good work now, and I hope that the Liberal party will support us. I have great hopes of their doing so, especially when I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in front of me. I hope that the Liberal party will bear out the statement that the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston was a violation of the basic principle of our Constitution. It is better that men should govern themselves inefficiently than that others should govern them efficiently from outside. When men govern themselves inefficiently, there is some hope for them; they may improve; but if they are governed from outside they never get the chance.
The principal remedy for all our difficulties with regard to the guardians and unemployment is to transfer the burden of unemployment to where it ought to be—to a central authority. It was never intended, as has been said ad nauseam, that the boards of guardians in the different localities should bear what has become the enormous burden of unemployment. Let that burden be moved to a central authority, and we shall have no more trouble with the guardians. The guardians are all right. They want to do right, and the right way to deal with them is to give them the opportunity of carrying on their work without this enormous and terrible burden. It has never been the English way, when popular authorities have disobeyed the law or have gone beyond their functions, to supersede them. What has been done
1198
has been to find out the cause of their action, and to remove that cause. May I give one historical illustration of what I mean? Members of this House know that 100 years ago there was an enormous number of very savage penal Statutes on on the Statute Book, and a great number of offences were punishable with death. That state of things was brought to an end, not by the Government, not by Parliament, not by the lawyers, but by the juries refusing to bring in verdicts of "Guilty" which would condemn to death the person guilty of the offence. They did that persistently. A woman would he charged with breaking into a house and stealing a loaf, and the jury would return a verdict of "Not Guilty." If she had been found guilty, she would have been sentenced to death and would have perished on the scaffold. The juries persistently disobeyed the law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston would probably have abolished the juries, but they did not do that; they abolished the savage Statutes which caused the juries habitually to break the law.
I have said what I wanted to say. I wished to make my protest on behalf of democracy, and I wish, before I sit down to bear out what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). The right hon. Gentleman the Member Edgbaston quoted from the book of Mr. Sidney Webb, but I would like to call attention to the fact that that book does not quite flatter his representatives in Bedwellty. In the Circular of the 18th March, 1910, it was stated to be the plain duty of guardians to take precautions to ensure that the relief was adequate and that the pauper was sufficiently fed, clothed and lodged. It is stated by Mr. Sidney Webb that, during 1927 and 1928 in Bedwellty, destitution existed which the appointed guardians of the right hon. Gentleman did not adequately relieve. Indeed, so bad was the state of Bedwellty, according to Mr. Sidney Webb, that one of the strongest arguments for the institution in 1928 of the Lord Mayor's Fund was the condition of Bedwellty.
Viscountess ASTOR: After hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), I think we should rejoice that the Socialist party are at last in power. For many years we have heard

1199
them talking about the miseries and sufferings of the great masses of the people, and how their hearts were bleeding at the inhumanity which existed, while we on this side of the House, Liberals and Unionists, were hard-hearted. I think we should rejoice that at last the country is going to see, when it comes down to what might almost be called brass tacks, that, no matter how big the hearts of hon. Members opposite are, they will find, when they come to face certain conditions, that they are up against hard, economic facts. I think we should rejoice, and I myself do, that at last they have got the chance to prove to the country that, no matter what party is in power, human nature is very much the same, and economics are very much the same. We have not seen any great departure, so far, from the policy of the Opposition, and we rejoice at that. There is only one thing that can bring democracy down, and that is corruption. I wonder what the present Government, if they had been in power when we were and had had to face West Ham, would have done?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): May I ask the Noble Lady if she would give me any single instance, any proof, of corruption in the West Ham Union in the years in question?
Viscountess ASTOR: Will the ion. Lady tell me that—
HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
Viscountess ASTOR: If you get corrupt administration, you may not be able to point to one single instance of corruption, but the whole administration was corrupt.
Miss LAWRENCE: "Corruption" is a word with a perfectly definite meaning. It is a criminal offence. Where was the corruption in West Ham? I press that question.
Viscountess ASTOR: I say it is a criminal offence to spend money which you have not got and to give away money which you have not got.
Miss LAWRENCE: Does the Noble Lady withdraw the word "corruption"?
Viscountess ASTOR: I am very sorry I cannot withdraw the word—
HON. MEMBERS: Prove it!
Viscountess ASTOR: I consider that, unless the whole policy of the West Ham Board of Guardians had been corrupt, the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health would never have brought in his Act. The hon. Lady knows that she would never allow the things to go on that went on—
HON. MEMBERS: What?
Viscountess ASTOR: General corruption of administration.
Mr. BEN SMITH (Treasurer of the Household): On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Noble Lady to make accusations of corruption generally against a body of people without giving proof of them?
Viscountess ASTOR: I think the speech of the late Minister of Health, and the figures that he gave to the House, showed that there had been corruption of administration. If there had not been corruption of administration, do you think for one moment that he would have done away with popular government, as he had to do? That is the only excuse. I am certain the Government, if they had the same situation, would have to do something very much the same as the late Government did. I am certain that they are not going to allow anything to go on the way it was before the late Government appointed the three commissioners. If the Government had waited until next April, when these three appointed men would have gone out, it would have been better for the whole moral standards of West Ham.
We all know what the administration has been and what it has done. I know-people who live in West Ham and are interested in the social conditions of the children there, and they have said that under the present administration the children of the very poorest have had a chance which they never had under the late guardians. You are going back on that and on the work of the appointed men, which has been in every way so much better for the welfare of the children. No one can get round the facts there. I am certain the hon. Lady will say that they have made an enormous

1201
improvement, and this will be the test. Suppose for a moment the appointed men went back to the old ways of the other boards of guardians. Would the hon. Lady sit down under that? Not for a moment, and it is ungenerous, after the wonderful work that these men have done in a most difficult situation, that they should be turned out and that you should appoint new guardians from now to April.
When I hear the late Minister of Health attacked by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about his callous administration, I say "face the facts." I am not speaking only of Monmouthshire and one or two devastated areas, but the general health of the country as a whole is better than it has ever been before in the history of the country. Infant mortality was lower last year than it has ever been, before. We have reduced tuberculosis. Our health services were never better, and for hon. Members opposite to talk as though" we had had an administration that did nothing for the health of the people is a gross exaggeration. Is it not bad for the whole of local government, after that scandal of West Ham, that those three men should be put out, if only for a few months? It looks as though the Government were down on them and were applauding the administration of the elected guardians. I do not for a moment believe that is really what the Government want. I am certain that they are going to be just as careful as the late Government in seeing that the administration of West Ham is up to what they want it to be. I do not believe for a moment that it is going to be extravagant. We on this side know a little about social reform. We remember very well when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came in pledged to widows' pensions, and, when the Labour women went to him and asked about pensions, he said that he was not ready for it. In the late election he boasted of the money that he had left in the Treasury. We can trust him not to be extravagant. An hon. Member just now talked about taxation without representation. The people to whom that was applied were not wasting money. They were building a new country and they were standing on their own feet, not trying to be supported by someone else. It is a most gross misrepresentation of the phrase.
1202
It is not that the late Government stepped in to do away with local government. They stepped in to save local government and to prevent mis-government, and they did it, and we are thoroughly grateful for the wonderful reforms which the late Minister of Health brought in, and this Government will not dare to go back on them. We were told the other day that the present block grant was going to out down welfare centres and health services. They know perfectly well that under the system of the late Government they are going to get more spent on welfare than they would have had before. All these are things that you have to face. I am very sorry in some ways for the Government. [Interruption.] I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he believes in forced labour for the unemployed.
The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I think the Noble Lady is in error once more. May I ask what authority she has for her statement?
Viscountess ASTOR: I cannot remember—
Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I want to say that that statement is untrue and to ask that the Noble Lady shall be requested to withdraw it.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Noble Lady should substantiate the statement or withdraw it.
Viscountess ASTO R: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman said he thought it would be better to put the unemployed in camps, in battalions, and train them to work rather than leave them as they were? That is what you call forced labour. Is that not true?
Mr. LANSBURY: I said that, if I had the power, I would offer every single able-bodied young man work, either on the land or elsewhere, and, if he refused it, that I would not give him relief. That is not forced labour. I am not going to allow the statement that I am an advocate of forced labour to go without it being withdrawn.
Viscountess ASTOR: I am perfectly willing to withdraw. I should not be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman went a step further.
Mr. LANSBURY: That is not the point. Never mind what I would do.
Viscountess ASTOR: If the right hon. Gentleman does one quarter of what he has promised—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Noble Lady will return to the particular point of the question which is directly before the House.
Viscountess ASTOR: I ask hon. Members opposite to give a little credit—because it is going to be very difficult for them—for the work of these three appointed guardians of West Ham who have saved local government. Watch yourselves and watch your Ministers. You talk about cruel administration but we heard that about the Employment Exchanges, and, when we asked what was cruel about them, we were told that it was the very reverse. Patience ceases to be a virtue when we have to hear our Ministers attacked as though they were not thinking about the welfare of the people and only thinking of saving money. Our record is as good as any that has ever been before the House. Hon. Members opposite will be very proud if their record in connection with the health services is half as good as that of the late Minister of Health. I beg of them once more to do nothing to encourage corruption. [Interruption.] As an hon. Member has made a rather rude remark to me, he must remember that we had a plea the other day for a more Christian atmosphere. I do not make any pretensions, but the worst of all attitudes is to think that you alone are good and that every man who does not agree with you is a cheat and a liar.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The Noble Lady has made a statement in regard to widows' pensions. I want to say that there is not one atom of truth in what she says.
Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that, when the right hon. Gentleman was in power before, Labour women went in a deputation to him asking about widows' pensions, and he said that he was not ready to bring it in? Further, did they not say during the last election that their pensions were going to be non-contributory, and, when I pressed him to say whether they were going to be contributory
1204
or not, he never said a word? Yet hon. Members opposite are going round the country saying that the Labour widows' pensions are going to be non-contributory.
Mr. SNOWDEN: The Noble Lady has no right at all to extend the statement she made. She said that I stated to a deputation of women who saw me on this question of widows' pensions that I was not prepared to give such a pledge. I repeat that there is not an atom of foundation for that statement. I suppose she refers to a deputation of Labour women that I met upstairs. I told them what I was doing and gave them an outline of what was in my mind. The impression the Noble Lady tried to convey to the House was that I was not prepared to consider it. If she and the younger Members of the Tory party want to know what I said, they will find a full statement of my attitude in a speech I delivered in this House, I believe about the beginning of May, 1924, in which I said we had appointed a Committee to inquire into the question, and we were waiting for their Report. I gave the utmost sympathy and support to the private Members' Motion which was then under discussion. I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not that the Noble Lady has repeated a statement which has been made thousands of times from Tory platforms during the last few years.
Viscountess ASTOR: I myself remember perfectly well the whole of the circumstances, and I never pressed the right hon. Gentleman when he was in the Government to put forward a widows' pensions Bill, because I knew he was not ready. I never said that he said he was not going to bring it in, but that he was not ready and had not the plans. That is all I said. The right hon. Gentleman is the one person we can depend upon to stand up against wild extravagance—not that that was wild extravagance, but it was a promise.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. McENTEE: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words on a subject of which I have had some personal experience and of following the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). I want to say to the Noble Lady, through

1205
yon, Mr. Speaker, that the statement which she has made in regard to a district with which she is certainly not familiar is altogether untrue. I want to say to her that my personal experience leads me to believe that there are many children, and many adults too, who would have been alive to-day had it not been for the brutal and barbarous treatment meted out to them by the three commissioners still sitting at West Ham. It is probably true that the Labour victories in nearly the whole of the West Ham area were very largely attributable to the gross incompetence and to the general barbarity of the three commissioners who were sent there by the late Minister of Health.
I have had experience of local administration in the West Ham area, although not a member of the West Ham board of guardians at any time, for a considerable number of years. I know men and women who have been giving their services freely without any reward whatever in that area. I am certainly familiar with the persons who were elected guardians and the type of administration that they carried out, and with the type of administration carried out by the three gentlement who are still commissioners and whom the Noble Lady, apparently, is very anxious to defend. I can say with truth that probably between 200 and 300 persons have either come personally to see me or have written to me from time to time as the late Member for one of the constituencies within that area, and I have had occasion to represent individual cases to the commissioners in the early days of their administration which had they been brought personally to the notice of the Noble Lady she would have come to the conclusion that they were eases of such urgent poverty that they ought to be relieved.
As I say, I personally brought some of these cases to the notice of the commissioners, and the reply I received, to put it mildly, was discourteous. The Chairman of the public health authority, members of the urban district council of which I am a member, the medical officer of health in the district and his department made it their business, at the request of the council, to make an investigation of cases of real hardship so that we might be able, in accordance with a public statement which was being made by Sir
1206
Alfred Woodgate that cases of real hardship should be brought to his notice, to bring such cases before him. These eases were personally investigated by the department of the medical officer of health, tabulated with full details, and then sent to Sir Alfred Woodgate and his assistants. It is on record that the reply sent by Sir Alfred Woodgate did not concede in a solitary case that there was any real degree of hardship. It was not even a courteous reply to the public authority which had forwarded eases to him. In many of these cases the poverty was so extreme that I am certain that several deaths have occurred in those families as a direct consequence of the inhumanity which was carried out by Sir Alfred Woodgate at that time. We have tried in the Walthamstow area, which I represent in this House, every possible way of bringing cases of real hardship to the notice of the commissioners, and I have no knowledge that the commissioners, by any act of theirs, relieved a solitary case. Many persons holding public positions in the town, some of them Ministers of religion, have been to see Sir Alfred Woodgate by appointment. They told me personally after the interview that the gentleman named was a man who was utterly callous and in no degree influenced by any poverty or statement of poverty that could be brought before him. He merely appeared to have one thing in his mind. Let me say that I am not in the least surprised at his attitude acting under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, because my experience of the right hon. Gentleman in this House has led me to the opinion—I think rightly—that he is probably one of the most hard, callous and cruel men who ever sat on the Front Bench.
Mr. SPEAKER: I really must ask the hon. Member not to use offensive language against any hon. Member.
Mr. McENTEE: I Have no desire to say anything that is offensive to anybody personally. I am speaking merely of the policy that was carried out by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and, although that policy may have been carried out by some official, and although it may not even have been known to the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have made reference, he, as the head of that

1207
Department, at that time, must tales the blame for the acts of his subordinates I say that those acts were callous, hard and brutal. I am certain that there are many people in their graves to-day, nay I would say that there are many scores in their graves to-day, who would have been alive but for the acts carried out by the three commissioners to whom I have re ferred. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division, like the commissioners, appears only to be concerned with one thing—the saving of money.
Viscountess ASTOR: Not at all. I resent that very much. I was thinking of the health of the children in West Ham and of their treatment.
Mr. McENTEE: I am expressing the opinion which I formed from the speech of the Noble Lady opposite, and I want to repeat that the whole of that speech indicated to me that the only thing with which she was concerned was the fact that these three commissioners were able to publish a few days ago a set of papers in which they appeared to prove to have made a very great reduction in the amount that they had spent as compared with the guardians who carried on the work before they were appointed. That was the impression she left in my mind. I did not hear one word of pleading for the children who have been starving. I can prove the statement which I make when I say that children in the West Ham area have been starved. [Interruption.] By starving children and in preventing men and women from getting the barest necessities of life they have been able to show a reduction in expenditure. I have known the people in my area intimitely over a period of 32 years. I know their opinions. I question the moral right of the right hon. Gentleman who was at the head of the Ministry of Health in the last Government to come down upon my people who are finding the money and say to them: "You have no right, or will have no right in the future, to prevent starvation in your area by paying the money that you yourselves have earned."
The Noble Lady made reference to corruption. Let me put this to her, and I hope that she will listen. I wonder if she would dare to come to a public meeting in the West Ham area and make the
1208
charge which she made in this House of corruption against any member of the elected guardians during the period prior to the appointment of these commissioners. She would not dare to do so. I know something about West Ham. I know something about corruption in the West Ham area, and there has been very serious corruption in the West Ham area; in fact, people have gone to gaol in the West Ham area, but I would remind the Noble Lady that it was before the Labour party came into office. Nearly all the people who went to gaol, convicted of corruption, in the West Ham area were members of the party which the Noble Lady is upholding in this House to-day. I can remember when the appointment of a doctor in the West Ham area cost the man who got the appointment £50. I remember when the appointment of storekeeper could only be obtained by the payment of £20. I remember, during the period of the Tory guardians and the Liberal guardians, that appointments could only be obtained by certain payments to people, one of whom was called, if I remember rightly, the human bleeder. Knowing that contracts could only be secured by people prepared to pay for them during that period, I am amazed to hear the Noble Lady inside this House where she knows she has protection make charges of corruption against people who are, at least, as incorruptible as she is. I say that she has no right to make such charges, and she would not dare to make them but for the protection that she is afforded in this House.
I know the people who have now been appointed. I am personally acquainted with them. I know their high standard of honour. I believe that their principal ideal, the ideal that will dominate their actions, is the desire to save the lives of children and of men and women. I feel that in doing that they will spend money wisely. I know that those who were on the old board of guardians, and those selected to administer the work during the coming eight months, are as responsible as any Member in this House. After all, is it likely that these people will squander the rates which they themselves have to pay. The Noble Lady may shake her head.
Viscountess ASTOR: I never said they would.
Mr. McENTEE: The Noble Lady was pleading that these people who are going to administer the work during the next eight months should not be spendthrift, and I am answering her. I want to prove to her that the people who have administered the affairs on the boards of guardians for a number of years are not highly paid civil servants, drawing £1,500 a year from the ratepayers, with their pensions, in addition, but they are men and women devoted to public service and prepared to give the whole of their time in the interests of the people in their area, to serve them to the best of their ability and to promote their social welfare. When we compare people who give their services freely with people who are appointed from Whitehall, who have no sympathy with the poor because they have never known poverty, and who have no sympathy with suffering because they have probably had little of it in their lives, and who are paid fine salaries to come down to these districts to spend the money of people who are very much poorer than themselves, one realises how great is the contrast.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), and another hon. Member, spoke about human nature. If there is anything in human nature, human nature will protect its own class and its own people. If it is prepared, as it is, to give free service to the people, that free service will be a better service than the service which has to be paid for. The people in my area are just as qualified to look after their own interests and their own rates, which they have to pay, as are any appointed people. Let me speak for my own people in Waltham-stow. Persons have come to my house, day after day, suffering from the most extreme poverty. I have seen men with their souls torn, and women with their souls torn, because of the insults that were hurled at them by the appointed guardians. These people live in abject poverty, and when they have pleaded, as men and women probably never pleaded before, for the barest necessities of life for their children, I have known them to be insulted and spoken to as if they were the worst class of people on the earth. I am not speaking of hooligans, but of decent men and women, unable to get an opportunity to earn their own living.
1210
I have in my mind the case of a young man, 22 years of age, who came to my house suffering so badly from tuberculosis that he was only barely able to crawl up to my door. He begged of me to write to the Commissioners to try to get some consideration for him. I did not write, because I came to the conclusion that it was useless, after the previous replies that I had had. I pleaded with a clergyman in the district to intervene on this young man's behalf, as he was doing on behalf of others. That clergyman, holding a high position in the Church, came away from the interview that he had had in regard to that case and the other cases, and he said to me that he had never seen such brutality in the whole of his clerical experience. These are the things that make us feel so keenly on this matter. During the next eight months, even if our people do not get one halfpenny more so far as relief is concerned, they will be glad if they can get decent treatment.
The Noble Lady spoke of Christian charity. I cannot understand the Christian spirit that would starve a little child or starve a man or woman, in order to save a few pounds. Let any hon. Member of this House go down to the areas where poverty prevails, as in West Ham, and let them make a speech breathing the Christian spirit, as did the Noble Lady, and at the same time let it be known that they are willing to save a few pounds by the murder of the poor people in the district. What is murder? I do not know how it is defined by some people, but if a man or a woman or a child is gradually starved to death by a system over which they have no control, a system which calls itself a Christian system, and a system that preaches brotherhood to them, whilst withholding from them the barest necessities of life; and if that is not murder, I do not know what is. If the ratepayers in the West Ham area were given the chance of voting to-morrow as to whether they would go back to the old conditions, and pay a little more in rates, or whether they would starve the poor, they would go back to the old conditions. The old system may have had its faults. Are there no other areas in the country which have faults? The former administrators may have made mistakes, and probably

1211
they did. Is there no other public authority in the country which has made mistakes?
If we went to the people of West Ham and told them of all the mistakes that had been made in Poor Law administration in the past, and we told them of the mistakes that have been invented against them, as they have been invented, and as they were invented during the recent election, and we asked them whether, with all its mistakes, they would go back to the old system, or keep on the present system, they would prefer the old system, and would decide by their votes to pay the few extra pounds to keep the poor people on a reasonable scale of comfort. I do not want to see money spent wastefully. I detest waste of any kind, and I detest to see the waste of human life that is going on as a consequence of the action of the Poor Law Commissioners there. We do not ask for luxury for the poor people; we ask for reasonable treatment. If the ratepayers of West Ham were asked whether they would prefer to save themselves a few pounds, and see the sights which anybody with an observant eye in the area can see to-day, sights of poverty and destitution, sights that are the consequence of the administration of the three Commissioners, they would have no hesitation in voting against the present system. The three Commissioners are hard-faced, brutal men. I say that, knowing full well what I mean. They are administering the Poor Law in the most brutal fashion possible, and I say that the people in the area, without any hesitation, would decide to spend their money in keeping the people under decent conditions rather than keeping them in misery and sorrow.
Major COLVILLE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member, using the protection of this House, to make personal attacks such as have been made by the hon. Member? Surely, it is a question of the policy of maintaining these gentlemen in office, or not, rather than the making of personal attacks upon them.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The hon. Member, so far as I understand, is making a general attack and not a personal attack.
Mr. McENTEE: I was not making a personal attack. Our system is full of brutality. We do not blame the people who are within that system, but we blame the system. When we have a system like this, where people are quietly and slowly starving to death, and we know it, we should be less than men if we did not make our protest against it. It is because I know these things that I am making my protest against the system, and I hope that this honourable House will retain its honour by giving the Minister of Health a vote of confidence, such as he has a right to expect from humane men.
Mr. KEDWARD: I have listened closely to the Debate and I am sorry, in one way, that I have to intervene; but I should not be true to my conception of my duty if I did not say a few words on this matter, I have spent most of my life in helping poor people. All my work has been in poor areas. I should be very sorry if there went out from this House the picture that has been painted on the other side, of poor people clamouring for relief, while on the other side there is nothing but hard-hearted people, waiting to push them further into the mire. I have had very long administrative experience as a councillor and a Poor Law guardian, and I have met a few unreasonable people and a few hard faced people, but, in the main, I have found most of the people willing to lend an ear and to help those who are really in distress. What I feel sorry about is, that we have heard nothing from the other side of the House of the very grave abuses that were found, and which are found, in a measure, still. We have heard nothing about human delinquency, nothing about the intricate problems that the Poor Law guardian has to face in regard to the people who come before him.
I am going to ask the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary when she comes to reply whether she is going to tell the House that there was no necessity, no reason, no basis, for the appointment of these people? The Minister of Health said that their appointment was a denial and a breakdown of constitutional practice. A great many people who were administering Poor Law relief at that time boasted that the very thing they wanted to do was to break down the constitution, they wanted local administration to break down under the

1213
very heavy weights they were imposing upon it. I know what I am talking about; I am speaking from personal experience. I have been at close personal grips with this matter. How would the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health feel if she had sat with Labour guardians as I have to administer relief in particular areas and was face to face with this kind of thing. The relieving officer reports a family who are getting 42s. 6d. a week. I, as the Chairman, have to decide. The relieving officer reports that the man is a bricklayer's runner, that he is given to drink, that his children are ill-kept and half starved, and that the money does not go to them. He says, "I feel that I must report this case and ask you to take action." I call the woman in and have a chat with her.
What did I do? I said to the relieving officer, "I will make an order for you to pay the woman so much per week for rent in money, and the rest in food tickets"; and the man turns round and curses me and says, "I will tell my trade union leader about you and we will see if we are going to have nothing doing about this." He does so, and when the case comes up within a fortnight on revision the man is put back on full money, which he spends in the public house and on the bookmaker while I in paying increased rates have to help to keep his children. I could give case after case of men going on relief, and the scale constantly being raised. There was a case in which an illegitimate child was born to a married man and his relief increased in order to help him to pay the order made upon him in a London police court. The Ministry have all these facts in their possession; and the late Parliamentary Secretary knows that what I am saying is perfectly true.
Are the Government going to close their eyes to this sort of thing? Are we going to let it go from this House that there has been no abuse? I know that there is a great deal of hardship, and no one has more sympathy with the poor people than I, but I want to suggest that you cannot help the poor by allowing people who are utterly undeserving to batten and fatten on the rates. You cannot help the poor by raising the scale of relief until it is at a point where a man who is working all
1214
the week gets less than a man receiving out-door relief, living opposite, and whose rent is raised as the rates are raised in order to keep these people in a privilege position. Is it to go forth that this House commends this sort of thing. Hon. Members opposite have been putting hard cases, and I have been up against cases of hardship again and again, and every day, but you do not help the poor of this country ultimately by closing your eyes to these abuses and to the fact that there are many who do not spend their money wisely. When I have pleaded that these people should be protected and taken care of I am regarded as a reactionary. If it goes out that this Government condones the sort of action which brought the order into existence it is going to be a very grave thing indeed for local administration in this country. I am entirely sympathetic to democratic Government, and I should like to feel that we can proceed along democratic lines through public representatives. An hon. Member opposite made great play about people spending money who do not have to raise it. Does the hon. Member know that through the Metropolitan Common Pool Fund thousands and thousands of pounds are going to authorities and guardians in London from other boroughs to places like West Ham—
Mr. LANSBURY: Not to West Ham.
Mr. KEDWARD: I am using it as an illustration. You cannot argue one way for West Ham and another for Bermondsey.
Mr. BEN SMITH: Will the hon. Member also agree that the ease he cites of Bermondsey would be no justification for the imposition of a committee over the whole of the people who are genuinely poor as the result of unemployment?
Mr. KEDWARD: I would grant that absolutely where you have guardians who are prepared to listen and accept at any rate the ordinary decencies of public life. But I am speaking from an experience of a number of boards and I know that the Ministry have been very long suffering, have given chance after chance, made appeal after appeal, and written letter after letter, to get these people to put their house in order; and probably because they overstrained their instincts

1215
for generosity they did not really help the poor people they meant to help. Ultimately they injured them; and it is always so. I want to ask the House not to let it go forth that there were not abuses. I would rather the Minister of Labour had taken the line of saying: We have had an experiment but we hope now that we can do without it. If it had been put along that line I could have supported the Motion. I entirely disagree with the speeches. It seems to me that the Government fail to see the position steadily, fail to see it as a whole, and until you do you cannot really help the poor people of this country and put Poor Law administration on a proper basis. I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but I speak from a deep and intimate knowledge of the lives of poor people; and the sort of thing that has been going on during the past few years does not help but ultimately imposes a heavier burden upon the poor of the country.
Mr. BEN GARDNER: It is rather difficult for a new Member to speak in a Debate of this kind. A great deal of heat has been engendered; but I cannot sit still and hear the West Ham Town Council taken to task. I have been a member of that body for nearly 23 years, and I am not a natural curiosity: I am an ordinary human being. When it is suggested that we are aiming at something of which this House would not approve, I say that it is not true. It has been said that the appointed guardians in West Ham have reduced the number of people unemployed by refusing them relief. I do not think all the credit can be theirs. There is some improvement in employment in West Ham just now; that is proved by the fact that the feeding of necessitous school children is fairly well down, so far as the numbers are concerned. That has happened under the West Ham Town Council, which has nominated the four members to whom objection has been taken because they are all of one political colour. Let me call attention to the fact that, after all, the objection to their being all of one political colour comes from a party which appointed three gentlemen who, although they were not in politics, had a policy, and that that policy happened to coincide with the policy of those who are opposed
1216
to me politically as a Labour man. Therefore their administration was a biased administration, and it was based on the theory that there should be no relief given unless there was destitution.
What is destitution? Can anyone define it? Are we to have it laid down that because of the exigencies of the capitalist system, because of the irregularity of the work provided by oceangoing traffic, part of the community is to be condemned eternally to a diet of bread and water? That contention will not do for me; men and women must not be treated in that way. West Ham contains a large dock area; the Silvertown district is full of people employed at the docks. Their employment is intermittent and they suffer over a period of years. They are at work one week and get nothing the next week, then two days perhaps in a week after; and the result is that because of their poverty they become what in this House is called demoralised. In other words, they are willing to vote for anyone who will offer them some mitigation of their misery. I cannot blame them for that. The only thing I can condemn is the condition of affairs that allows them to go down and down and down.
The policy which allowed them to go down and down, the policy which was carried out by the appointed Commissioners, has not been approved even by my political opponents. I happen, not only to be a member of the West Ham Town Council, but I sit on the local Bench. Hon. Members know that the rotas of magistrates are made up of persons who are of different political opinions. When the appointed guardians first began to bring to the local Bench the cases of those who were liable to support persons who had become chargeable, the amounts that they asked for were such that the Conservative and Liberal members of the Bench said, "This is quite unreasonable," and they did not grant what the appointed guardians had demanded. As a result the appointed guardians have not asked for such unreasonable sums in the past few months. I have never had anything to do with Poor Law administration in West Ham, but I hope that the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not to condemn the new administration that is being set up by the Minister of Health before it has done

1217
anything. The old guardians are dead, and we are making a new beginning. I hope that in West Ham the people will get better treatment. I hope, too, that there will not be, as in the past, any imposition on the guardians. We know that there has been imposition, because people have had to be prosecuted. I trust that that is coming to an end, but it can come to an end only if the people believe that they will get some consideration from those who are appointed to relieve them.
I do not like the situation at all now, so far as out relief is concerned. I do not think that a poor district ought to be called upon to support its own poor. The poor are always herded together in the industrial areas. The only criticism I have to make of the old guardians is that they accepted from a Government the work of dealing with a tremendous unemployment problem without any promise of help from the Government. The magnitude of the problem led to the loans that the old guardians raised. If there had not been some justification in their appeals for loans the loans would never have been granted. The further the guardians went the worse became their position financially, but that was inherent to the system under which they were working. There should have been some considered scheme that would have maintained Parliamentary control, in which I believe, and then some of the pitfalls into which they fell would have been avoided.
Mr. J. JONES: Living, and having been married and having brought up a family in West Ham, I have been keenly interested to-night in hearing the speeches of people who do not know where West Ham is and know nothing of its problems. One hon. Member went out of her way to charge the old board of guardians with corruption. Anyone who charges the members of a public body with corruption ought to be able to give some evidence to prove the charge. Probably it is because the Noble Lady comes from a country where they know something about it, that she is so glib in charging other people with corruption. When this matter was first raised in the House I suggested that we who represent the Poor Law area should ask the Government to establish an inquiry, as they had
1218
the right to do in law. Had not the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health the same power as Mr. John Burns had when he was President of the Local Government Board? Mr. John Burns established a court of inquiry, which discovered that certain members of the old board of guardians were guilty of corruption. Those members found themselves eventually at the Old Bailey. All of them went to prison, bar one, and he was an informer; and the whole of those who went to prison were members of the two parties opposite. Although there were some Labour members on that board not a single Labour member was convicted, except one.
Mr. KEDWARD: Where are they now?
Mr. JONES: Mostly in the cemetery. But there is another kind of corruption. There are Members of this House who take a very active part in providing turkeys, blankets and coal for their respective constituents. A board of guardians is doing wrong if it gives extra relief, but a candidate for Parliament is all right when he doles out coal and blankets and other things of that kind. There is a new kind of corruption that is not quite described as corruption. We find Members who have been elected to Parliament, as a matter of gratitude giving thousands of pounds away to make sure of their seats at the next election. That is a new form of corruption. I expect they have been to America in the meantime. What is the matter with West Ham? [Interruption.] I am not drunk, and when you use that word I tell you that you are a dirty liar.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he is not entitled to use language of that kind.
Mr. JONES: I have had so many insults from this Lady that I am resenting them every time. She does not speak to me straight; she talks under her breath. When she speaks about me, I like to know what she says.
Viscountess ASTOR: I never said it.
An HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.
Mr. JONES: I will let it pass for what it is worth—[Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members must permit me to keep order. I shall be glad if the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will kindly keep quiet.
Viscountess ASTO R: I really very much resent that expression—saying that you hope the Noble Lady will keep quiet—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lady has interrupted again and again. The Noble Lady must keep quiet during the Debate.
Mr. FOOT: An accusation was made across the Floor of the House within your hearing, Sir, and it has not been withdrawn. May I ask if that accusation was in order?
Mr. JONES: I am not going to stand this much longer. It is quite a common thing for the Noble Lady to talk under her breath about drunkenness when I am speaking, but I tell her this to her teeth—that I am a better man drunk than she is sober. I was trying in my poor way to state the position of the place which I happen to represent and it is all very nice for hon. Members on he other side—
Mr. KEDWARD: On a point of Order. Is it in order that an hon. Member should call another hon. Member "a dirty liar," and, without withdrawing the expression, that he should be allowed to continue his speech. It is very much resented.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already said that it is out of order, and I understood the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.
Viscountess ASTO R: No, he did not.
Mr. JONES: In order to meet the opinion of the hon. Member, I withdraw the remark "dirty liar," although it is quite Biblical. [Interruption.] I am not going to stand this any longer.
Mr. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must address the Chair.
Mr. JONES: I am addressing the Chair, but at the same time I have to address something to the hon. Members who interrupt me. I only want to say this—that we in West Ham claim to be
1220
as clean in the administration of our public services as any town in Great Britain. We are the seventh largest town in Great Britain with a population of 308,000. This matter of the administration of the Poor Law was one of the main issues at the General Election, and every one of the 10 constituencies was won by Labour. The people of West Ham have as much brains as the people of any other district and are just as capable of exercising the franchise, and every one of us here representing that area are here to back the Minister of Health in the action he has taken. Could you have a greater condemnation than the figures which I have here? Noble Ladies and other people talk about their interest in child welfare and maternity and other things. They talk about these things on platforms. What is the position under the so-called commissioners with the sympathetic hearts? Their hearts are bleeding with sympathy for the poor, and they pocket £1,500 a year, as a result of their sympathy, for doing down the poor and doing it very well. There has been a 33⅓ per cent. decrease in the amount of milk supplied to expectant mothers. They cut down the relief of the mothers to such an extent that they were compelled to go to the town council to make up the leeway. Does the Noble Lady agree with that policy? Is that one of her methods for improving the health of the children of the country? Apparently, by the attitude she has taken up this afternoon, she backs up these people who are driving people oft the Poor Law, and driving them on to the local authorities.
Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the hon. Member has infant mortality gone up or down?
Mr. GROVES: Up.
Mr. JONES: Infant mortality has gone up, and every child that has died is a victim of Sir Alfred Woodgate and the people whom you have been backing up. That is why I cannot control ray temper. Every child that has gone down to its grave is the result of the policy which you have supported with this grinning hyena in front of you.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is "grinning hyena" a Parliamentary term?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a very vague expression.
Mr. JONES: Those of us who represent West Ham constituencies know what was going on. Every afternoon we had letters at our houses telling about the hardships which the people suffered. When we sent a petition to the commissioners, we got the sterotyped reply: "Full inquiries are being made," and there is nothing doing. We referred to the Ministry of Health, and we got the answer that it was all in the hands of the appointed guardians and, so, there was nothing doing either way. The people have been screwed down to the lowest possible point. There is no relief for a single man living with his parents. If I have a son 18 years of age, and he cannot get work, and has exhausted his unemployment benefit. He goes to the Employment Exchange and is told he cannot sign on. He goes to the board of guardians and is told, "You are living at home with your father, and your father has to keep you." That means at least 10s. a week off the father's wages. When there was a War on it was different. When we are fighting poverty they are all against us; but when we were fighting the Kaiser they were all with us. Your King and country needed you then; now your King and country bleed you.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he must not refer to His Majesty in the debates of this House.
Mr. JONES: I beg pardon, I did not intend to say anything offensive of His Majesty. We are all obliged to the doctors for what they have done for him, and I would only like to see as much done for the poor as has been done for His Majesty. I am very glad indeed to know that he is recovering his usual state of health. The poor are being treated in such a shameless way by these appointed guardians that I shall be very pleased to lead a procession to attend their funeral at the end of this month. We shall be glad to get rid of them, and we know their successors will be more humane to the poor—not extravagant, but humane, not to give anything away but to recognise that after all poverty is not a crime. These people during their tenure of office
1222
have tried to make it a crime, and, when I hear ministers of religion get up and tell us there are some sins in the world, all I can say is that there would be no work for them if there were not any sins. If it were not for the people who are not as good as they ought to be, the hon. Member would never be able to occupy a position in the pulpit. We hear this sob stuff talked about the poor by people who have never suffered from poverty, but those of us who have gone through it and who have tramped the streets of this city, with no shoes on our feet, to look for a job—
Mr. KEDWARD: Do not swank about it.
Mr. JONES: I am not swanking about it. I am trying to get away from it, and I want to prevent other people coming to it. Holy Joe wants to put them through the microscope. The man who cannot find a fault in himself can always find a fault in his fellows. The poorest out-of-work in West Ham can bear as good a standard of examination as the hon. Member opposite. He is a human being, and he deserves the consideration of a human being. I sat on the board of guardians for years, and when these people came before me for relief, I knew them, and I told them what I thought about them when I knew they were not straight, and they admired me all the more for doing it, but other people know them before they see them. We want to see the best men appointed as guardians, men who are not going to be led up the garden by appeals for sympathy, men who are not going to give out relief like pawn tickets, but men who will look into every case that comes before them and do justice all round.
We fought on the town council of West Ham to have our fair share of representation. Out of 12 members, it is not unfair to ask for seven, in view of the fact that we represent the great majority of the people in the Poor Law area, nearly 1,000,000 of the population. Out of the 12 appointed, we have taken seven, and that is not unfair, as the five will be able to bring a certain amount of influence to bear. I know some of them very well, as personal friends, although they do not agree with me politically, but I believe that they will play fair with the poor. That is all that we ask them to

1223
do. We are not asking for privileges, for something for nothing, but we are asking that poverty should no longer be treated as though a poor man or a poor woman was simply an applicant for our charity. We ask only for a modicum of justice, and that is what we stand for in the West Ham Poor Law area.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. GROVES: This is one of the happiest days in my career in this House, because I know that, following our opposition, we are going to get rid of the appointed guardians in West Ham. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asked if there had been any increase in the infant mortality. The figures given by the medical officer of health for West Ham prove that under the age of two years there was an increase of 14 per thousand in 192S over 1927, and under five years of age an increase of 30 per thousand. Those are deaths taking place within the Poor Law institution at Whipps Cross. The-well-to-do do not go there. I only want to say that the people appointed by the late Government have imposed great hardships on the people of West Ham, and we are very glad to be getting rid of them. We look upon this as a great day. We have fought for this, and I believe that the people whom we have appointed will do good to the poor, will not waste money, and will do the best they can for this country.
Mr. ATKINSON: I should like to make quite clear what are my reasons for voting for this Motion. It seems to me that the Orders made by the Minister of Health connote several propositions, and those who vote for the continuance of those Orders must necessarily associate themselves with those propositions. Surely the very first thing that these Orders imply is this, that the nominated guardians were without justification; in other words, that there was no justification for any change in the old system and that what has been done should never have been done, and should be undone. We cannot very well go into the evidence and the facts to-night, but everybody who remembers them must surely find very great difficulty in getting up and saying that there was no justification for what the late Minister of Health did. Anybody
1224
who is accustomed to examining evidence and who tries to look at things impartially must surely recognise that there was an irresistible case for a change, and I, for one, am convinced of its necessity. Whether the best means for dealing with it were taken, is neither here nor there, but that there was the utmost justification for what was done I firmly believe. I submit that the maintenance of these Orders is simply advertising this proposition, that what was done was without justification, and I say that that is untrue and without any foundation whatever.
The next thing that these Orders imply is this: What was done by the late Minister of Health was something condemning waste and something that put in the place of waste a policy of anti-waste, but almost the very first thing that the new Government are doing is to declare, in the most positive way, that they condone that policy of waste and are opposed to this policy of anti-waste.
Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what waste there was?
Mr. ATKINSON: It is history now.
Mr. RICHARDSON: No.
Mr. ATKINSON: Some people, I know, can never be convinced, even by facts, but no reasonable person who will approach that question with an open mind can possibly deny that in these eases there was a great amount of unjustifiable expenditure, which is equivalent to waste. What we did was to do something which expressed in the clearest way our party's disapproval of a policy of waste, but what the other party is doing is to express in the clearest way condemnation of a policy of anti-waste and, therefore, commendation of a policy of waste. The Minister of Health to-night made no suggestion that he has had any inquiry mad" into the facts. What has been done in making these Orders has been done without any inquiry. He himself made no suggestion that what he had done was justified by the conduct of the nominated guardians. It was simply that something had been done by the other side and was going to be undone, because he had always been opposed to it, not because it had failed or was unjust in operation.

1225
If the Minister of Health had ventured to support what he has been doing by allegations against the nominated guardians of facts amounting even to a twentieth of what has been said to-night, I should not be here supporting this Motion. But the Minister of Health, who of all people would have most information at his disposal, made no suggestion whatever that the course he was taking was actuated by the conduct of the nominated guardians and because they had acted harshly or unfairly. I attach great importance to that fact. No one has an opportunity of answering the vague attacks which are made. They may or may not be true; one cannot say, but to a lawyer these vague charges mean nothing. We want particulars and proof, and, if anyone could have known of cases of hardship and unfairness, if anyone could have known of a case against these nominated guardians, the Minister of Health would have been the person best informed. He made no suggestion whatever that his conduct had been actuated by any facts of that kind. He never suggested that the guardians had failed in their work: and these Orders are being made simply because the Socialists said they would make them. So in the making of these Orders we get the first threat of the real Socialism, and it is just as well that we should appreciate it.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I represent one of the constituencies in the West Ham Poor Law area, and I shall support the other Members who have already addressed the House in the point of view which they have put. After all, the greatest justification for the step which has been taken by the Minister of Health is the result of the General Election in the West Ham area. In the last House, the area was represented by four Conservative and four Labour Members. In this House, it is represented by eight Labour Members. I admit that in making that statement, I overlook a fraction of the area which is represented by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but, even so far as that fraction is concerned, I doubt whether he would be in this House if it depended upon the votes of that part of his constituency which comes within the West Ham area. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) complained of the absence of democracy because, in
1226
the newly appointed guardians, we are to have seven representatives against five of our opponents, I would remind him that in the General Election this was one of the foremost issues in our constituencies, and that the votes which were cast for the Labour candidates were supplemented by the votes cast for the Liberal candidates, all of whom on this issue took the same attitude as that of the Labour party.
There are in reality two issues with which we are faced in this question. The first is the issue of political dictatorship, which was imposed on West Ham and other areas. I do not intend to say much about that matter, because it has already been discussed, but, if I followed the speeches of the hon. Members on the other side of the House correctly, their belief in democracy amounts to this, that a board of guardians can be tolerated so long as it is carrying out a policy which they endorse, but as soon as the board of guardians carries out a policy to which they are opposed, then that board must be abolished and a Conservative dictator must replace them.
The other issue—and I use my words quietly and deliberately—is the sheer inhuman, brutal cruelty of the administration in the areas which we are discussing. That cruelty has two aspects, and may I just say here that I am going to bring facts. In the first place, the administration of West Ham has been cruel to its own staff. In the establishments in the area under the old board of guardians, the eight hours working day was the rule. As soon as Sir Alfred Woodgate became responsible for the area, the three-shift system of eight hours was destroyed, and two shifts were introduced with no increase in wages for the increased hours. That is comparatively unimportant, but it meant in those establishments the most gross overworking of the staff, and the most gross inattention to the wretched and often sick people who had been left in those establishments to the care of those staffs. I make that charge knowing the facts about which I am speaking, and I challenge any reply to my assertions from hon. Members on the opposite benches.
The second aspect of the cruelty which has existed in this regime has been the actual administration of the Poor Law

1227
to those who have asked for relief. Members on the opposite side have perhaps not understood the feelings of hon. Members on this side on this matter. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston, and to the speech of the Noble Lady who represents the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). I did not interrupt, but I confess that it was with the greatest possible difficulty that I did not. Let me try to express the feelings that we have. It is difficult for us to tolerate speeches of the kind that have been delivered in this House by representatives of a party who live in wealth without working for that wealth, upon the poverty and the misery of the people, and then, when they defend that kind of interest in the community, lecture the working class for being wastrels. When we hear that type of speech, and when we see the type of smile with which that kind of speech is made, it is extraordinarily difficult for us to remain quiet under that kind of attack upon our people, upon our folk—[Interruption.]
Viscountess ASTOR: Why your folk?
Mr. BROCKWAY: I will tell the Noble Lady why they are our people. These people are our friends; they come to us week by week. We know that they are decent folk, anxious and eager for work, we know that they have a self-reliance and independence which would refuse relief, if they could get on without relief; and, when these people are spoken of as wastrels, when we hear of the demoralisation of their character which will result if they receive maintenance without work, we retaliate that the people against whom that charge can be made are the wealthy in the community, who are taking from the community and are not serving the community in return for the wealth they receive. Let me give actual cases which have come to me within the last month of the administration of Sir Alfred Wood-gate in the West Ham area. The constituency which I represent is not one of the poorest in the West Ham area; it is not a slum district, but it is largely a residential constituency, and the working-class houses there are largely of the artisan class, and yet the cases which I will give to the House are cases which
1228
have come to me, and which illustrate the barbarous rule of the regime under Sir Alfred Woodgate.
I will refer to the first as Mr. A. He has a wife, and three children under nine years of age. The mother is expecting another child within two months. The relief in that home has been 17s. in kind and 7s. in money—for a family of five. Within a week or two of giving up his post Sir Alfred Woodgate demanded that that man must go into the workhouse or else the relief would be reduced to the mere 17s. in kind which has been given. I give another ease, which I will call that of Mr. B. He has been unemployed since Christmas and receives no unemployment allowance. He has a wife and three children dependent upon him, and all the children are under nine years of age. The relief was 23s. in kind. The Poor Law authorities asked that the man should go into the workhouse and leave his family outside, and when he refused they reduced the relief to 16s. The right hon. Member for Edgbaston has been boasting that outdoor relief has been reduced. Outdoor relief has been reduced by breaking up families—by sending young, able-bodied men into the workhouse and compelling their wives and families to remain outside. Another case is that of Mrs. C. She has a son of 31 who has been unemployed since December, again with no unemployment allowance. The mother is 75 years of age. The total income has been the pension of 10s. she has been receiving. The mother is an invalid and has been cared for by her son. Sir Alfred Woodgate is insisting, even in that case, upon the son going into the workhouse and leaving his invalid mother to live alone on her pension of 10s. a week.
I give the next two oases because I have a clear memory of the people who came to me about them. I will call the woman Mrs. D. She was a girl of about. 24, and she came with her little boy, about two years of age. When she came to see me I thought it must be one of the many rent and eviction cases which come. She was well dressed, she was respectable; her little boy was well cared for and well tended. Her husband had been out of work for 18 months, and again there was no unemployment allowance. She has two children under the age of two years and three months. The

1229
relief has been 17s in kind and 8s. in money. In that case, again, Sir Alfred Woodgate has insisted that her husband shall go into the workhouse. You speak of Socialism breaking up the home. It is Capitalism which is breaking up the home all the time. That woman told me how she pawned little things in order to keep her home together and to keep her husband in her home and away from the workhouse. That case in itself is a sufficient indictment of the régime of Sir Alfred Woodgate to justify the action which has been taken by the Front Bench.
The last case I will give, which I will call the case of Mr. E., is that of a man of 75, with one of those faces of serenity despite terrible hardship which show that an individual must have found some secret bigger and deeper than material things. He was in no way full of the spirit of complaint, but genial and kind. That man has been receiving an old age pension of 10s. Two sons contribute to him 5s. a week between them, although they are working class folk with families. He lives alone. He pays 14s. a week for his board and lodging. The late guardians used to allow him 2s. 6d. a week. The new guardians, with Sir Alfred Woodgate, have stopped this, and the result is that that old man, who has spent 40 or 50 years in the service of this nation, has, after he has paid for his board and lodging, 1s a week with which to meet all his needs. That old man has served the nation just as honourably and just as usefully as any Member in this House.
Those men and those women with whom we are dealing are just as decent, just as full of the spirit of the service of the community, as any right hon. Member on the opposite benches or on our benches, and as any member of our families of whom we are so proud. Those people have as much right to demand that in their old age, in their sickness and in their destitution, for which we as a community are responsible and not they as individuals, the community shall see that they live in a condition of decency, and not endure that state of destitution for which this House of Commons more than any other body in the community is responsible at the present time. Therefore, we ask this House to reject the Prayer which has been uttered from the
1230
opposite bench. We have been accustomed to praying "Give us this day our daily bread." The prayer which is asked for on the opposite benches is "Withhold from the poor their daily bread."
Viscountess ASTOR: Monstrous!
HON. MEMBERS: It is true!
Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I desire to offer to the House a few observations upon some of the speeches which have been uttered, and, if I can, to give at any rate my judgment and opinion—
Mr. W. THORNE: We know it already; you need not tell us.
Sir K. WOOD:—about matters with which I have had some association over a considerable period. I do not desire to offer much comment on the last speech which has been made. When an hon. Gentleman gets up in the House and cites a number of cases, it is obviously impossible to say what are the replies which may be made. I do not know whether Sir Alfred Woodgate has had an opportunity of considering those cases or whether he knew that they were to be raised to-day. I apprehend that if he had known it he would probably have communicated his side of the matter to some Member of the House. I would only say this, and I hope I shall be credited with the same sincerity which I am prepared to give to other hon. Members, that whilst one cannot absolutely agree with every decision which anyone in the capacity of a Poor Law guardian gives in relation to particular cases, certainly in the cases which I had an opportunity of examining when they were the subject of complaint in the last Parliament Sir Alfred Wood-gate generally had at any rate a case that he could make in reply. I want to say this on behalf of an absent man who has not had an opportunity of appearing in his own defence and who has been accused of all sorts of things this afternoon.
Mr. THORNE: You are responsible. You put him there. You have no control over him.
Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say this. It is the only observation I want to make with regard to these cases. I have heard cases like them given again and again in this House, and, on examination,

1231
there has generally been some reply to be made by a man who was previously a public servant in the department with which I was associated and who as far as I know has simply been actuated, in carrying out his duties, by the intention to act honestly and fairly. I think perhaps, when the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) has been a little longer in this House, he may not be so apt to think that all the virtue lies on one side of the House, and, apparently, all the wealth on the other. That is not my experience. When I survey the two front benches, particularly, I am prepared to say that probably there is an equal amount of sincerity and wealth on both sides at the present time.
Miss WILKINSON: You say what is not the truth.
Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to say that there is an equal amount of desire on the two sides to help to abolish the existing system.
Sir K. WOOD: Obviously, on a question of that sort you are entering into a matter of party politics in which there is a legitimate division of opinion. I am talking on the question of sincerity, and I say that when the hon. Gentleman has been a little longer in this House he will be prepared to give to all Members an equal amount of credit in that particular connection. The subject of this Debate has been a very wide one, and I am very glad of it. The action of my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health has been challenged and condemned. Many hon. Gentlemen are at any rate unacquainted with, or at least have forgotten, the facts concerning the appointment of those whom we call the commissioners. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate the point, but it is quite unnecessary, for instance, as far as the appointment of the West Ham Commissioners is concerned, to look very far for a justification of the step which my right hon. Friend took. One has only to recall the statements which were made at that time, not by Conservative Ministers or Members of my own party but by a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians. I refer to a gentleman who is now very well known in this
1232
House and who has recently appeared in this controversy, namely, Councillor Killip.
Mr. THORNE: How many more times are you going to call him in. He is a bit of sugar to you.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is a very old member of the House, and he is setting a very bad example.
Mr. THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman was just as bad in the old Parliament.
Mr. SPEAKER: I can give the hon. Member no preference. If he continues to interrupt, I shall have to ask him to go outside.
Mr. THORNE: I want no preference; I will go outside.
Sir K. WOOD: I am very sorry if I have said anything in any way to wound the feelings of the hon. Gentle-man. I was about to quote a statement made by Mr. Killip who, as a matter of fact, at one time was the political agent of the hon. Gentleman who has just left the House. What did he say? He was Vice-Chairman of the board of guardians for West Ham, and he had been concerned with this administration right the way through. He made some statements which, hon. Members, I think if they will listen to them for a moment, will say fully justify every step that was taken as far as the West Ham Board of Guardians was concerned. He said:
"He must admit that Mr. Ward "—
he was another of the guardians—
"was correct when ho charged Socialists with using the guardians' relief for political and personal ends. He regretted to have to say that the way in which some of his colleagues were canvassing the unemployed had become such a scandal that something should be done to put a stop to it."
He said a few days later, when the matter was again discussed—and I would remind hon. Members that he was concerned with the administration all the way through:
"as to some of the things which have been done in the name of the West Ham Guardians, the least we can do is to be ashamed of them. When you are elected to the guardians, you do not go there to give out relief as though you were giving away handbills. We have been landed in this position "—
he was referring to the action which my right hon. Friend was then contemplating.

1233
"by people who have entirely abused their membership of the board of guardians."
On another occasion, in referring to the whole course of administration in West Ham, he said:
"Poor Law relief is being abused and abused right up to the hilt."
I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to give "fair consideration to this case and who have heard many hard things said in the course of this Debate, that here you have a statement by a man who has been concerned in the administration right the way through, as vice-chairman of the board of guardians, and who is still engaged in public work at West Ham as a man of the borough council. These are his statements, and how in the face of such statements made by a responsible man of that kind, who would certainly be speaking under some difficulty, could you possibly allow those guardians who, as Mr. Killip has said, abused their position right the way through, to be left where they were?
If hon. Members refer to the other three cages, I would ask them to examine the facts on their own account by reading up the Debates in the OFFICIAL REPOET of that time. I suggest to them that they will find equal evidence of the necessity of similar action being taken both at Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street. Let me take the instance of what happened in connection with Bedwellty, which I do not think will really be defended by any hon. Member or, at any rate, by very few hon. Members in any part of the House. This is one of the things which they did. They made a number of appointments and instead of giving them—as I think everybody would desire should be done—to the best men and to the men who showed the greatest fitness for the work, they made certain appointments during a not very long period of administration. They appointed to jobs as receiving officers three brothers, three husbands, two sons and two sons-in-law of guardians, 15 members of the local trades and labour council, one brother of a miners' agent, five trade union officials, one member of the unemployed committee, and three members of a committee of the Miners' Federation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does the Tory party do?"] Whatever other people may do, I am answering the accusations that have been made in this House, and I want to make a reply and give some of the reasons that
1234
actuated my right hon. Friend in the course which he took. It is obvious that, however good certain relations may be, however good the capabilities of certain trade union officials, you could not do anything but condemn the character of appointments of that kind.
Take the case of Chester-le-Street. Who could possibly defend the action which the guardians took there, known under the title of "Please remember the guardians." There the relief was given in a local picture hall, and, as each recipient went out of the hall, they had to pass a table at which sat members of the local unemployment organisation, and every recipient was asked to "remember the local guardians." If you examine the administration of those three boards of guardians, I think any fair-minded man would say that they were given opportunities again and again of carrying out their obligations. Anyone who has to bring forward legislation of that kind must conclude that a Minister would desire to avoid it if possible. I believe that it was the desire and the intention of my right hon. Friend if he could to avoid this kind of legislation. We summoned the Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty Boards of Guardians to the Ministry of Health again and again, and begged them to comply with the conditions laid down by the Minister of Health in connection with the loan which was to be granted. The conditions of the loan were not unreasonable, and, even if the present Minister of Health ever has to issue a loan to the new guardians, he will have to make just the same conditions. I am sure that the Minister of Health would resent the expenditure of money and the granting of loans when the conditions were not being complied with. When those loans were issued, those boards of guardians accepted the conditions when they were at the Ministry of Health, but, as soon as they got away to their own districts, they deliberately broke the conditions of the loan.
A number of extreme statements have been made, and cases have been put forward which it is very difficult to reply to, but, speaking on my own responsibility, I have no hesitation in saying that no other course could have been taken in respect of the three boards of guardians I have mentioned. If, as has

1235
been alleged, it was the intention of the Minister of Health to smash Poor Law administration or local government, he would not have started with three cases. The fact of the matter is that these three cases were a disgrace to local government, and they were ruining the administration of local government in this country. I would like to point out to the House that the Bedwellty, Chester-le-Street and West Ham Boards of Guardians are not the only boards of guardians in the country which are dominated by a Labour majority. There are any number of boards of guardians dominated by a Labour majority, but they never behaved like these three boards of guardians who desired to smash the ordinary Poor Law administration of the country. It is only fair to say that it is to the credit of local government and the Labour majorities on other boards of guardians that they never attempted the course taken by the three boards I have mentioned, and they carried out their undertaking in regard to any loans which they raised.
If it is found necessary to alter Poor Law administration, the proper way to do it is by Parliamentary action. I am very glad to think that these three boards of guardians did not receive the support of other boards up and down the country. Those are some of the reasons why we had to interfere in the way indicated with those three boards of guardians. I say emphatically that any fair judge of the facts in these three cases, who desired to do the right thing by local government, would have come to the same conclusion as we did, and they would not have allowed those three boards to continue their administration. The men who were appointed to take the place of those particular boards of guardians had a very difficult task, because from the very beginning of their administration they were attacked, and the people who had suffered defeat bitterly resented them and looked upon them as a challenge to the district.
Take the position of West Ham, where relief, according to Mr. Killip, had been simply squandered. Suppose anyone went into that district and had to administer relief on reasonable terms and on the same terms as other boards of guardians had been administering relief
1236
in other areas? It was a very difficult job to attempt to do that in those areas. So far as the appointment of these commissioners was concerned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston made them entirely apart from politics, and I do not think anyone knew their politics. Take, for example, Sir Alfred Woodgate. Sir Alfred Woodgate's history, as far as I know it, is well known. He served for many years as a civil servant at the Ministry of Health, where he had a very responsible and onerous post. He was head of the Establishment Branch, and I think that the fact that a man has been head of the Establishment Branch of a great Government Department for a good many years at any rate says something, not only for his capacity, but for his tact, because anyone who has had to deal with a large staff such as that of the Ministry of Health requires, in addition to capability, a good many other qualities. This man, whose name has been so reviled in this House, went down at the instance of my right hon. Friend, and became Chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was his salary?"] An hon. Member, in order again to discredit Sir Alfred Woodgate, asks what his salary was. He went down there in company with two of his colleagues and took up a whole-time job These three men took the place of a large number of ordinary guardians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unpaid!"] I will deal with that in a moment. They took the place of a large number of guardians, and gave the whole of their services to the job. If hon. Members want to compare the cost to the ratepayers of the two systems—I have been led away on to this, but I may as well reply at once—if hon. Members want to compare the cost to the ratepayers respectively of the three appointed guardians and of the old board, and if the cost of elections and matters of that kind be included, it will be found that the cost to the ratepayers of the appointed guardians was £4,000 a year, and the cost to the ratepayers of the old guardians was £2,500: so that I do not think anyone can say that there was anything serious so far as money is concerned.
The point that I want Members of the House to appreciate and to give a fair hearing to, because I am very anxious that they should know the other side of

1237
the matter, is that at any rate these guardians had a very difficult job. They were criticised from the very beginning, and of the results of their administration we have had varying accounts in the House to-day. This, at any rate, cannot be gainsaid, that Sir Alfred Woodgate's greatest contribution to West Ham, and one which cannot be contradicted by his critics, is the fact that he has not been content with simply carrying out the ordinary duties of administering Poor Law relief, but has set an excellent example to other boards of guardians in the country by obtaining work for the people to whom this assistance has been granted. Naturally, living as he has done during the past few years in the atmosphere of suspicion and accusation which surrounded him, he has been very careful indeed with regard to the claims he has made as to obtaining employment for people in the district. The figures contained in this report are not selected figures; it is an unwarranted accusation to suggest that. Sir Alfred Woodgate has gone to great pains so that anyone who desires to do so can verify for themselves the figures showing that these people have, in increasing numbers and in a very large percentage, obtained work in West Ham. Surely no one can quarrel with that. I remember a statement made by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who was very suspicious of these figures in relation to employment. I remember that she stated on one occasion that she was going to spend a considerable time, I think out of her holiday, in going round to see whether employment was actually obtained in these eases or not. I never heard what the result of her inquiries was, but I am sure of this, because I knew Sir Alfred Woodgate at the Ministry of Health, that these figures which he has given in his report can be relied upon, and I think that they set to any board of guardians one of the finest examples of good work that could be put forward in relation to our Poor Law administration in this country.
These Orders to-day would sweep away the appointed guardians in these three areas. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has stated that he is really doing this—he said it again and again in his speech—in the sacred name of democracy. He said that he had
1238
nothing personal against Sir Alfred Woodgate, for instance, but he believed that the Poor Law, so far as possible in the circumstances of this case, should be administered by representatives of the people. He said that he could not have an election, but that he took the next best thing, and went to the various larger authorities and asked them to nominate people who would serve and whom he appointed. It is very necessary that the House should know what really has occurred, especially in connection with West Ham. Let me assure the House that, there has been no case there of the elected representatives of the people, so far as the Borough Council is concerned, exercising a real choice. Mr. Killip said a few days ago, "I knew the names of the four people who were going to be nominated for the new West Ham Guardians a week before the Labour caucus met. I was told the week before, 'You are not one of the men, Killip.' I went to the meeting of the caucus, and there was a ballot, and it was the most extaordinary ballot I over saw, because out of 35 people who-voted, 32 voted for the four who were nominated." Councillor Killip put this question. I am wondering whether it is a proper question. He said, "Was there any secret letter, or were there any secret instructions in relation to these names? "It is a curious thing that these four names did not include a woman—one would have thought a woman would have been a good choice in view of the heart-rending stories we have heard—and equally curious was the fact that they did not include a member of the old West Ham Board of" Guardians. I wonder why that was? Is it because someone thinks the old West-Ham Guardians are not to be trusted? Whatever the reason may be, the fact remains that we are assenting to-night to a rather solemn farce. We are giving up" the appointed guardians, it is true, nominated by my right hon. Friend, but we are assenting to the nomination and appointment of a considerable number of guardians by a secret ballot and caucus, of the Independent Labour party.
Mr. WALLHEAD: There is no branch of the Independent Labour party in West Ham.
Sir K. WOOD: I apologise to the Independent Labour party. It must be the Social Democratic Federation. Is this.

1239
the way the offended spirit of democracy is appeased? Is this the way we are going to return to the constitutionalism which the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to bring forward? In East Ham and West Ham 39 per cent. of the rate-able value is represented by undertakings which have no part or lot or voice in the administration of the ballot at all, and yet, under the guise of this Order, we are asked to replace men who have done their duty, as I believe, to the best of their ability and in the interests of the borough, and in their place to adopt this procedure, which I believe will be condemned in every part of the House.
10.0 p.m.
Miss LAWRENCE: The Debate has dealt with a considerable variety of matters, one of the chief of which is the position of the Minister himself. The constitutional question is of some importance, but the discussion has dealt mainly with the question of administration. We have been asked whether the old guardians were fit and proper persons and whether the new guardians are reasonable persons. I propose to deal with the question of administration first, and then to come on to the less exciting topic of what exactly is the difference between what we propose to do and what the late Minister proposed to do, and our real objection to this method of dealing with Poor Law questions however disgraceful and however wrong the conduct of any local authority may be. Several hon. Members have asked me whether we approve of irregular conduct among guardians. I hasten to say that no one more than my right hon. Friend disapproves of slackness or carelesness of administration. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are no cheers for that"] There is no more enthusiasm than there is for the ABC or the multiplication table. I am stating something which I should have thought did not need stating, and which I should not have stated except for the anxiety of certain persons opposite. I say that my right hon. Friend, and in a humbler degree myself, are the avowed enemies of anything like slackness or mal-administration. It has not escaped notice that the speech of the late Parliamentary Secretary was in the main devoted to the personal character and the eccentricities of the board of guardians
1240
whom the right hon. Gentlemen superseded in 1926 as a merely temporary measure. This is all related to the alleged conduct of certain persons in 1926. I think the right hon. Gentleman was in error when he said that in the case of West Ham none of the old guardians had secured nomination on the new Board. I believe there is one, and only one.
This Motion deals with three cases which are quite different. In the case of Chester-le-Street, I am glad to say the acute distress has passed away, owing to the fact that some of the pits have reopened. There is no comparison between the state of distress and the amount of relief required and the state of affairs in 1926. The men are at work, and there is enough money to give to Their elderly relatives. I will not say it has made Chester-le-Street rich, but it has taken away the extreme poverty that existed then. Bedwellty is not so fortunate. In Bedwellty the distress is acute; the distress is strong. The board of guardians in the Bedwellty Union in their report do not pretend that they have been able, by any sort of administration, to relieve distress. They say in their last report that the district is so poor that the guardians cannot collect their rates, that the arrears have increased during the year of which they speak by £4,000. They say that it is impossible to pay off any of the loans. The district is in a state of such miserable poverty that the guardians cannot even collect the rates they levy, [Interruption.] I am pointing out that in Bedwellty we have a district which is entirely different from that of Chester-le-Street. As the book of Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb was quoted with approbation, I will quote again what was said as the result of the investigations:
"Destitution has continued to exist there which the appointed guardians do not relieve, if by destitution is to be understood what it has been officially held to mean, an inadequacy of toed, clothing or other necessaries."
And it was the visit of the Secretary of the Mining Federation with a Poor Law inspector and his published report of the condition of Bedwellty and the district around which led to the Lord Mayor's Fund—which led to the Lord Mayors of London and other places, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the Heir to the Throne issuing their appeal. There

1241
is no mistake at all about the misery in Bedwellty. Here, again, I am not so much inclined to blame these three appointed guardians. They have not the money. They are not by any means so violently unpopular as the present guardians of West Ham. What good did the right hon. Gentleman do to Bedwellty by taking away the elected guardians and putting those people there? That is one of the plague spots of the world; one of the distressed districts, where there, is no money for anybody, and where the poor are starving. That is the case, and no one can deny it.
I come to the West Ham Union. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) how inquiries were carried out by himself, by the medical officer of health, by the town council and by ministers of religion with regard to the condition of people there. He has repeated to the House, what is common knowledge to anyone in that district, what the town council, the medical officer of health, the ministers of religion and the hon. Member who is, as the House knows, a sober and careful man, a man whose word can be depended upon, say that the condition of the poor there is very painful and distressing. I do not know West Ham or Leyton or Walthamstow intimately, but I do know with painful thoroughness East Ham North, my own constituency.
The late Parliamentary Secretary asked if I spent my holidays investigating. I did. I investigated the homes of the sick. I got the case papers. The House, I hope, will believe mc when I say that I have never done more honest work or shown a more honest desire to arrive at a conclusion than I did in visiting, cross-examining, and taking down particulars of cases in East Ham. I brought such cases as I could to the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) asked for proof. You cannot take cases across the Floor of the House. I would ask the House to believe me when I say that—using the best industry and intelligence at my disposal for three years—I am convinced that the old and the sick particularly have suffered unnecessarily, and even cruelly, under the administration in West Ham. The children are looked after at the schools. The children are not as
1242
well looked after at they should be, but it is the old and the sick and the hopelessly infirm that are suffering, and suffering unnecessarily to-day.
With regard to the unemployed, I must ask the House—and this is a bit of a joke—what it is that Sir Alfred Wood-gate has said in this Report? On page 8 they say that they conducted investigations during one week among the people who during that week had ceased to apply for relief, and they found that the great bulk of the people who had ceased to apply for relief had either got a job or unemployment benefit. Hon. Members know that in numerous cases people cease to apply for relief because they have a job or have other resources such as unemployment pay. A little later on in the Report we have some figures. I will give the figures at the end of the table in order to show how much is due to unemployment for the period 1st May, 1928, to 30th October, 1928: Number of cases on outdoor relief, 5,747; number of cases where employers' addresses are noted, 439; number of cases off relief on account of having found work, employer not known, 182; 621 cases out of 5,747 have found work, and a further 260 have got unemployment benefit. They give the same sort of thing from 31st October, 1928, to 31st May, 1929–4,523 off relief; those who have found work, 503. That is not a very gratifying success in dealing with unemployment. These are the figures which are given by Sir Alfred Woodgate.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Lady assume that the figures which are given are those who have actually found work out of 6,000?
Miss LAWRENCE: The figures are the only ground for the claim of the guardians appointed by the late Minister that they have found work. Over and over again in the earlier report it has been said that they have found work. I have said, "Prove it!" We have the figures, and the figures show that from about 10 to 11 per cent. are known to have found work. They do not know what has happened to the others.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Were these figures not 60 or 80 per cent. of those whose cases were investigated?
Mr. J. JONES: Is it not a fact that where men have been thrown oa relief from boards of guardians the local authorities and councils have found employment on road works for them because they object to their being treated in the way in which they had been treated?
Miss LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman asked for particulars of the investigation; these are two different things. The question was what had happened to people who had ceased to ask for relief, and the bulk of these people have either got work or unemployment pay. This is a list of the people struck off, which is a different thing. Of the people struck off something like 10 or 11 per cent. are known to have found work. These are the only figures there are on which to base a claim. I am on the other side of the Table now. There are no other figures in the Ministry. These are the only figures we have, unless the right hon. Gentleman has conducted a private investigation.
The late Parliamentary Secretary said that the old guardians of Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty were thoroughly unsatisfactory. Let us suppose that they were, What did he propose to do I He proposed to hand over the Poor Law there to the county councils. What we propose is to hand over the responsibilities of the Poor Law to the very same county councils to which they would have been referred if the Conservative Government had remained in office until next April. That is as near as we can get to putting the right hon. Gentleman's own Act into operation. We are advancing it by eight months. The people who will be appointed are the people who would have been appointed under the Act as the local Public Assistance Committee to administer the work of the Poor Law. There are not two pins of difference so far as Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty are concerned, between what we do now and what would have been done if the right hon. Gentleman had remained in office until the 1st of April next. I do not know what all the trouble is about in regard to these two cases. There is no difference in principle between the proposal of the late Minister of Health to
1244
hand the Poor Law over to the county councils in these two cases next April, and what we are doing in the coming August. That is the whole business so far as Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty are concerned.
I come to West Ham. What is the difference between what we propose and what the late Minister of Health proposed? He proposed to cut up the West Ham Union as from next April and to take away the richer portions of it, Wanstead, Woodford, Walthamstow and Leyton and to put them under the Essex County Council, while East Ham and West Ham were to remain under the appointed guardians until 1935. That would have meant that until 1935 there could be no proper break-up of the Poor Law in East Ham and West Ham. There could be no sharing of the institutions among the local councils, who would not then have got their powers under the Local Government Act. It would have meant something against which, without distinction of party, everyone in East Ham has protested, namely, that East Ham would have been left to pay a large tribute every year for the poor of West Ham. If they are separate. West Ham, standing alone, will quality for a larger grant under the Local Government Act, but if they are put together East Ham will have to pay to West Ham, out of its high rates, a sum which the Treasury otherwise would have to pay. That is a policy against which the people in East Ham have protested. The Conservative members of the town council and the members of the Ratepayers' Association were even more bitter than the Labour party against the suggestion that their borough was to be left the tributory borough to West Ham for five years. Our proposal is that as from 1931 Waltham-stow, Leyton, Woodford and Wanstead will go to the Essex County Council, while East Ham and West Ham, as separate county boroughs, will fall under the scheme of the Local Government Act. We are not abolishing the Local Government Act. We are putting it into force, whereas the late Minister desires to postpone its operations until 1935. He ought to welcome us with open arms as the only true devotees of his Local Government Act. The father of his own child wishes to put it away for five years, while we, the Labour party, are putting the right

1245
hon. Gentleman's Act into force, every letter and every bit of it, by 1930 instead of 1935.
Mr. SMITHERS: Why did you vote against it?
Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member asked me why I do not like the Local Government Act. I have spoken a great many columns of the OFFICIAL EKPOET against it, and I cannot repeat those columns to-night. If I did so, we should have to sit until one o'clock, or later. I am willing to do it, if the House wishes to sit up. There is a great deal of misstatement about the way in which the new guardians will be elected. According, roughly to the basis of population West Ham has four members, East Ham and Leyton two each and Woodford and Wanstead one each. All these councils have Labour majorities except two which send two Conservative members to the board of guardians. West Ham, which is overwhelmingly Labour, sends four, and the other borough where the representation is more or less equally divided sends one and one, so that there are seven Labour members and five for the other side. I cannot imagine that any body of people could have played the game better than these councils. Members opposite cannot expect that if we are in a majority we should have a minority of members. I put it to hon. Members opposite that under no circumstances would they give us a majority in this House or anywhere else on a Committee if we were in a minority. I think these local authorities have really showed their desire to play the game by dividing the representation so nearly equal between the two parties. They have shown their desire to have a clean slate, to begin all over again. They have made an entirely fresh start, and they have chosen from among their members people representing both sides but, with one exception, not one member of the old board of guardians has been elected.
Before I deal with the question of policy may I say just two words in reply to the hon. Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor). Theology tells us that you may go to Heaven on account of invincible ignorance. That is the case of the Noble Lady. She is like a child; and she flings accusations about just like a child. She repeats words she hears and uses them
1246
without knowing what she is saying and without any real reflection. That is what she was doing when she charged these people with corruption. She said they had been guilty of corruption and asked what the right hon. Gentleman would have done if he were face to face with a board of guardians guilty of corruption. I will tell the Noble Lady what the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have done, or any Minister of Health worthy of the name. He would not have superseded corrupt guardians; he would not have surcharged them. He would have done precisely what was done in the old scandals of 1906. He would have prosecuted them and sent them to prison. There was corruption in 1906 in connection with the West Ham, Stepney and Poplar Sick Asylum, and I am not sure whether Hampstead and Hammersmith were not involved. There was pure corruption, and many sorry rogues spent many sorry months in gaol. That is what is done where corruption is proved. If every word of the late Parliamentary Secretary was accurate they would have been guilty of negligence or carelessness but nothing in the nature of corruption.
Viscountess ASTOR: What do you call corruption?
Miss LAWRENCE: Corruption is mentioned in several Statutes. People guilty of corruption could be sent, are sent, and would be sent by this Ministry or any other Ministry to prison.
Now I come to the serious constitutional business. The late Minister of Health took to himself power to appoint three persons or any number that he liked as guardians. He fixed their salaries, and he could appoint them for a given time. That is to say, these persons were entirely dependent on the Minister for their appointment, for the emoluments that they took and for the extent of their appointment. For the acts of these persons he was not accountable to Parliament, When the Minister made the appointments he could not be called to account in this House for their actions. I will prove that statement by giving the answers to one or two questions that were put to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked a question about a well-known case, that of a partially blind and deaf man who sold flowers in the

1247
streets and was allowed 5s. a week by the guardians. I asked the Minister whether he would take any steps, and he replied:
"I am debarred by Statute from interfering in any individual case, but I will make inquiries."
The Minister could not be held responsible because of the limitations of the Statute. The right hon. Gentleman was also asked whether he approved of the pensions of soldiers' orphans being counted as income so as to be available for the support of their stepfather and other relations? He replied that he had no authority to issue such instructions to the guardians. Another question was asked about the income of War orphans, and again the Minister replied, "I have no power to take such steps as are suggested." In a whole field of matters the appointed guardians are not under the authority of Parliament or the Minister. So we have the phenomenon in the constitution of persons entirely dependent on the executive for salary and authority with regard to whom the Minister was wholly irresponsible.
Mr. SKELTON: Is not that the case with a large number of public servants, such as judges?
Miss LAWRENCE: Judges are not the servants of the Executive. There is no stronger principle in the constitution than that the judges should be separated from the executive. If any judge was appointed by the Minister of Health to office at his will, the case would be different.
Mr. SKELTON: I do not want to interrupt, but the Parliamentary Secretary is introducing an extremely interesting argument. Surely her point is that the Minister has no control over the appointed guardians. That was the analogy between their position and that of the judges.
Miss LAWRENCE: If I can appoint first and fix a man's salary, and tell him to go at the end of six months, I do not want any more control over him. The Minister had control and if these persons had acted grossly against his policy they would have been dismissed. They were his servants. My point is that Parliament had no power.
Mr. SKELTON: Surely Parliament had the ordinary power of censuring the Minister.
Mr. THORNE: Is it not the fact that the three men in question had to be reappointed every three months?
Miss LAWRENCE: The point is that Parliament has no control over guardians with regard to certain matters. The Minister appointed these people and, as he had full control over their salaries and prospects and length of service, they were at his disposal but Parliament could not call the Minister to account for certain of their actions, and the ex-Minister when certain matters were raised disclaimed them. We could not move to take £100 oft the ex-Minister's salary because this poor blind person did not get relief and the ex-Minister said so distinctly, and perfectly correctly, in the House. I know it will be said that there are precedents. The ex-Minister tried to cover himself with the name of Mr. Gladstone by pointing out that the great Act of 1870 allowed of the supersession of a school board and the appointment by the Minister of substitutes. But Mr. Gladstone was uncommonly tender of the rights of the Constitution, and in that case, the Minister had to certify the expenses of the displaced school board which brought them under full Parliamentary control. So, in this later Acts—the Public Health Act of 1875 and other Acts—the power is contained to place the Minister, that is Parliament, in the place of local authorities, but there is not a single Act which allows the Minister to have at his disposal persons for whom he cannot answer to Parliament.
Members may think that we are too jealous on the Constitutional point, but it would be a real danger if such a class of persons were allowed to grow up, particularly in local government. The great beauty of the English local government system is the independence of local authorities. You can see abroad the degradation of local government by these quasi executive ambiguous officers like burgo-meisters and prefets, persons clothed with the authority of the executive and charged from headquarters to keep the local authorities in their places. We say that whatever may have been wrong, the remedy put forward by this Act was the wrong remedy. It might be necessary to

1249
get rid of a bad board of guardians but if the guardians had to go, then Parliament itself ought to retain full control over every action of the Minister. That is the Constitutional point and on that point we have made a gesture. If these people were the best administrators in the world I think we would still have made that gesture. We do not desire that there should grow up in this country what has not been known since the seventeenth century—a class of persons dependent on the Executive and with regard to whom Parliament has not full control.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Lady explain how she has met that constitutional point in the change which is proposed to be made by these Orders?
Miss LAWRENCE: Unless some Order of this kind was made, there could be no' board of guardians, we could not have an election without legislation, and we could not allow all poor relief to lapse, so we made what I call a gesture and handed over in effect the nomination of these persons to the elected authorities, who will deal with them now.
Question put,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Orders, dated 27th June, 1929, entitled (1) the Bedwellty Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1929; (2) the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1929; and (3) the West Ham Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1929, be annulled."
The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 284.

Division No. 5.]

AYES.

[10.36 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

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

Fielden, E. B.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Flson, F. G. Clavering

Muirhead, J. A.

Astor, Viscountess

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

Atkinson, C.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Balniel, Lord)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

O'Neill, Sir H.

Beaumont, M. W.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Peake, Captain Osbert

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gower, Sir Robert

Ramsbotham, H.

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Grace, John

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Remer, John R.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Boyce, H. L.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bracken, B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Salmon, Major I.

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

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

Savery, S. S.

Butler, R. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Hills, Major John Waller

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

Castlestewart, Earl of

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Skelton, A. N.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

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

Hurd, Percy A.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Smithers, Waldron

Chamberlain, Ht. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Chapman, Sir S.

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

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Christie, J. A.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Thomson, Sir F.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Train, J.

Colman, N. C. D.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Colville, Major D. J.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

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

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Long, Major Erie

Wayland, Sir William A.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lymington, Viscount

Wells, Sydney R.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

Withers, Sir John James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Womersley, W. J.

Dairymple-White, Lt,-Col. Sir Godfrey

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

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

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Dixey, A. C.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Mond, Hon. Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Moore, Sir Newton J, (Richmond)

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

NOES.

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

Gould, F.

Melville, J. B.

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

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

Messer, Fred

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Granville, E.

Middleton, G.

Alpass, J. H.

Gray, Milner

Millar, J. D.

Ammon, Charles George

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Montague, Frederick

Angell, Norman

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Arnott, John

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

Morley, Ralph

Aske, Sir Robert

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Attlee, Clement Richard

Groves, Thomas E.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Ayles, Walter

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morrison. Robert C, (Tottenham, N.)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mort, D. L.

Baker, Walter (Bristol, E.)

Hail, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Moses, J. J. H.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stake-on-Trent)

Barr, James

Hardie, George D.

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Batey, Joseph

Harris, Percy A.

Muff, G.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Murnin, Hugh

Bellamy, Albert

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nathan, Major H. I.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Haycock, A. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hayday, Arthur

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

Benton, G.

Hayes, John Henry

Noel Baker, P. J.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Oldfield, J. R.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Birkett, W. Norman

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Blindell, James

Herriotts, J.

Paling, Wilfrid

Bowen, J. W.

Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)

Palmer, E. T.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hoffman, P. C.

Perry, S. F.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hollins, A.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hopkin, Daniel

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Bromfield, William

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Bromley, J.

Horrabin, J. F.

Picton-Turberville, E.

Brooke, W.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Pole, Major D. G.

Brothers, M.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Ponsonby, Arthur

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Isaacs, George

Potts, John S.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Quibell, D. F. K.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Buchanan, G.

Johnston, Thomas

Rathbone, Eleanor

Burgess, F. G.

Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

Raynes, W. R.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

Richardson, R, (Houghton-on-Spring)

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

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Romeril, H. G.

Cameron, A. G.

Jowett, Ht. Hon. F. W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Kelly, W. T.

Howson, Guy

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, Thomas

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Chater, Daniel

Kinley, J.

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Church, Major A. G.

Knight, Holford

Sanders. W. S.

Clarke, J. S.

Lang, Gordon

Sandham, E.

Cilmle, R.

Lanebury, Rt. Hon. George

Sawyer, G. F.

Cluse, W. S.

Lathan, G.

Scrymgeour, E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Scurr, John

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lawrence, Susan

Sexton, James

Compton, Joseph

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Cove, William G.

Lawson, John James

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Cowan. D. M.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Shepherd. Arthur Lewis

Daggar, George

Leach, W.

Sherwood, G. H.

Dallas, George

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Shield, George William

Dalton, Hugh

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lees, J.

Shillaker, J. F.

Day, Harry

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shinwell, E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Dickson, T.

Longbottom, A. W.

Simmons, C. J.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Longden, F.

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Duncan, Charles

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Sinkinson, George

Ede, James Chuter

Lowth, Thomas

Sitch, Charles H.

Edge, Sir William

Lunn, William

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Edmunds, J. E.

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

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keichley)

Egan, W. H.

McElwee, A.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Elmley, Viscount

McEntee, V. L.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

McKinlay, A.

Smith, W. N. (Norwich)

Foot, Isaac

MacLaren, Andrew

Snell, Harry

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Freeman, Peter

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Snowden, Thomas Accrington)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

McShane, John James

Sorensen, R.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Spero, Dr. G. E.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Stephen, Campbell

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Mansfield, W.

Stewart, J. (St-Rollox)

Gibbins, Joseph

March, S.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)

Marcus, M.

Strauss. G. R.

Gill, T. H.

Markham, S. F.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Gillett, George M.

Marley, J.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Glassey, A. E.

Mathers, George

Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Gossling, A. G.

Matters, L. W.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

1252

1253

Thurtle, Ernest

Watkins, F. C.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Tillett, Ben

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Toole, Joseph

Watts-Morgan, U.-Co). D. (Rhondda)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Tout, W. J.

Wellock, Wilfred

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Townend, A. E.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Wise, E. F.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

West, F. R.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Turner, B.

Westwood, Joseph

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Vaughan, D. J.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Viant, S. P.

Whiteley, wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Walkden, A. G.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Walker, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.

Wallace, H. W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Barnes.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PROSECUTION, BARNSLEY.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kennedy.]
Mr. BIRKETT: I do not desire to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I do wish to take this opportunity, the first I have had, of raising a matter which I conceive to be of considerable public importance, and upon which, I happen to know, the public mind has been rather widely exercised. I have intimated to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department the nature of the matter I purpose to raise, and the extent of the information which I have at ray command. Perhaps he will allow he to congratulate him upon the position he now occupies and to wish for him a happy, a useful and a successful term of office, and I hope it may not be thought out of place if I suggest that he should inaugurate that happy and useful term by doing what I want him to do. The matter I desire to raise has to do with a prosecution which was instituted at the Barnsley Petty Sessions and was heard and determined on 7th June. I mention it in that form at present, because I want to make two observations of a prefatory nature in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
I want to say that I desire to deal with this matter with all restraint, as, indeed, it is incumbent upon me to do, owing to the fact that I am not in possession of all the facts of the case. I have no original documents, the depositions in the case, or the notes of the learned clerk to the justices, and my purpose in any observation I make is in no sense to pass any final judgment In this matter but, rather, to ask whether
1254
it be possible for the Home Office to take action which would result in that fuller and authentic information being forthcoming which would permit a final and dispassionate judgment to be made. The second observation I would like to make before I deal with the facts is this—that I would like to tell my hon. and learned Friend that I have well in mind the position of the Home Office in this matter, and—though no doubt he will do it—it is scarcely necessary to remind me of the distinction between the powers of the executive and the powers of the judiciary. If I may say so, I think it would be a lamentable thing if the powers of the executive were extended in that sphere at all. Therefore, I am very careful to say with regard to this matter that the request I make is not that judgment should be passed here and now, but that the Home Secretary might think it right to make an inquiry into this matter, as he has the undoubted right to do. If any question arises about that, I will say a word upon it in a moment.
I have in my possession facts which are undeniable and which certainly warrant the question being raised in this form at this time and in this place, and I will try to state them quite shortly without bias or passion. As I understand it the ease for the prosecution was that a boy named Wilfrid Carpenter, of the age of 13 years, on polling day in the recent election at Barnsley, was minded to wear political colours. They happened to be the Liberal colours, but I trust that whatever colours they had been I should have raised this matter had I had an opportunity in this House. Two men, one named Hirst and the other named Bradder pursued this boy, and Bradder caught him and held him until the other man arrived. They then desired the boy to discard his colours, which he refused to do. Thereupon Hirst, it is alleged, twisted his arm with such force that the bone was wrenched at the elbow. One

1255
report says it was wrenched off at the elbow, but the case for the prosecution was that the X-ray photograph produced in evidence showed that the arm was, in fact, broken, and the medical man who was called as a witness for the prosecution, in answer to the specific question, said that the force necessary to produce that result was brutal force. As I understand it, that was the case for the prosecution. I think I should be entitled to say this, that everybody who hears that record would agree that in temperate language one might describe that assault as unprovoked, unjustifiable, brutal and cowardly.
I would like to say a word about the defence. If I may interpolate a word here, as one not unaccustomed to presenting defences, good, bad and indifferent—or perhaps it would be better to say presenting defences which do not always meet with that measure of approval one would wish from the tribunal to which they are submitted—I look upon all defences with an extremely benevolent if somewhat critical eye. The defence raised here would appear to be no defence at all. It did not even purport to be a defence. Hirst said in evidence that it was the boy's own fault because he twisted. He denied that the boy screamed with pain, and he said that he did not believe that the boy had been hurt at all. According to my information that was the only defence. I think I am justified in saying that it was no defence at all and it did not purport to be a defence, in fact it was not even a mitigation but a savage justification. There we have the facts with regard to the prosecution and the alleged offence. The punishment was that Hirst was fined two pounds including costs and Bradder was fined one pound including costs. Those are the bare facts as I know them. I should not be treating this House with the frankness I should desire to treat it if I did not say that those facts which I have just outlined have occasioned a great amount of disquiet in the public mind, and there can be no possible question about that. I want to add this not from any desire to add it but I think I ought to do so lest it may be said I had concealed a fact of very considerable importance—that much of the disquiet arises from the fact that the political complexion of the bench was the same as the political complexion of
1256
the defendants. I do not desire to raise the matter in that way.
Mr. SPEAKER: It would be out of order to criticise the bench, except by a Motion put down specially for that purpose.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that your predecessor in the Chair, when a question of this kind was being raised on a former occasion, ruled that it could only be raised by a direct Motion censuring the bench. I want to ask in view of past Rulings in regard to cases of this kind if it has not always been the custom and practice of this House before criticising a bench of magistrates to proceed by a Motion censuring the judges or the justices trying the case.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is very true. The only way in which this House can bring criticism to bear upon justices, or judges, or the bench in general is by a substantive Motion put on the Order Paper for that purpose. I do not understand that this Motion is of that nature at all. I do not think it is. With regard to this Motion, I have looked up all the rulings on it and I think the ruling I have just given as regards criticism of justices is the right one.
Mr. BIRKETT: I desire to keep within the four corners of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I had considered with the greatest possible care how this question could be raised without offending against the Rules of Order and what is equally important without offending the susceptibilities of any hon. Member of this House. I only mentioned the last matter lest it might be said that a most material factor had been omitted and that I had misled the House. That was the only reason why I raised it. I have passed, at any rate, what may be regarded as the danger point in regard to your ruling. Let me say, upon these facts, why I conceive it to be a matter of importance to all parties in this House that this question should be raised in this form. I should have thought it was elementary that—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
Mr. BIRKETT: I was about to say, and I trust that I shall carry the House with me in a few moments, that there are two matters which I think make this question extremely important to all parties in the House. The first is this: It is, of course, in the last resort, upon an instructed public opinion that the true administration of justice and of the law depends. While I expressly disavow any desire at this time to pass judgment, it is of the utmost importance, if there be facts in connection with this matter which ought to be known, that they should be known. I do not say that the facts which I have presented are the full and final facts, and I am really here to ask if this is not a case in which, on the facts I have raised, the hon. Gentle-man ought to ask for fuller information. There can be no doubt that he has the power, and he does not need to be reminded by me of the authorities that would support him in that behalf. Harrison's case is an authority for the fact that the Home Secretary has full power in any case in which he cares to make inquiry with regard to the proceedings of justices, either on the bench or outside, I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the facts which I have raised are of sufficient importance for him to undertake a further inquiry to ascertain what the true facts are. It may be, and doubtless it would be, the case that the fuller inquiry would reveal that the facts which I have stated are quite partial, that they do not represent anything like what the true facts of the case may be.
If I am right in the point which I have made, namely, that there is some public disquiet, I do suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is highly desirable that that dissatisfaction, if any exist, should be delayed. That is the only point that I want to make to-night. I know that some hon. Gentlemen may think that I am raising this matter for some peculiar party purpose—[Interruption.] In order to disavow that, I would ask this question: What earthly purpose of advantage to this party could possibly be served by raising this matter in this form? There is none. I
1258
disavowed it, but added the proviso that I recognised that my disavowal would probably meet with some doubt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me again reaffirm it, and let me say that there can be nothing more important to all parties than that it should be made clear, if it be doubted in the public mind, that, with regard to political opinions held by anybody, whatever they may be, their open and frank avowal ought to meet with no disability whatever. That battle, I trust, has been won, and the price of the maintenance of that liberty which has been gained, as of every liberty, is eternal vigilance. Therefore, while I do not desire to magnify the matter, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to do this. Will he not have the depositions of the learned clerk to the Justices, or the notes if there are no depositions. Will he not send for the medical evidence that was given, and if he thinks the facts I have brought to his notice are amplified and developed by the official information, will he consider whether or not it is his duty to send it to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration?
Mr. POTTS: I do not want to discuss this case in the House at all. There is the hon. and learned Gentleman on one side and I represent the division on the other side. Neither I nor the hon. and learned Gentleman was present and saw what happened. If the House believes there ought to be an inquiry, I support it, not here but on the spot. I have a report of what happened and I have kept it to myself. I am not going to use it in the House. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge to be not only that of injuring the boy but a charge against the magistrate.
Mr. SPEAKER: Had the hon. and learned Member made any criticism of the action of the justices I should have called him to order. What I did was to warn him against doing so.
Mr. POTTS: I took it as a reflection and I thought I was in justice bound to retort. I allow the matter to rest there. I agree that there ought to be an inquiry and I do not believe in sending the evidence to London at all. Let the inquiry take place where the people are and let power be given to send for them. I have evidence and I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on one

1259
point, but I leave it till the inquiry takes place. He may have his evidence, but I am not divulging what I have been told. Let us have the inquiry in the town itself, where the witnesses can be cross-examined.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I think it desirable that in all cases affecting the judiciary we should approach the matter with some measure of calmness and free from passion. I think the House is to be congratulated that the presentation of the case has fallen into the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett). He has discharged a very difficult task with some skill and effect. While I do not complain that he has thought fit to take advantage of the procedure of the House to raise this matter, such incidents, fortunately, are rare in our election contests. Our political fights are carried on with good conduct and good sense.
Miss LEE: And victimisation afterwards.
Mr. SHORT: In all parts of the House we appreciate and value political freedom, and I take it that we are all equally anxious to guard that freedom. The facts in this case are not in dispute. I am, of course, familiar with the case of Harrison v. Bush referred to by the hon. and learned Member. If I may say so, with all deference, that case is not germane, and I do not think that it strengthens his demand for the inquiry for which he is asking. The facts in that case were in dispute and the Home Secretary, at that time possessing machinery for an inquiry, was prepared to make possible such inquiry. In this case the facts are not in dispute and consequently, in the judgment of my right hon. Friend, the case will not lend itself to the treatment which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
Some reference has been made to punishment, and I shall certainly be very guarded in any statement I make upon that issue. We have no complaint to-night respecting the severity of the sentence. Consequently, there is no call for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. [Laughter.] Well, perhaps hon. Members will see my purpose in mentioning
1260
that aspect of the matter when I come to deal with another point.
On the question of leniency, let me add that for a long time past it has been the practice of all Home Secretaries to refuse to address admonitions on the subject of leniency whether to a particular bench or to benches of magistrates in general. It would be a very grave mistake on the part of my right hon. Friend to attempt to interfere with, or to bring anything in the nature of pressure upon, a particular bench or benches of magistrates, so far as the carrying out of their duties are concerned. There appears to be some little misunderstanding respecting the powers of my right hon. Friend in connection with these matters. I therefore venture, for the benefit of those who are not perhaps so familiar as are some of us with these powers, to explain what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some of us have been long enough here to learn a great deal about those powers and to discover what they are. They are clearly set out in a short paragraph in a very admirable book by Sir Edward Troup, of the Home Office, in which he says:
"The Home Secretary has no power, except in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, to interfere with any judicial decision or sentence. He cannot reverse an acquittal or a dismissal of n case, nor can ha increase the severity of any sentence. All appeals to him on these points, whatever their merits, have to he rejected as beyond his powers."
I do not propose, nor do I think the House would desire me, to express any opinion upon the merits or the demerits of this case, but I am prepared to say this, and I trust that my hon. and learned Friend and the House will be satisfied with what I am about to say, namely, that while my right hon. Friend does not think that this is a case which lends itself to the inquiry which has been suggested in the Debate to-night, he is prepared to see that what has been said to-night is brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor. I trust that that statemen will meet the wishes of my hon. and learned Friend, and satisfy the House.
Mr. CHURCHILL: This is one of those acutely moving personal questions in regard to which the whole House has opinions irrespective of party. We are all on the same side on the main issues of this case. We all wish to respect in every way the inviolability of the judiciary

1261
from partisan comment of any kind in the House. We all wish to safeguard in every way the full freedom of the expression of political opinion at election times, and we all wish to stigmatise, as it should be stigmatised, brutal action and cruelty perpetrated by the strong upon the weak and the young. These matters are common ground between all parties, and I am glad that the representative of the Government on this occasion has said that he cannot let this matter rest where it is now; clearly he cannot do so. This matter has to be fought out. I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the bench of magistrates in question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I do not intend to introduce his name, but I will if hon. Members desire it. Otherwise, I do not intend to mention it, because I think it would not be appropriate. I think it is due to him as much as to any of the other parties concerned, that the matter should be probed. We must trust the Government in that matter. We trust to them to act in a loyal spirit and to make sure that the House is satisfied, clearly satisfied, that justice has not been denied, and that all has been conducted in a proper manner. The hon. Member says that the papers will be referred to the Lord Chancellor. I think that may be very right as the first step, and very prudent as the first step, but only as the first step. We shall require to know everything. There is no hurry about the matter. Justice moves slowly and remorselessly upon its path, but it reaches its goal eventually. It is right that the matter should be referred to the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) has made a speech with which I entirely agree. He said that the matter should be inquired into on the spot. We are not going as far as that. That is not the demand. The demand is that the depositions, the evidence and the notes in the case, shall be brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor as the highest judicial authority in the country. With that for the moment we are content. We shall not take it further, but when these matters have been so presented and the Lord Chancellor has considered them, we shall require the facts to be fully laid before the House, together with the opinion of the Lord Chancellor upon them.
Mr. BROMLEY: I have been very much touched by the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in their desire to prevent brutal attacks by the strong upon the weak. I also sympathise with them in their desire to raise a question of such brutality arising out of the heat of political conflict, but I also recognise the strict purity of their motives. Everyone with a good heart would sympathise with them in their endeavour to stop, even in the height of political conflict, the brutality of the strong upon the weak. The Under-Secretary in his researches into this matter might take notice of a similar case which happened at Barrow —in-Furness. A woman physically weaker than her husband let it be known that she had voted for the Labour candidate and against the Tory candidate, and her husband promptly and brutally assaulted her and she was turned out of her home. That was a brutal attack of the strong upon the weak for expressing what the law of this country has given her a perfect right to express—her political opinions as an individual. Unfortunately there was no protection at law for this woman unless she proceeded against her own husband, and possibly destroyed the family life. [Interruption.] I rather expected to find that the purity motive was not quite so deep, and I am rather reinforced in that opinion by the interruption from the Liberal Benches.
Mr. FOOT: A boy of 13!
Mr. BROMLEY: If hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, in their desire to make up for the smallness of their numbers, would not be quite so vociferous in their interruptions, we should get on much better. But while we are dealing with political brutality, it seems to me that, if the House is going to inquire into one case, it might as well inquire into other cases. In the case I have mentioned a few working women met this man who had assaulted his wife and expressed their opinion of him in public. They were proceeded against in the court and mulcted in costs.
HON. MEMBERS: What was the charge?
Mr. BROMLEY: The charge was one of intimidating this very gallant fellow

1263
who had struck his wife for voting against the worn-out opinions which he happened to hold. I take it from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the political colour of the bench cannot be referred to, and I have no desire to trespass upon that ruling. But I join with the hon. Member who raised this matter and with the last speaker in the desire for any inquiry and the taking of any steps within the bounds of reason to prevent these brutal happenings. I only mention this case so that sight may not be lost of the fact that there are faults on all sides, and that it is our duty not to make political capital out of them, but to protect the weak against the strong irrespective of the colour of their label.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only rise to express my gratification, and that of my hon. Friends, at the answer which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs. He has acted in a way which is in accordance with the traditions of the great Department which he represents in this House. This matter has been the subject of judicial investigation and I assure the hon. Member for
1264
Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) that if he had brought forward a case of the same kind of an assault upon a poor woman who voted Labour, it would have had exactly the same support from hon. Members here. He is quite inaccurate in suggesting that there was any laughter from the benches here when reference was made to that brutal assault. We are here dealing with a judicial matter where the facts are not in dispute and the Under-Secretary has acted in a way which is exceedingly gratifying, not merely to hon. Members here, but to all who desire that our Elections should be conducted in a manner in which brutality and violence shall not overcome judgment.
Mr. LEES: May I suggest that if inquiry is to be made into cases of cruelty, the Lord Chancellor should also make inquiry into cases where men who dared to express opinions and to vote Labour are turned out of their employment?
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
  TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  CARBONISATION PLANT.
  CARBONISATION PLANT.
  IBSTOCK COLLIERIES (ABANDONMENT).
  IBSTOCK COLLIERIES (ABANDONMENT).
  PIT CAGES, RADSTOCK.
  PIT CAGES, RADSTOCK.
  LOW-TEMPERATUEE CARBONISATION.
  LOW-TEMPERATUEE CARBONISATION.
  IRONSTONE MINES, CLEVELAND (ACCIDENTS).
  IRONSTONE MINES, CLEVELAND (ACCIDENTS).
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE.
  NON-INSURABLE WORK.
  NON-INSURABLE WORK.
  CASUAL BAILIEFS.
  CASUAL BAILIEFS.
  SMALLHOLDERS AND SMALL TRADERS.
  SMALLHOLDERS AND SMALL TRADERS.
  DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES.
  DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES.
  ADOPTED CHILDREN.
  ADOPTED CHILDREN.
  CARD STAMPING, DISLEY.
  CARD STAMPING, DISLEY.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MILK TUBERCULOSIS.
  MILK TUBERCULOSIS.
  SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION).
  SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION).
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
  TRINIDAD (PORT OF SPAIN HARBOUR).
  TRINIDAD (PORT OF SPAIN HARBOUR).
  CEYLON (CHILDREN, DOMESTIC SERVICE).
  CEYLON (CHILDREN, DOMESTIC SERVICE).
  HONG KONG (MUI TSAI SYSTEM).
  HONG KONG (MUI TSAI SYSTEM).
  MILK (PRICE).
  MILK (PRICE).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).
  COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).
  NORWEGIAN MARKET (BRITISH MANUFACTURERS).
  NORWEGIAN MARKET (BRITISH MANUFACTURERS).
  EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEE DEPARTMENT (ACCOUNTS).
  EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEE DEPARTMENT (ACCOUNTS).
  McKENNA DUTIES.
  McKENNA DUTIES.
  COTTON YARNS (IMPORTS).
  COTTON YARNS (IMPORTS).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FUTURE WORK).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FUTURE WORK).
SCOTLAND.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, NORTH CLUANIE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, NORTH CLUANIE.
  BARNHILL POORHOUSE (GOLF CLUBS, MANUFACTURE).
  BARNHILL POORHOUSE (GOLF CLUBS, MANUFACTURE).
  WIRELESS TELEPHONY, STROMA.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONY, STROMA.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES (EDUCATION).
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES (EDUCATION).
  PLAY-CESTTRES.
  PLAY-CESTTRES.
  ARDRISHAIG HARBOUR (DREDGING).
  ARDRISHAIG HARBOUR (DREDGING).
AVIATION.
  AERODROMES.
  AERODROMES.
  FLYING CLUB, WOLVERHAMPTON.
  FLYING CLUB, WOLVERHAMPTON.
  ASSEMBLY STATION, PETERBOROUGH.
  ASSEMBLY STATION, PETERBOROUGH.
  RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).
  RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).
  TURCO-SYRIAN FRONTIER.
  TURCO-SYRIAN FRONTIER.
  KINDNESS TO ANIMALS (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  KINDNESS TO ANIMALS (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
AFFORESTATION.
  WORKERS' HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  WORKERS' HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  DEATH-WATCH BEETLE.
  DEATH-WATCH BEETLE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  HOURS OF WORK.
  HOURS OF WORK.
  COASTAL SHIPPING TRADE.
  COASTAL SHIPPING TRADE.
  FOREIGN MUSICIANS.
  FOREIGN MUSICIANS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  BOSTON AND SPALDING.
  BOSTON AND SPALDING.
  BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES.
  BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  MUSICAL INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURE.
  MUSICAL INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURE.
  CORNWALL.
  CORNWALL.
  AGRICULTUEAL WOEKEES (INSUEANCE).
  AGRICULTUEAL WOEKEES (INSUEANCE).
  APPLICATIONS FOR WORK (RAILWAY FARES).
  APPLICATIONS FOR WORK (RAILWAY FARES).
  LONDON TUBE EXTENSIONS.
  LONDON TUBE EXTENSIONS.
  ROAD FUND (GRANTS).
  ROAD FUND (GRANTS).
  RIVER ITCHEN.
  RIVER ITCHEN.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  TRADE BOAJRDS ACT.
  TRADE BOAJRDS ACT.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  WAGE-EARNERS' HOLIDAYS.
  WAGE-EARNERS' HOLIDAYS.
JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
  HOURS OF WORK.
  HOURS OF WORK.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (DISORDEE).
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (DISORDEE).
  WOMEN PROBATION OFFICERS, GLAMORGAN.
  WOMEN PROBATION OFFICERS, GLAMORGAN.
  PETROL STATIONS.
  PETROL STATIONS.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
  BLACKMAIL.
  BLACKMAIL.
  RUSSIAN FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
  RUSSIAN FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
  PRISON DISCIPLINE (FLOGGINGS).
  PRISON DISCIPLINE (FLOGGINGS).
  TREASURY SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  TREASURY SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  WELFARE.
  WELFARE.
  ARTILLERY PRACTICE, WEST WIGHT.
  ARTILLERY PRACTICE, WEST WIGHT.
  OVERSEA SITTTLEMENT.
  OVERSEA SITTTLEMENT.
  FOOD (COST).
  FOOD (COST).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, CARLISLE.
  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, CARLISLE.
  TELEGRAMS (TELEPHONE FEES).
  TELEGRAMS (TELEPHONE FEES).
  RURAL TELEPHONES.
  RURAL TELEPHONES.
  MAILBAGS (COLLECTION, AUTHORISATION).
  MAILBAGS (COLLECTION, AUTHORISATION).
  ENVELOPES, METAL FASTENERS.
  ENVELOPES, METAL FASTENERS.
  COMPENSATION CASE (ARBITRATION COSTS).
  COMPENSATION CASE (ARBITRATION COSTS).
  ADVERTISEMENTS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS.
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE KIOSK, GALLEY HILL.
  TELEPHONE KIOSK, GALLEY HILL.
  LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS (PERSONAL CHARGE).
  LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS (PERSONAL CHARGE).
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP MACHINES.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP MACHINES.
  CABLE AND WIRELESS AGREEMENT.
  CABLE AND WIRELESS AGREEMENT.
  TELEVISION (EXPERIMENTAL TRANSMISSION).
  TELEVISION (EXPERIMENTAL TRANSMISSION).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
  LONDON TRAFFIC.
  LONDON TRAFFIC.
  ARTERIAL ROADS (LIGHTING).
  ARTERIAL ROADS (LIGHTING).
  DRIVING LICENCES.
  DRIVING LICENCES.
  ROAD VEHICLES (LIOBNCES).
  ROAD VEHICLES (LIOBNCES).
  WYLAM BRIDGE (TOLLS).
  WYLAM BRIDGE (TOLLS).
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, LONDON.
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, LONDON.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  OVERHEAD LINES.
  OVERHEAD LINES.
  METERS.
  METERS.
  EXPLOSION, DOVER STREET.
  EXPLOSION, DOVER STREET.
AGRICULTURE.
  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
  FARM IRRIGATION.
  FARM IRRIGATION.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  EDUCATION GRANTS.
  EDUCATION GRANTS.
  SEVEN YEAKS' LIMIT.
  SEVEN YEAKS' LIMIT.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Derwent—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for this day's sitting, for the purpose of passing the Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Bill [H.L.], the Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill and the Unemployment Insurance Bill through their remaining stages.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I propose to put down to-morrow a Motion that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with until the adjournment of the House for the Recess. That is, of course, only for two days, as we adjourn on Friday.
AXMINSTER, CHARD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.
BROMYARD AND LEDBURY RURAL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1929.
MISTERTON RURAL DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
WEAR VALLEY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
POLESWORTH AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I beg

169
to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, this is one of a set of Bills that come up under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and are very seldom, if ever, interfered with in your Lordships' House. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

ARBITRATION (FOREIGN AWARDS) BIIL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, it would be convenient if I were to state that the matter very properly raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, on the last occasion, has been settled and a form of draft has been agreed between us. He very kindly came to see me about it, and we were enabled to settle a draft which runs in this way:—
Page 2, line 4, leave out from the second "of" to the end of line 6 and insert "such powers as His Majesty being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made may by Order in Council declare to be parties to the said Convention."
In the same way in the proposed new paragraph (c), after the words "in one of such territories as His Majesty," there will be inserted: "being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made." Paragraphs (b) and (c) will then read in this way:—
" (b) between persons each of whom is subject to the jurisdiction of one or other of such Powers as His Majesty, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, may by Order in Council declare to be parties to the said Convention; and
(c) in one of such territories as His Majesty, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, may by Order in Council declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies."
That really meets, I think, the two points which were discussed.
It is right that the clause I am referring to should be applied both to Powers and territories. As has been pointed out by the Foreign Office, it does not necessarily mean that those are identical. For instance a Power might be France, and Madagascar might not be a territory which came within the reciprocal provisions. I hope that your Lordships will accept this. I think it is a matter that ought to have been settled and it has been settled between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, and myself.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Am I to understand that the noble and learned Lord is going to move these Amendments in Committee directly?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are Amendments which do not appear on the Paper? They are in manuscript?
LORD PARMOOR: They do appear upon the Paper, but the terms of the agreement which I have come to with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, would not, of course, appear upon the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I mean that the form which the noble and learned Lord has read out does not appear on the Paper.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only desire to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that though that is a very reasonable method of procedure, in ordinary circumstances, generally speaking, your Lordships have an opportunity during the discussion at the remaining stages of the Bill to see that no mistake has been made. It is very unlikely the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, or the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, would make a mistake, but in case they did make a mistake your Lordships would, in the ordinary course, have an opportunity of looking into it on the subsequent stages of the Bill. On the present occasion, however, I understand that the Government propose to take all the remaining stages of the Bill this afternoon.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, the Standing Order has been suspended.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government take a grave responsibility in doing that. They put a manuscript Amendment into the Bill, and then they withdraw it from the cognisance of your Lordships' House without giving your Lordships the opportunity of seeing it in print. I cannot say that I approve of that method of legislation, and if the Government could see their way to allow the Bill to be reprinted and the remaining stages to be taken to-morrow instead of to-day, I think that would be far more suitable.
LORD PARMOOR: I feel very much what the noble Marquess has said; but when we discussed this matter the other night the noble and learned Viscount (Viscount Hailsham) said he had nothing further to say on the clauses, and the only outstanding matter was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Atkin, as regards reciprocity—a very proper question to raise, as I stated at the time. Lord Atkin having raised that particular question, and it being agreed to, what we have done is to suspend the Standing Order with a view to the Bill being passed to-night. It would have passed through all its stages last Thursday but for the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin. I think it is a matter about which the noble Marquess need not have any anxiety. The Bill will have to go through the other House, and it is a matter which we fully discussed on a former occasion and the words have been agreed to between us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Application of Part I.
1.—(1) This Part of this Act applies to any award made after the twenty-eighth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-four—

(a)in pursuance of an agreement for arbitration to which the protocol set out in the Schedule to the Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Act, 1924, applies; and

(b) between persons each of whom is subject to the jurisdiction of one or other of the governments to which this Part of this Act applies; and

(c) in the territory of such a government;

and an award to which this Part of this Act applies is in this Act referred to as "a foreign award."
(2) The governments to which this Part of this Act applies are those governments in respect of which His Majesty may by Order in Council declare the said Convention to be in force.
(3) His Majesty may by a subsequent Order in Council vary or revoke any Order previously made under this section.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to omit the words "the Governments to which this Part of this Act applies; and" in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), and also paragraph (c), and to insert:—

173
" such powers as His Majesty, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, may by Order in Council declare to be parties to the said Convention; and
" (c) in one of such territories as His Majesty, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, may by Order in Council declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies."
The noble and learned Lord said: I move this in the form which I have handed in. The, only difference from the form as it appears on the Paper is that the words "being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made" are inserted in each paragraph. It was, I understand, the general view that a provision to that effect should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, lease out from the second (" of ") to the end of line 6 and insert the said words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not prepared to resist the Government Amendments, because they are no doubt very carefully advised by competent officials as to the wording and they have also had the very great assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Atkin, in the matter. I understand that by this modification of the words it is not intended to make any change in substance, but that it is merely a matter of getting the drafting in an accurate form. Is that so?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes—I do not want to mislead the noble Marquess—to this extent. I think I assented the other day to what was called by Lord Atkin reciprocity, and the words which we have added are words which will, I think, carry out quite correctly and accurately what is desired. They have been very carefully studied by the Departments concerned.
LORD ATKIN: I may be allowed to say this. I did put a carefully framed Amendment on the Paper with a view to carrying out the idea which, I think, commended itself to all parts of the House—namely, that it should be made clear that in taking power to enforce foreign awards here it would be based upon a principle of reciprocity, and that we should not be obliged to enforce here awards made in a foreign territory unless the foreign Government to which that territory appertains gave reciprocal advantages to us. I put an Amendment on the Paper to carry that out. The Lord President told me this morning he was prepared to put in the words he has
174
mentioned. To my mind they carry out the object of my Amendment. I am bound to say I prefer my own drafting, as one probably naturally would do, but I cannot conceive that these words, properly construed, would have any other effect than would be the effect of the Amendment I put on the Paper. I was very pleased to agree with the Lord President and not to dispute what, after all, would be a mere question of words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Line 9, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Application to Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
LORD PARMOOR: This Amendment and the following one are merely to correct misprints.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS AND THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like, at the outset, to express the satisfaction of my colleagues and especially of myself at the manner and spirit in which this Bill has been

175
received in the other place. I am sure it will obtain the same consideration from your Lordships. The Bill as it emerges from the other House is, to all intents and purposes, the same as it was on its introduction, except for one or two Amendments to which I shall refer later, but which in my judgment only make more explicit some of the objects in view. Your Lordships will perhaps allow me to remind you that the principal motive for the introduction of this measure is connected with the lamentable condition of employment in this country, and this is an attempt to stimulate the British export trade, a desire with which I am sure that your Lordships will have every sympathy.
It falls to my lot to bring the Bill forward in this House especially from the standpoint of the Colonies and the Dependencies. The Lord Privy Seal has already made known elsewhere the extent and character of the trade which exists between the Colonies and the Dependencies and this country, which is greater, I think, than many people imagine. Apart from the Dominions, with their enormous trade, the Colonies themselves and the Protected Territories and Dependencies have in the aggregate a very large trade with this country and, what is very relevant in this connection, take a very large and varied selection of goods from this country. If we can in any way encourage and accelerate the development of the vast undeveloped territories which lie within these Colonies and Protectorates, we can in the ordinary course expect that their purchases from this country will be increased. We have there a potential market, we have, at any rate, good will and we have what may be called an established connection which it would be folly, to say the least of it, to ignore at a time when His Majesty's Government are endeavouring in all possible ways to promote an increase of trade. The object of this measure is, by supplying a little money in a way which I shall describe, to accelerate, as far as possible, the development of the Crown Colonies, Protectorates and Dependencies, distinctly with a view—among other objects—of causing an increase in our export trade in a way which we think to be legitimate and economically justified.
176
I want to forestall a possible objection. Your Lordships will realise that, in our desire to accelerate the development of these areas, we must not unwittingly place a burden upon the future finances of the Colonies. We must not let them in for expensive schemes of improvement which will take, to put it mildly, a long time to return a sufficient interest. There are limits to what a Colonial Administration can undertake if it is confined to its own resources. Some of these Administrations have a whole series of developments and improvements which they wish to undertake, ranging from projected railways where surveys have been made and there is every reason to suppose that they will be very quickly remunerative—projects which have had to be postponed for the present because of more urgent needs—to the other end of the scale, the shadowy conceptions and ideals for the future which might be undertaken if resources were available, but which cannot be regarded as even approximately within the range of economic utility. If we are to ask these Colonial Administrations to accelerate their programmes, to undertake, now rather than later, some of the schemes which are ripe for execution and which can be justified before an expert business committee as tangible and valuable improvements, I am afraid that the only way to induce them to increase their commitments in regard to interest, sinking fund and the additional expenses of administration is that this country should come to their assistance and make it worth their while to undertake for our advantage, at a time when they would not themselves be able to undertake them, some of these works.
The view taken is that the partnership which ought to exist, and which does exist, between these Crown Colonies and His Majesty's Government in this country, might very well take the form, in the first instance, of a grant of part or all of the interest which is involved during the first few years of the execution of these works, which in hardly any case can be expected to be yielded by the work itself during those first few years and which it is quite common in ordinary commercial life to regard as part of the capital expenses of the undertaking. In that and other ways we can hasten the normal course of development in these

177
Colonies and, as we think, do a great deal, not only to promote their welfare and the welfare of millions of people in them, but also, incidentally—and I do not disguise from your Lordships that this is the immediate object of the Government—to give a stimulus to our export trade in this country which would have its effect upon the number of unemployed.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to point out that there are Colonies which fall into another class. There are places which are isolated from the world and unable to find a ready market for some of the commodities which they already produce. Let me adduce, as an example, the territory in Central Africa which is known now as Nyasaland. That is a country where there is a reasonable amount of population and a great deal of cultivation, but there are at present almost insuperable difficulties in bringing the products down to the sea or to any place from which they can be exported. There are areas of Nyasaland, as we are credibly informed, where what is really wanted is an alteration in the method of cultivation and the substitution of a rotation of crops. When I remind your Lordships that the crop which it is proposed to use as an alternative crop is cotton, in the development of which within the British Empire we have such very great interest, your Lordships will see that there is something to be said for enabling this alternative crop to be produced and marketed. They do not want cotton in Nyasaland. They will have to bring it down to the sea and put it on board ship for the world market, and in particular for Lancashire, and at the present time that is an impossibility. What stands in the way is the need for a through railway route, which means the construction of a very big bridge across the Zambesi River. That is a project which has long been under consideration and has been repeatedly recommended, but it cannot be expected to pay for itself within the first few years. That is the sort of thing that we can do by this measure. We can enable Nyasaland to get rid of its produce in that way, whereas at the present time the conditions render it absolutely impossible to do so.
There are other Colonies which, at the present moment and from time to time,
178
are stricken by calamity of one sort or another, either through the visitation of disease in one of their staple crops or through a more subtle disease, afflicting a whole Colony, when for some reason the world price of their commodity goes down temporarily and the Colony is apt to find one of its principal industries in a state of ruin. The production of sugar at the present time is one of those industries which has been brought very near to being ruined by the cheapness of the product, and it is very difficult to know how we are to stand up against such a calamity in some of these places. Probably it may be necessary to help them to change their cultivation and to introduce new industries. What is much more likely and proximate is that we must help them to reorganise their existing industries and to substitute for some processes which are, perhaps, a little antiquated and not quite up to date, new processes which will reduce the cost of production and enable them to stand up in the world market. That involves considerable expenditure of capital which bankrupt industries in a depressed Colony cannot furnish alone. It may be possible for the Government, out of this Colonial Development Fund, to enable some of the sugar producing Colonies to make headway against what seems to them a great calamity by enabling them to get on their feet again through improvement in their processes and in the organisation of their industry.
All these things, your Lordships will see, require either money or credit. These smaller Crown Colonies about which I have been speaking have, comparatively speaking, little money and not very good credit, especially at the time when they are depressed. We in this country, relatively, have some money and a great deal of credit. The partnership would be that, under proper conditions and with very careful safeguards which the Treasury would see to, we should place that money and credit in particular instances and to a limited extent at the disposal of our weaker brethren. I cannot describe to your Lordships, except in the most general terms, without anticipating the work of the committee which it is proposed to set up, exactly the projects which will be taken up under this scheme. In fact we do not know at the present time which

179
of the projects that will be available this committee, which will be an independent committee of business men, will consider sufficiently sound to recommend to the Treasury. Therefore it would be vain for me to attempt to enumerate them.
But we do know that there are considerable areas of these Crown Colonies and Protectorates where there are potential producers of much more of the raw material, and of the food stuffs even, which this country and other old countries want, and that we can help them more or less to increase their production and therefore to supply our needs and help our industry if we are able to supply them with a little money and a little credit. Everywhere almost throughout Africa there is need for a measure which would help the cultivator to till more land and to till it in a better way, or, I should say, in a more productive way. The hoe is not the last word in cultivation. I speak as a Londoner, but I can believe that something more could be done if we could substitute for the hoe as an instrument of cultivation some more up-to-date method. That can be done—to what extent I will not venture to say—but it can be done to some extent and we hope it will be done. Then there are ports not so well equipped as they might be, and your Lordships will know that delay in the handling of ships in ports is a very vital part of the cost of production of the commodity which is dealt with. If we can help those ports to improve their equipment, sometimes in a large way, sometimes in quite small ways, that will all co-operate to the same end.
What the measure proposes is that the sum of one million pounds per annum should be set aside out of money provided by Parliament from which assistance can be given to projects of development which are approved by the expert committee which will be set up to examine all the various schemes which will be submitted by the Colonial Office at the instance of or in consultation with the Colonial Governors, and that committee will itself decide as an independent body which of the schemes it can recommend to the Treasury for assistance. The Treasury will be the final arbiter as to whether the schemes are sound enough for assistance. I hope we shall not find the committee or the Treasury taking
180
a too restrictive view and expecting a scheme to be of a gilt-edged nature returning 5 per cent. in its first year. Such schemes do not need assistance. It is schemes which are not of that nature but are yet sufficiently removed from the wild cat department that we want, to help. We do not want this committee and the Treasury to confine our help to those schemes which can do without us. We shall not attempt to control the committee, and your Lordships know that nobody can control the Treasury; but I am only expressing the feeling with which the Government brings for ward this measure when I say that we hope that the committee and the Treasury, if I may fall into a colloquialism, will play the game. The method will be either by way of payment of interest in whole or part for a certain number of years, the first few years of the life of the work, or it may be by way of a definite loan from the Fund, or by way of a definite grant from the Fund. We must leave that to the committee and, ultimately, to the Treasury to sort out.
That is all I think I need trouble your Lordships with in regard to that part of the measure; but there are two almost technical amendments which are included in the Bill because they will, we believe, co-operate very potently in the work which the Bill is intended to do. It is proposed to widen the scope of the Colonial Stock Acts so as to make it possible to bring within their scope certain territories which are, I think almost as a matter of the drafting of the Acts, now excluded. They are confined at present to the Colonies. Since the date of the Colonial Stock Acts the Colonies have, so to speak, proliferated into various other kinds of government. There are Protectorates, there are Protected States, there are Mandated Territories, which are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing for this purpose as those areas which are dealt with in the Colonial Stock Acts. They are under the control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the same way and to the same extent. There is no reason why the Federated Malay States, for instance, which we always think of as if it were a Colony, but which is technically outside the Colonial Stock Acts at present, should have to pay a higher rate of interest when it has to borrow money in the City than if it were

181
nominally a Crown Colony. It is proposed by this Bill to make it possible for His Majesty by Order in Council in suitable eases to apply the Acts to future loans raised by any territory which is under His Majesty's protection, or in respect of which a Mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty and is being exercised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
The process will not be automatic. They will not come by virtue of this Bill under the Colonial Stock Acts automatically. In each case His Majesty will have to issue an Order in Council and before that Order in Council is issued the Government will of course scrutinise the resources of the territory applying for this privilege and the security which it can offer to the lender. No such Order in Council will be passed unless the Government of the day is satisfied that the stock holder is as adequately secured from every point of view, political and financial, for the period of the loan as he is under the existing provisions of the Colonial Stock Acts. If any additional safeguard is required I may add that it is provided that the Order in Council must be laid before Parliament for twenty days before it becomes operative.
There is also an amendment which is included in this Bill of an analogous nature. The Palestine and East Africa Guaranteed Loans Act, 1926, which was passed for the express purpose of enabling Palestine and East Africa to raise, loans on the best possible terms, did not, as it, proved, permit interest to be paid out of capital on the works which it was intended to promote under that Act. Consequently the amendment will allow interest on loans for schemes to be paid out of capital for a period not exceeding five years from the initiation, and also to increase in suitable cases the period for repayment of the loans from forty to sixty years. I think those are very moderate amendments and they will admit schemes which I am advised cannot be executed if the unfortunate Colony or Dependency has to provide interest on capital out of revenue from the moment the work is initiated.
In particular that is required to enable this Zambesi bridge to be made. The negotiations for the bridge are now well
182
forward, and, subject to final arrangements being made with the Portuguese Government—which it is hoped will shortly be concluded—we ought to be able to start the project in the very near future. The bridge will cost about £2,250,000. It will be a very big bridge, not that the river is so extensive, but the scheme involves also making approaches to the river. The bridge itself will not cost more than £1,000,000 or £1,100,000, but the approaches and the necessary improvement of the railway line on each side, and even a steamer to connect up, will raise the expenditure to £2,250,000 or so.
I will now mention the Amendments which have been made in another place. They are really very small. I mention them because they are improvements of the measure as it was introduced. I do not know that they were necessary, but they are improvements because they say explicitly some things which were only implicit. The production, distribution and supply of electricity, and public health, are included as objects which are to be aided under this measure. I think those objects might have been aided before, but it is just as well to have it stated. There are a great many other activities which I should like to see aided under this measure, but after all it is a measure very definitely limited, with the object of dealing with unemployment and increasing the trade of the country. Therefore many other things, like education, are not included in this measure. It is a measure strictly confined to one object, and does not purport to make a new heaven and a new earth in any of these Colonies and Dependencies. The most important Amendment added is that to Clause 1, in order to ensure both that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself as to the conditions of labour on any works undertaken under this Bill, and that the community as a whole shall, as far as practicable, get some share of the benefit which may accrue as one of the results of the operation of the measure. The Amendment goes as far as possible to attain that object, and I can only say that the Government, or at any rate myself as long as I have the honour to hold this office, will undertake to see that the objects aimed at are carried out in the spirit as well as according to the letter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Passfield.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to intervene in this debate for a very few minutes only. I need, I think, hardly say that we warmly welcome the broad principle upon which this measure is based—a principle which the noble Lord has explained to us very clearly. We welcome this Bill in the first place because if passed it will put into operation a policy which took a prominent place in the programme of our Party at the last Election, and, perhaps what is much more important still, we welcome it because it gives us an assurance that there will be continuity of policy so far as our Colonies and their development are concerned. It is intended by this Bill to set aside annually a sum not exceeding £1,000,000, with the object of helping the agricultural and industrial development of the Colonies, Mandated Territories and Protectorates, with the important hope and object of assisting the unemployment situation here at home.
I think it is generally agreed that it is a point of controversy and argument as to how considerable and appreciable an effect money spent on large schemes in the various parts of our Colonial Empire will have upon the employment situation here at home; but the experience of the past clearly shows us that a very large proportion of the imports of the Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories come from the United Kingdom, and we have some justification, I think, for concluding that the United Kingdom would derive benefits in the same large degree from any schemes which may be instituted as a result of this measure. At any rate, whether or not the passage of this Bill is going to have early and direct results, or whether or not it is going to make any considerable impression upon our unemployment figures—and I sincerely hope it will—it is quite clear that in view of the fact of the enormous trade which we do in the United Kingdom with other parts of the Empire, nothing but good can come from a policy which is calculated to develop the resources of our Colonial Empire, and to improve the standard of living and the purchasing power of the people who live in those countries. Indeed I think one is justified in saying
184
that it is more than probable that the ultimate development to the full of the vast and almost inexhaustible resources of the Colonies and the Empire as a whole will, in the long run, have more influence upon our industrial position here at home than any other factor we can think of at the moment.
When we look at the provisions of the Bill, at the means by which it will be permissible to achieve the objects in view, I think that it is very satisfactory to note that these means are drawn up on broad lines, and that there are no unnecessary limiting restrictions with regard to their scope. A specially pleasing feature is the prominence which has been given to the promotion of scientific research. On this point I speak with a good deal of timidity, because there are others who can speak with much more authority than I can, but I imagine that there is no way in which more can be done to help the Colonies than by the practical application in them of the knowledge of science and scientific discoveries in general. Another pleasing feature is one to which the noble Lord has already alluded in his opening speech—namely, the proposal to extend the provisions of the Colonial Stock Acts to the Protectorates and Mandated Territories. I can see no valid reason for refraining from doing so, and I think the proposal may be of very considerable use.
I only want to say a word or two about the sum that it is intended to spend with these various objects in view. I imagine that for the present the £1,000,000 set aside annually will be a sufficient sum, and I dare say it is very doubtful whether that sum will all be spent in the first year; but I do think that it might have been preferable if this sum had been paid over to the Fund as a definite grant to be carried over from year to year if any balance remained. I feel this for various reasons. In the first place I think that it would have given greater freedom, and it would have facilitated the maintenance of continuity in the development of different parts of the Colonial Empire. I think it is one of the first objects of the Government to get things going as soon as possible, and I honestly believe that the method which I have indicated would achieve that object more quickly than the method adopted by the Government. We must remember

185
that the method adopted by the Government entails very strict Treasury control indeed, in fact almost complete Treasury control; and, speaking from my short experience at the Overseas Settlement Department, I would confidently assert that constant Treasury interference at every step must of necessity entail considerable delay and add to what are already great difficulties in negotiating with the different parts of the Empire.
We naturally wish to avoid any form of extravagance or waste, but I venture to say that the committee which it is intended to set up under this Bill, and on whose recommendations grants are to be made under the Bill, should, if properly constituted, prove an effectual guarantee against wild and uneconomic projects being embarked upon. It would have been interesting, I think, if the noble Lord had been able to say something to us about the composition and constitution of this committee. I have no doubt that it is not possible for him to do so to-day, but I would express the hope that it will be strong enough and of such a character as to be able to push on the work as rapidly as possible. There is no other comment that I have to make at the present moment. I would only conclude by assuring the Government again that we on this side view this measure with complete sympathy, and we shall be prepared to do everything that we can to facilitate its passage through your Lordships' House.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like for my part to offer a warm welcome to this Bill, and I do so more particularly because it refers expressly to "the promotion of scientific research, instruction and experiments in the science, methods and practice of agriculture." I had the interesting experience, and indeed the privilege, of presiding over the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference in Westminster Hall in October and November, 1927; and there was expressed at that Conference the very strong opinion that the oversea Dominions and the Colonies alike were best assisted, so far as the development of their agriculture was concerned, by encouraging agricultural science and research, and more particularly by the application to local requirements of the results of agricultural research, wherever conducted throughout the world.
186
I should like to urge upon my noble friend opposite, Lord Passfield, that so far as possible overlapping should be avoided in this connection, because, as we discovered then, and many of us had known as the result of travelling in various parts of the world, there is an enormous amount of the same kind of fundamental agricultural research going on in various parts of the world and in various parts of our own Empire, the results of which are in no way communicated to other parts of the Empire; with the result that there is not only a loss of mutuality of benefit but, of course, a very great waste of public money, expended on exactly the same work conducted in different parts of the world, and being in effect a surplusage of effort.
On that occasion eighteen months ago there were certain centres which were selected for agricultural research in different parts of the Empire, most of them being selected in the Mother Country, and mainly because most of our Dominions and Colonies had not yet sufficiently developed their scientific organisation to provide what was wanted. In one notable respect, on which great emphasis will be placed during the next month in South Africa, where the British Association is now assembled, we had all of us to admit that Great Britain did not provide the facilities for research which were to be found in that particular part of the world, that is, in the matter of veterinary research as carried on in South Africa, which we all admitted was superior, so far as we could judge, to anything of the sort being conducted at our research stations here. What I do want very much to emphasise is that in giving grants towards localised scientific research every effort should be made to avoid duplication not only of Colonial effort with effort of the same kind being carried on in this country, but of similar effort in any particular direction being carried on in the Colonies themselves.
There is another matter which arises out of the same paragraph, paragraph (l) of Clause 1 (1). I notice that it is contemplated to apply money towards the organisation of co-operation. All of us who know anything about the effect of co-operation upon the success of agricultural methods in the countries of the world know perfectly well that co-operation is an indispensable element of

187
successful agriculture in any part of the world, particularly where it is carried on over small areas and in small units of industrial or economic organisation. Wherever in the world agricultural organisation or co-operation is being successfully carried on it is not as the result of State action or of State subsidies, but as the result of effective effort on the part of individuals cooperating in the agricultural industry itself. I venture to suggest that if there is any attempt to use Government organisation or Government funds to prop up agricultural co-operation it is probably calculated to fail. Agricultural co-operation can only be a successful growth if it is the result of individual effort on the part of the co-operating agriculturists. I hope that in applying this money to the development of agriculture and industry in our Colonies the attitude of our own Government will not be too grandmotherly, because I am quite certain that, at least as regards agriculture, it is most desirable to maintain independence, resourcefulness, and business capacity, and I am inclined to think that all are to some extent impaired when the State comes with a heavy grandmotherly hand in order to promote what individuals ought to do for themselves.
One word about sugar. I notice that the noble Lord opposite referred to sugar, which of course as an industry is in a somewhat depressed condition in some of our Colonies. I had the experience of being what was called Sugar Controller during part of the War, and we discovered that there was enormous scope for doing just what the noble Lord opposite mentioned, which was to encourage better methods of production and primary refining among sugar producers in some of our Colonies, notably, of course, the British West Indies. Certainly at that time—I cannot say what is the case now because I believe great improvements have been effected—it would have been a waste of money to attempt to bring some of our West Indian Colonies in this respect into effective competition with the sugar producers of countries like Java, Cuba and even our own Mauritius, simply because it would have put a premium upon a continuance of somewhat reactionary methods of cultivation and conversion
188
which, of course, it was most desirable in their own interests that they should supersede by something more progressive and up-to-date. For my part, I heartily wish success to this Bill. I only wish to repeat what I said just now—let it not be carried out in too grandmotherly a spirit.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, if no other noble Lord has any comment to make I might be allowed to thank the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, for his kindly welcome to this measure and to explain that, as I dare say he has already appreciated, the decision as to the technical form of the grant of one million pounds and the procedure which the Treasury would adopt with regard to that grant are a little too complicated for me to try to explain. It was, I think we may say, insisted on by the Treasury. It is fair to say that there are two views—as to whether it is better to have a fixed grant which you are allowed to accumulate if it is not spent, or, as is the form in some cases, a grant which is only issued from the Treasury in proportion to the amount which is really required within the year. It is not that the Colonial Development Fund will be required to surrender any unexpended balance at the end of the year. The Treasury will only issue the amount of money that is required during the year. The idea that any unspent balance will have to be surrendered sometimes leads to extravagance, and it is for this reason that it is held that there ought not to be any unspent balance. The way which is preferred by the Treasury may on the whole be better even for the interests of the measure. But, as I have suggested, that was really a financial matter which we had to accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, put his finger upon a real difficulty; that is, the possible overlapping of research in these matters in so large an area with so many varied places. We are going to take every possible means not only to prevent duplication of research, but, as far as it is possible, to take care that such research as is instituted shall be, if I may use a common word, coordinated. Genius cannot very well be drilled. We must let them go ahead to some extent in the way they feel inclined. But we can take care that no research is instituted without full knowledge

189
of what is going on elsewhere, in order, if possible, to avoid any sort of duplication.
With regard to co-operation, experience has shown that co-operation in agriculture can best go on if it is independent and spontaneous. On the other hand, I think the noble Lord was a little pessimistic. One may remind him of the case of India, where the Government has rendered very great assistance and there is a large amount of agricultural co-operation which, it is said, would not have come without the Government rendering that assistance; and it is said in places like Africa that a little Government assistance may be the right course. There is the homely analogy of the old-fashioned pump. You have to put a little water into the pump in order to make it draw. It is possible that in some of these dry areas is may be necessary to do that. In view of the nearness of the Recess and the fact that your Lordships have suspended the Standing Order, I do not know whether we might be allowed to take the Committee stage and the other stage of this Bill to-day. That is entirely for your Lordships to say.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I suppose the noble Lord could not give us any information about the composition of the committee, could he?
LORD PASSFIELD: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. As the noble Earl will know, with a committee of this kind you have to ask everybody whether he is willing to serve and to wait until you have received the last reply. It is very difficult to say. All I can say is that the committee will be of a character which will satisfy every criticism. It will be an absolutely impartial committee, a business committee on which finance will be represented and there will be no attempt to make it in any case even a Treasury or a Colonial Office Committee. The only connection of the Colonial Office will be that that Department will supply the secretary. I am sorry that I cannot give the names. I have not even got them myself, and it will take a few more days before we get the replies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am under the impression that the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, has not suspended the
190
Standing Order in respect of this Bill. That will not happen till to-morrow.
LORD PARMOOR: That is so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this Bill ought to have come on before the noble Lord opposite dealt with his Bill, but owing to a mistake it was not called and I did not like to interrupt him. Your Lordships may remember that I introduced last Session a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. On the Report Stage two new clauses were inserted, and on Third Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, who had given me some assistance before, objected to those two clauses. I have now left out those two clauses. Therefore, the Bill is now a small and simple Bill of one clause which, I think I have his leave to say, has the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, whom I am glad to see in his place. There was some little discussion by my noble friend Lord Salisbury as to whether or not there were any instances of cruelty to dogs which made a Bill of this kind advisable. I have in my pocket a large number of cases. I think I sent him two or three which occurred after the last Session was over. It is not necessary, I think, for me to read them unless they are disputed. The Bill can do no harm. It may do some little good. With those few words I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Bill or a Bill rather like it was, as your Lordships will remember, before the House last Session. I then expressed my sympathy with the objects of the noble Lord. I am still quite prepared to express my sympathy with his objects; but I am afraid the objection that was taken by the Home Office last year still survives in spite of the modified form of his Bill. It is perfectly true that it has now been

191
reduced to only one clause. But there is still the difficulty, first, as to the Bill being effective and, secondly, as to the desirability of creating a new offence if you are merely thereby expressing a point of view.
The Bill provides that the Court may prohibit the owner who has been convicted of cruelty from having a licence to keep a dog. The object of the noble Lord, with which I am sure all your Lordships sympathise, is that a man who has been cruel to a dog should not have a chance of being cruel to another or the same dog. That is an object with which we all sympathise, but it is a provision which it will be impossible to enforce. That is the view of the Home Office. There are 12,000 places, I am told, where dog licences can be obtained, and if a man moved to another part of the country, unless he was an extremely prominent and well-known person, he would be quite easily able to obtain a licence there, and no ordinary means at the disposal of the police—nothing but special roving and constant inquiries by detectives—would enable them to know he had taken out a new licence in another part of the country. Further than that, even supposing he did not move and desired to go on keeping the same dog, there would be nothing to prevent his wife, or his daughter, or any servant of his taking out a licence and the dog continuing to be kept in the same house. The police will then go to the house, one assumes, if they are anxious to enforce the provisions of this Bill, and will challenge the authority under which that dog is kept. They will be met by the licence held by the wife or servant, as the case may be, and they will be powerless. The original owner of the dog has committed no offence; the new holder of the licence has committed no offence; and, therefore, the clause will be entirely nugatory.
The view taken by the Home Office is that it is very undesirable to create new criminal offences unless they really serve some useful purpose, and are likely to be effective. The view they ask me to put before your Lordships this afternoon is that it would be unwise to pass a Bill of this sort which would be bound to fail in being effective, which would put a duty upon the police that it would be almost impossible for them to fulfil effectively, and which could be evaded with the
192
utmost ease. It is not, as the noble Lord who has moved the Bill well knows, any want of personal sympathy on my part with the object he has in view, nor is it any want of sympathy on the part of your Lordships that makes me ask your Lordships to say that it would not be wise for this House to read this Bill a second time because it would fail to effect the object which is aimed at. I ought to add, should your Lordships think fit to pass it, that it is not very convenient in any case to introduce in this very short series of sittings, that we are having now, a Private Bill of this disputed character; but, even if your Lordships should think fit to pass it, I could not hold out the slightest hope of its succeeding elsewhere. In all those circumstances, unless the noble Lord really thinks and believes that this is going to serve some useful purpose, I hope he will see his way to withdraw his Motion for the Second Reading, and, if not, I hope your Lordships will think it wise not to proceed further with the measure. Those views are felt very strongly by the Home Office, and I have been asked to put them before your Lordships.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I have heard with very considerable astonishment the speech of the noble Lord opposite, because he voted with me only last Session. The noble Earl being a person of very strong character, I do not understand how it is he has so very suddenly changed his views. Not only did he vote with me last Session, but only last week, when I told him I had dropped the two clauses to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, objected, the noble Earl said—
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble Lord had better not refer to that conversation if he does not mind.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If the noble Earl objects I of course do not wish to say anything, but his vote was not private, and, unless I am very much mistaken—I have not referred to the OFFICIAL REPORT—the noble Earl, last Session, not only voted but spoke in favour of the Bill. That was not a private conversation and, therefore, I think I am justified in referring to it. Now the old arguments are repeated that a man might get his wife or his servant

193
to take out a licence. As I said before, it does not at all follow that a man can get his wife to do certain things. In all probability the mere fact that a man asked his wife to take out a licence would result in her refusing to do so. The people who are likely to be affected by this Bill are not people with servants but are people who live in a humble way and have no servants; but, even supposing they had servants, I do not think it is at all likely—at all events there is no certainty about it—that a servant would take out a licence when his employer asked him to do so, if he did not think it was right. The sympathy of the servant is very often with an animal that is badly treated.
The Bill has been challenged. Let me quote from The Times of May 17, 1929:—
" When Cecil Smith, described as a ' canine and feline expert ' was fined £2, and ordered to pay costs, at Bristol on Wednesday, it was stated that although he promised to put a terrier to death by chloroform for a fee paid by the owner, he threw it on the soft mud bank of the River Avon, and left it to drown. When the tide came in the animal struggled out and returned to the owner's house in a very distressed condition. Smith said that he first chloroformed the dog."
Why should that man be allowed to keep a dog merely because the Home Office, or some official of the Home Office, says that in his opinion the law can be evaded?
EARL RUSSELL: He was not keeping the dog.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Can the noble Earl tell me what law cannot be evaded? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, who is in his place now, stated that many laws can be evaded. We know perfectly well that they can. If a person living in the country is convicted by the justices, and they refuse to allow him to take out a licence for a given period, that person, if he goes to London, for instance, may be able to take out a licence there and the police may not know of him. But it remains that a man is not likely to go and leave his house and his employment, etc., and if he remains at home the police know perfectly well what is going on and who has or who has not the right to take out a licence.
May I quote from another report in The Times of May 30, this year:—
" At Rye yesterday, Tom Barton, a hawker, was fined £1 for causing unnecessary
194
suffering to a dog by attempting to kill it improperly. Evidence was given by a farm labourer of finding the dog in some hushes with its four legs tied together. He heard it howling for three hours. Barton said the animal was run over. He had held it in a pond for fifteen minutes and thought it was dead before he put it in the bushes."
Surely for the sake of some small technical objection on the part of some official of the Home Office a man of that sort ought not to be given the opportunity of keeping a dog? Not to deprive him of the opportunity of keeping a dog seems to me to be utterly incomprehensible. By the way, that was a hawker. I do not think hawkers as a rule keep servants, but possibly, under the administration of a Socialist Government, hawkers will have servants.
EARL RUSSELL: They may at least have wives.
LORD BANBURY OK SOUTHAM: He may or may not have a wife; I am not sure, for I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance. There is one other case I should like to quote to your Lordships. This is from The Times of April 6 this year:—
" Henry J. Clarke and Jennie Clarke, his wife, of Culver's Way, Carshalton, were summoned at the Croydon County Police Court on Wednesday, for neglecting a whippet dog…the dog was kept out of doors in a roughly-made, draughty kennel, and was found dead and frozen stiff from exposure."
In this case there is a wife, and as she also was brought before the Court she would be prevented from keeping a dog if the magistrate thought it right to enforce a prohibition. Therefore the wife in such a case could not assist her husband to evade the law. I have other cases, but I will not weary your Lordships with them. I will merely add that last Session there was no Division on this Bill until the Third Reading. Then, on Third Reading, if I had agreed to the Bill being postponed in order to have these two clauses left out, I should have got the Bill. I thought I would have them left out in the Commons, and consequently I lost the Bill by a very small majority. I have now done all I can to meet your Lordships. I have left out the two clauses to which the noble and learned Lord objected, and the Bill is now a simple one which can do no harm and may do good.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, since my name has been mentioned and I seem in some way to have been brought into the position of having a sort of foster-father's relation to this proposal, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. As I understand the proposal of my noble friend, it corresponds to the provision of a good many Acts of Parliament—namely, that where a person can keep a chattel or animal only by licence, if he misuses the licence it can be suspended. We are very familiar with this in the case of a motor car. A man has to have a licence to keep a motor car and, if he misuses the motor car in relation to the public, his licence can be suspended. That seems a very simple proposition, and I should have thought that it was an a fortiori proposition in the case of a dog, which is the only animal for which you have to have a licence, partly, no doubt, for revenue purposes and partly to keep down the number of dogs. Why should not this proposal be carried out? What is there objectionable in saying that a person who is the owner of a dog and can keep it only if he has a licence, and who is really cruel to that dog, should for a certain time have his licence suspended and should be deemed incapable of keeping a dog? I venture to think that your Lordships would be putting yourselves in rather a difficult position in relation to the public and to those numerous people—I am glad to say that the feeling is almost universal—who have a detestation of cruelty to animals and to dogs in particular, if you rejected a very simple proposal of this kind without some really sufficient ground for doing so.
I agree that this proposal, like other provisions as to licences, passports and so on, can be evaded. The fact that it can be evaded is, I suggest, no reason why you should reject the proposal if it is capable of being made effective to some extent. If a person owning a dog goes to another locality after having a conviction recorded against him for cruelty to a dog he may be able to evade it, but in the vast majority of cases, in the country districts where this kind of offence arises, there is no difficulty at all. I venture to say, speaking from a small experience as Chairman of a bench of magistrates, that in our district in Wales it would be known to everybody, if a man had had a licence
196
taken away from him, whether he was keeping a dog without one. The suggestion that the provision can be evaded by a wife taking out a licence raises a pure question of fact as to whether she is, in fact, keeping the dog or whether the husband is still keeping it. If it were the case that the husband had kept a dog for months or years and then suddenly the wife professes to be keeping it, it would not be very difficult to draw the inference that it was really the man who was still keeping it. These are perfectly easy matters to deal with. I venture to think that Lord Banbury has put before the House a humane proposal, a reasonable proposal and a useful addition to the weapons which magistrates have against a very detestable offence. I venture to think that your Lordships should give this Bill at any rate a Second Reading. It can do no harm and, as I say, I think it may in certain cases do very substantial good.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the noble Earl is not quite correct when he says that this Bill creates a new offence. It is simply making a new penalty for a very old offence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I had not intended to inflict a maiden speech upon the House for some months to come, but, as this Bill has come before the House and as I was responsible as Home Secretary for the opposition which I gave the Bill through my officials on the last occasion, I feel that I ought to accept the responsibility for that advice. The noble Earl opposite has mentioned to-day that the Home Office is opposed to the Bill. I do not know the views of the present Home Secretary, but as Home Secretary in the last Government I accept the fullest responsibility for the opposition that we made to the Bill on the last occasion. I cannot help feeling that my noble friend, who, I know, is keenly opposed to any form of cruelty—and I am quite sure that he will accept my statement that I am as much opposed to any form of cruelty to dogs or any other animals as he is—is going rather too far in this Bill. It seems to me that under the present law there is ample punishment for a man who is convicted of cruelty to a dog or any other animal. He may now be fined £25 or sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labour.

197
Before my noble friend can convince the House that this Bill should be passed, he must show the need for additional penalties. His intention is to prevent a man of this sort from keeping a dog. He must convince the House that his proposed penalty of preventing a man from keeping a dog is a necessary addition to the present law. His method of preventing a man from holding a licence is only another way of saying that no man convicted of this offence shall be allowed, for a definite period, to keep a dog. The licence, if I may say so without offence, is only dragged in as a means of making the matter easier and is a simple way of providing that no man so convicted shall keep a dog for the period laid down by the bench. Is this penalty as likely to have the effect of preventing cruelty as the penalties already provided by the law? At the present time cruelty to any animal may be punished, by the same bench of magistrates to whom my noble friend desires to give these additional powers, with a fine of £25 or three months imprisonment. I suggest to my noble friend that this is really the stronger penalty of the two and is likely to be far more effective in preventing a man from being cruel to his dog.
There is a further objection to the Bill. I will not deal with the difficulties of the police, because the noble Earl opposite has dealt with them; but I cannot for the life of me see why cruelty to a dog, though very distressing to lovers of dogs, should be put in a different category from cruelty to a horse, a cow or any other animal.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: You do not take out a licence for them.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: That will not quite do, if I may say so with respect. My noble friend has assented to the position that the withholding of the licence is merely a form, and that his real object is to prevent a man keeping a dog if he has been convicted of cruelty to it. He has brought in the licence merely as an easy way of preventing such a man from keeping a dog again. That is my noble friend's admission. I want to know why he thinks it right to make this new and additional offence of keeping a dog after a conviction for cruelty without applying it to horses, cows or any other animals. You find just as many instances of cruelty to horses. One of the instances
198
that my noble friend read was clearly not the case of a man who had a licence for the dog. It was somebody who had been paid to put a dog to death and who attempted to do so by very cruel means. This Bill would not affect him at all.
I felt bound to make this statement to your Lordships, because I did not want the Government, and particularly the present Home Secretary, in opposing this Bill to feel that I was ashamed of the position I had taken up on the last occasion, though I was not then, of course, in this House. I concur in the appeal which the noble Earl opposite has made to my noble friend not to press this Bill, though he might, if he liked, consider whether the principle of the Bill could not quite rightly be extended to all animals. I cannot see how you can logically and reasonably say that because a man is convicted of cruelty to a dog he should not be allowed to have a licence and in effect not be allowed to keep a dog, while at the same time a man guilty of the most fiendish cruelty to a horse is to have no additional penalty of this kind placed upon him. I was certainly advised in the earlier part of the year by my legal advisers and the police that it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce this provision. It creates a new crime unknown to the law at present and I should have thought my noble friend, with whom I worked many years in another place, would be the last man to desire to do that. I think he might rest content with the penalties which the law now places upon those guilty of cruelty to dogs. As my noble and learned friend has pointed out, the magistrates have in their hands a much more effective way of stopping cruelty by sentencing a man to two or three months imprisonment.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I wish that the noble Viscount whom we are so pleased to listen to in this House had had the opportunity of making his maiden speech upon a theme which appealed more to our sympathies. I only rise for the purpose of making two observations with regard to the subject. He told us that under the existing law it is possible for magistrates to deal with this offence by inflicting as much as three months imprisonment. It is not proposed by the Bill to do away with that power. It is not suggested that an alternative

199
penalty to imprisonment or fine should be introduced, but that in addition to what can properly be called the penalty for the man a measure of protection for the dog should be put in the hands of the magistrates. I say that because the noble Viscount might have created the impression that in some way or other the Bill weakened the hands of the magistrates, which I submit it manifestly does not do. The main argument of the noble Viscount took the form of a question: "You do this for the protection of dogs, why not for horses?" I think the answer to that is very simple. It is easy to do it in the case of horses. It is a good thing, and it is a thing which can be done, then why not do it? But when you propose to extend it to horses it is almost manifest that cases of great difficulty might arise. I think most of us here have been magistrates and we must be aware that sometimes in cases of cruelty to horses, lamentable as they are, we are dealing with a poor

IRISH FREE STATE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
man whose horse is necessary to his living. Therefore, apart from the mere fact of the licence, there is a distinction between the case of the dog and the case of the horse. It does not in the least affect the hatefulness of cruelty or our desire to punish and prevent it, but in fact if a similar proposal were made for the protection of horses it might meet with a good deal of practical difficulty, whereas in the case of a dog there must appear to most of your Lordships who have heard this discussion absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in making the proposals really effective. I earnestly hope your Lordships will give your approval to this Bill, in spite of the fact that there are directions in which we might like to carry our dislike of cruelty to animals further, but for the moment cannot.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be read 2a?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Morton, E.

Alvingham, L.

Charnwood, L.

Powis, E.

Atkin, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Midleton, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Munster, E.

Plymouth, E.

Arnold, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Brentford, V.

Marks, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Passfield, L.

Lucan, E.

Templemore, L.

Thomson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING (REVISION OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, this Bill is the first step in the Government housing policy. It is a modest measure, but in our opinion a very necessary measure. The effect of the Bill is to retain the subsidy so far as what are known as the Wheatley houses are concerned. The reduction was decided upon by the

201
late Government, and was to have come into operation on the 30th September next. Happily it is not yet in operation, and the effect of this Bill will be to keep the subsidy at its present level. Before proceeding to the details of the measure I think perhaps it would be as well if I reminded your Lordships what is the position in regard to housing subsidies. Apart from the Addison subsidy of 1919, which is now ancient history, the housing subsidies have been of two kinds, which have come to be known, after their authors, as the Chamberlain and Wheatley subsidies. The Acts governing those subsidies are dated 1923 and 1924 respectively. The Chamberlain subsidy dates from 1923, and the Wheatley subsidy from 1924.
I would further call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Chamberlain subsidy has in the main provided houses for sale, whereas the Wheatley subsidy was definitely intended to encourage the construction of houses to be let. The Chamberlain subsidy was, by the action of the late Government—the same action as governed the whole of these subsidies—to come to an end after September 30 next in England and Wales. It was to remain in force on a reduced scale in Scotland. The present Government concur so far as the Chamberlain subsidy is concerned, and therefore that subsidy will come to an end at the latest on September 30 next, except in Scotland, where it will continue in force at a reduced rate. The position with regard to the Wheatley subsidy is different. The most urgent need is for small houses to let, and the Wheatley subsidy encourages the construction of these houses, and the Government holds that it is its paramount duty to take every reasonable step to help forward the construction of small houses to be let. The Labour Party was strongly opposed to the reduction of the subsidy, which was enacted in December of last year to come into operation after September 30 next. Therefore nobody can be surprised that one of the first acts of the present Government is to reverse engines in this matter, and to retain the subsidy at the existing level.
In order to make clear what has been happening, and will happen, with regard to the Wheatley subsidy, I will venture to give your Lordships a very few figures. This is the subsidy under the Act of 1924.
202
At that time the Wheatley subsidy was to be £9 per house for a period of forty years, except in respect of agricultural houses in agricultural parishes. There the subsidy was to be higher—namely, £12 10s. per house for forty years. It was enacted in the 1924 Act that these subsidies should come up for revision every two years, and therefore the first revision was at the end of 1926, and then the subsidy was reduced from £9 per house to £7 10 s. per house for forty years, and in the case of agricultural houses the subsidy was reduced from £12 10 s. to fill per house. Then we come to the revision of last December, because that was the next two years' revision. The subsidy was to have been reduced from £7 10 s. to £6, and in the case of agricultural houses from £11 to £9 10 s. It is with this reduction that the Bill is mainly concerned.
The figures for Scotland are a little different, but I need not refer to them, because I am dealing only with England and Wales. It is with this reduction, which was to have come into force at the end of September next, that this Bill is mainly concerned. The Bill cancels that reduction, and the effect of the Bill will be that the subsidy will not be reduced but will remain at £7 10 s., and the agricultural subsidy at £11, as at present. That is the main effect of the Bill, and it is significant that this Bill passed through another place without a Division. I do not say without discussion or criticism, but there was no Division. The fact is that there is an overwhelming case, as I hold, for this Bill. Indeed, when it is remembered that the Wheatley houses are almost entirely constructed by local authorities, and that the local authorities of the country were unanimous in opposition to the reduction of the subsidy, I think it is clear that there is a very strong case for the Bill.
Now that is what the Bill does, and I want to come to a few of the arguments that have been used against it. The controversy about this Bill, so far as there is controversy, turns chiefly upon the view which is taken of the effect of the subsidy on prices. The position of the late Government, as stated by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, was that a reduction of the subsidy lowered the price of houses, and therefore to reduce the subsidy was a good thing to do. The price of houses has fallen somewhat during the last few

203
years, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain appears to contend that the fall is due to the reduction of the subsidy in 1927, and perhaps (though this was not very clear) to the intended reduction which was to have come into force on October 1 next. But Mr. Neville Chamberlain, so far as I read his utterances, appears to give no weight to the fact—a very relevant and very important fact—that there has been a considerable general fall in prices during the last few years. I cannot see that referred to in his arguments; he seems to base them upon the fact that there has been a reduction of the subsidy. He does not prove anything; he asserts that it is so. I submit that those who favour reduction in the subsidy put their case too high. It really will not do to argue, as they appear to do, that a fall in prices is due to a reduction of the subsidy, and that that is the only factor of importance which is operating in this matter. It will not do to ignore the general fall in prices which has taken place, and which surely must affect the cost of houses, just as it affects the cost of all other commodities.
What at any rate is certain is that the reduction of the subsidy in 1927 led to a very unhealthy and undesirable state of things. The building industry was dislocated. A very undesirable state of things came about both before the reduction of the subsidy and afterwards. I can prove this with a very few figures. Before the reduction of the subsidy, at the end of September, 1926, when things were going more or less normally, the number of subsidised houses under construction was 102,976. The reduction of the subsidy took place on September 30, and almost at once the number of houses under construction rose considerably, and at any rate great efforts were made to push forward with houses which were already under construction in order to get the advantage of the subsidy before it was reduced on September 30. And whereas, as I have said, in September, 1926, the number of houses under construction was 102,976 it had risen by May, 1927, to 119,005 and actually in the month of September, 1927, there were brought to completion 52,261 houses. Then the crucial date was past. What happened? The number of houses under construction—not being brought to completion—in October, 1927, was 48,212 against somewhere about 100,000 in October of the
204
previous year. And in the whole of 1928 the number of subsidised houses under construction, never reached so high a figure as 60,000 at one time. I think those are very remarkable figures.
The effect on unemployment was equally striking. Take plasterers. In October, 1926, the proportion of unemployed among plasterers was 1.8 per cent.; in October, 1927, it was 7.5 per cent., or about four times as much; in November, 1926, it was 2.9 per cent., and in November, 1927, it went up to 11.4 per cent.; then in December, 1926, it was 4.1 per cent., and it went up to 17.8 per cent. in December, 1927, or rather more than four times as much. That, of course, is a very un desirable state of things. I think it is a clear case of cause and effect. The experience of this cut in the subsidy was a great rush to build before the date when the subsidy terminated, and then after the axe had fallen the ordinary development of building was broken. That is clearly what it came to: great activity before the subsidy was reduced, after wards serious unemployment in the building industry. And history was repeating itself—I do not say to the same extent—this summer in regard to the intended cut in the subsidy next September 30, now fortunately cancelled. The present Government has come in and has reversed this policy, has introduced this Bill, which should rapidly produce, and I believe is producing, a steadier and healthier state of things altogether. There was a great rush prior to the General Election in order to get houses finished so as to get the subsidy before it was reduced next September 30, and every possible device was being used to urge on the completion of houses before that date; and after that date, had it not been for the fact that we now propose to retain the subsidy at its existing level, I have no doubt there would have been a great slump in building, as there was in 1927.
I submit with great confidence that really what is needed in this matter, so far as it can he ensured, is greater continuity and steadiness. Feverish scrambles like those which I have been describing are not good: they are not good for the building trade, they are certainly not good for the workers, and they are not in the interests of good housing. It is the general opinion of local authorities—and these Wheatley houses are nearly

205
all of them built by local authorities—that these violent changes should be avoided, and the Government has received assurances from a very important body representing local authorities that with the passage of this Bill their programmes will be continued without hiatus. I do maintain that the attitude of the Party represented by noble Lords opposite in regard to these housing subsidies is not tenable. We do not agree with this contention about the effect of subsidies on prices, and we hold that the policy of the late Government has been to dislocate the building trade and to reduce most seriously the number of houses being constructed.
In a word, the direct outcome of the policy of reducing the subsidy is that tens of thousands of people who now might be occupying rented houses are not occupying them because they do not exist, whereas they might have existed. That is no over-statement. It is, I hold, a very trenchant argument for this measure. Within reasonable limits the governing consideration in this matter is the production of houses; it is houses we want. Noble Lords opposite appear sometimes to be more occupied with other considerations than the production of houses, and certainly the experience of the last few years and the figures of the number of houses under construction prove that, despite the admitted great need, the late Government did not pay sufficient regard to the importance of maintaining an adequate house-building programme. I do not think I need say more at this stage, beyond emphasising that this is only the first step in the Government's house-building policy. It is a necessary step, but the Bill does not profess to be in any way a large measure. It will keep things moving for the time being. It will give the Government time to turn round. The whole matter of housing and slums is receiving the most earnest and constant attention of the Government, and in due course our plans for housing and slum clearance will be made known. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not want to raise any complaint against what has occurred because exactly the same thing occurred during the time
206
I had the privilege of sitting on the opposite Bench. This Bill was only brought to your Lordships' House at 9 o'clock last night and copies were not circulated this morning; at least, I did not get one. I think it as well to mention such things when they occur in the hope that possibly on another occasion they will not happen. I do not wish to complain about it; no doubt it could not be helped.
We had a discussion the other day on the business of the House and the noble and learned Lord who leads the House told us that a great many of the Bills which were coming from another place were non-contentious and that some of them were Money Bills. He did not say so, but he seemed to infer that a Money Bill could pass through your Lordships' House without any prolonged consideration or discussion. I do not think that view would be shared by any of your Lordships. If it was the view of the noble and learned Lord I am sure it was not shared by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, who leads the Liberal Party, because he invariably criticises Money Bills when they come before your Lordships' House. It is, I think, a right and proper practice for those Bills to be discussed, although, of course, the functions of your Lordships' House do not permit such measures to be taken with them in the way of amendment as may be taken in another place. Still, they should be adequately discussed in your Lordships' House.
That is more especially the case when a Money Bill that is before your Lordships happens to be a bad Money Bill. With the very greatest respect to my noble friends opposite I venture to suggest that this is a bad Money Bill. It is a very different Bill from what we were led to expect originally. It is a very much smaller Bill. When, on a somewhat celebrated occasion the Prime Minister, under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Air, flew to attend a Socialist Party meeting at Durham, he used these words in the speech which he addressed to that meeting:—
" As soon as they got the King's Speech they would introduce a Bill to put back the subsidy for housing which was contained in the 1924 Act."
I am told that a different announcement was made in another place. Still, I do not think anybody will deny that that

207
was part of the speech made at Durham by the Prime Minister. So, when we consider the Bill, we see that when the Government come down to realities they are unable to go so far as Mr. MacDonald suggested at Durham, and that all they can do, or dare do, or will do is to propose to leave things in statu quo—to leave things as they are. It is true to say, as the noble Lord said in introducing the Bill, that it is a very modest measure. They are introducing what I may describe as only a small tadpole at present. The noble Lord has promised that they are nurturing another which will grow into a very formidable reptile at some indefinite date. We can only wait and see. But whatever the formidability of the reptile which we shall see introduced by the Government at some indefinite date in the future, it is not going to deal with subsidies. This is the last word of the Government on subsidies. I believe that is the case and it was stated, I think, in another place last night. I am subject to correction, of course, in the reply which the noble Lord will address to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, told your Lordships that there was an overwhelming case in favour of this Bill. I venture to think that there is, on the contrary, an overwhelming case against it. It is a mischievous and retrograde measure. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that it will reverse the engine. It will set the clock back; it will not advance it. He told us what were the objects of the Government in the matter of housing. I do not think your Lordships would differ from what he said, that there was an urgent need for plenty of cheap houses. I agree, and we all wish to increase the supply of houses, and of cheap houses. Our objects are the same; our wishes are perhaps the same; but the methods by which we seek to attain those ends are very different indeed. If I understand my noble friend Lord Arnold aright, the contention of the Government is that the reduction of the subsidy does not tend to lower the price, and that the reduction in the subsidy does tend to reduce, the output. Those are the two propositions which I think he put before your Lordships. Let me examine them for a moment. It is a good many years since I first became connected with the Ministry of Health. It was in 1921 that I entered that Department as Parliamentary
208
Secretary. At the same time my noble friend Lord Melchett, then Sir Alfred Mond, entered the Ministry as Minister. I wish he was here to-night because he would put the case much better than I can. I remember that what struck us both at that time was the appalling cost of houses under the Addison scheme.
The noble Lord said that there are a great many factors which tend to increase the cost of houses and I would not controvert that statement for a moment. There are also a great many factors which tend to lower the cost of houses, such as the fall in the price of building materials, which he mentioned. But experience and experiment have shown that the subsidy is one of the factors in the cost of building houses. Let me go very shortly through the figures. In July, 1921, just after the time when Sir Alfred Mond and I entered the Ministry, the price of houses under the Addison scheme was £695. I want to state my case perfectly fairly. The price had fallen to a certain extent. It had been £717. Then it rose to £875, and it was at the very high figure of £695 in July, 1921. After that the subsidy was no longer made payable and the result was that the price fell very rapidly and in December, 1922, was down to £346 per house. The next step was the Act of 1923 which gave a subsidy of I think it was £75 per house. That was followed by a rise, and the price went up from £346 to £386. That was the figure at which it stood in January, 1924, when the Government to which the noble Lord opposite belonged came into Office. Then there came the Wheatley Act subsidy which this Bill seeks to continue. The subsidy under that Act was, as the noble Lord has stated, considerably more than that under the Act of 1923. What was the result? The price went up again with a bound by £52 per house, and then it went on more gradually until it reached £451. There it stayed until December, 1926. Then the late Government made the announcement that the reduction of the subsidy would be undertaken and that it would take place in October, 1927. Down came the price from £451 to £339 eventually. That was the lowest price reached; that is to say, there was a reduction in the price of £112 per house.

209
From that short summary it is clear, I think, that whatever factors there might be in reducing or increasing the price of houses, one constant factor has existed all through, and the price has regularly risen and fallen as the subsidy rose or fell. There has been that difference always. I contend that if you want cheap houses—houses that the poorest members of the community can afford to pay for—the way to get them has been shown by a reduction of the subsidy. By doing this the last Government reduced the price of houses to £339. That is cheaper than houses have ever been since the War.
I come now to the second proposition, that reduction of the subsidy reduces output. What evidence is there of that? My noble friend Lord Arnold relied on a comparison of the figures of 1927. I do not think he mentioned any other year. Let us go a little more deeply into that. I think I shall be able to show to your Lordships that 1927 was a wholly abnormal year. Let us take the other six years, the figures for which I have before me. The output in 1927 was 212,000 houses built. In 1925 and 1926 the output was respectively 95,000 and 131,000. In 1924 it was only 34,000. Then we come to 1928. I am speaking of State-assisted houses now, and urn giving figures which were given in another place, and I do not think they are subject to contradiction. In 1928 there were 101,000 houses built and the estimate for this year, according to the Ministry of Health, is about 120,000, or 20 per cent. more than were built last year. The average, if you take the six years together, from 1924 to 1929 (estimated), is about 110,000 houses a year. If you take out, as I think it might be fair to take out, the 34,000 built in 1924, you get an average output of 130,000 houses during the course of the five years.
But we must not forget that these figures deal only with assisted houses; there must be considered also those which were built without any subsidy—houses built entirely by private enterprise. In the year 1928, there were no fewer than 65,000 of such houses built, which raised the total from 101,001 to 166,000, or, to be perfectly accurate, to 166,415 altogether in 1928. If you add the estimated number of State-assisted houses for this year, 1929–120,000—and the same proportion
210
is maintained of non-assisted houses we ought to get a total this year of something like 200,000 houses. Even granting the fact that increased subsidy means more houses, may there not be this danger, that you will have to put too high prices upon your houses, and you will reach a price which makes it difficult for those for whom the houses are mainly intended, for the poorer members of the community, to pay the rent? That seems to me the great difficulty—that you tend to increase the price of the houses by increasing the subsidy. I maintain that that will occur and has occurred by increases of the subsidy.
Take another point. Is not 200,000 houses per annum all told a very respectable figure, especially when the price is as low as £339 for the smallest house? It is difficult to say, but generally speaking, I think it is admitted that the average wastage—shall I put it?—of houses is about 100,000 houses a year. That is to say, you want every year, without providing any additional houses for the population, 100,000 houses to repair the wastage, to replace old houses and so forth, and if you have double that number it is not so very unsatisfactory. We should like to see more houses provided which will be within the means of the people who want thorn. If you pass this Bill, and of course your Lordships will pass it—I am not going to ask you not to do so—is there any real evidence that the supply of houses is going to be increased by the maintenance of the subsidy? Why should local authorities reduce building if the subsidy is reduced? The reason for reduced building would be that the cost of the houses was increased. By the reduction of the subsidy the cost of houses has not been increased but reduced by £112. Of that £112, £74 10s. is a clear gain to the local authority. I think £25 is the amount of the subsidy, and £12 10s. is the local authority's contribution. There remains, therefore, £74 10s. Why should the local authority, when they can get houses so cheaply, let down their output? I do not think that question has ever been adequately answered. The policy of the late Government was to maintain a high rate of building and at the same time to reduce the cost of building to the lowest point in order that the houses might be readily acceptable to the poorest members of the population. That policy of my right hon.

211
friend Mr. Neville Chamberlain and the late Government was, I maintain, eminently successful. The present Government do not agree with that. They say: "We will do better with a new policy," and they propose to change the policy of the late Government. All I can say is that the decision upon that is in the future. We shall see who was right. In the future we shall know whether our policy was right or whether the present Government are right in their policy. With that final observation I leave the matter to your Lordships' decision.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, I can join with the noble Earl who has just sat down in paying a tribute to the magnificent work which was done by the late Minister of Health in providing new houses, but there was one point in his policy in which I think he was mistaken and that is the very point which we are considering to-night—namely, the reduction of the subsidy. I know that there are many noble Lords, like the noble Earl opposite who has just spoken, who believe that a reduction in the amount of the subsidy is naturally followed by a reduction in the cost, and it is impossible to deny the fact that the two have gone side by side and that the figure has dropped from £450 to £339 per house. But I think it must be borne in mind that £50 of that reduction is due to the fact that the houses now building are of a rather smaller size, and also—and I think this answer goes more to the root of the matter—that when you have a subsidy local authorities put out a large number of orders. Where there are a large number of orders there is no necessity for the builders and contractors to reduce their prices, for they know that there is work waiting for them. When, however, the subsidy is reduced there comes the element of uncertainty in building. Local authorities do not push forward orders in anything like the same number, and the builders who before found themselves over occupied now have to compete one with another, and in competing they reduce the charges which they put in their tenders for the houses.
That, I think, is another interpretation which may be quite rightly and fairly given to the fact that the reduction in price has accompanied the reduction
212
in subsidies; but it does not follow that if there was another reduction in subsidy there would be an equivalent reduction in price. There are many experts who believe that under conditions existing at present the price has reached rock bottom, and that it is unreasonable to expect, unless there is a change in the rate of interest or the method of production that the cost will become lower. But if there is doubt as to how far we can fairly associate the reduction of cost with the reduction of the subsidy, I think there is no doubt whatever that with the reduction of the subsidy there has been a reduction in the number of houses built. I find that I am about to use some of the figures which were used by the noble Earl, but I think that I shall put upon them a somewhat different interpretation and I shall possibly give them in a slightly different order.
In 1924 there were 36,000 subsidised houses built; in 1925 the number went up to 92,000: in 1926 it rose again to 131,000; and in 1927, the abnormal year when the reduction of the subsidy was in sight, the number rose to 212,000. Last year the number of completed houses—I am taking September as the end of the year—dropped to 101,000. This year is, of course, once more an abnormal year, since the subsidy was to come to an end, and the same kind of conditions ought to apply as applied in 1927. But, instead of finding 212,000 houses approaching completion, we are told that in September there will probably be only 120,000. I think those figures show quite plainly that when you reduce the subsidy the number of houses built is also reduced.
Notwithstanding all that has been done upon a splendid scale by the late Government, we have to bear in mind that so far the problem of the slums has not been touched. That problem cannot be touched until you have a sufficient number of houses, let at low rents, to which the people who are now living in the slums can move. The people living in the slums have not, to any large extent, moved out from them, partly because the rent of the new houses is too high—I shall come back to that in a moment—and partly because the new houses are too far from their ordinary places of occupation. Let me give one illustration. There is one of these new districts which

213
I know well. When building started in it three or four years ago quite a number of people came to it from the slums. I was in that district only a few days ago and I made very careful inquiries as to how many people now in that district had actually come from the slums. I was told that practically all those who had once come from the slums had moved back again, not because they disliked their new houses, not because they disliked their new surroundings, but because they could not afford the rent and they could not day by day undertake the expense and the loss of time of the journey to and from their work. We shall never deal with the slum problem adequately unless new houses in very large numbers and at a low rent are erected at a reasonable distance from the work in which these people are engaged.
Now I turn to the problem of rent. I think it is generally recognised by all housing experts that the ideal standard house for a man and his family is one with three bedrooms and a superficial area of 750 square feet. Such a house, under present conditions, cannot cost less than £400, and in that I am including the £50 usually estimated for land and drainage. If you are to build a house at that price, how are you going to bring the rent within reasonable reach of the man in the slum whom you desire to see occupy it? Many of these men can afford only 11 s. a week. You cannot possibly reduce the rent to that amount unless you have a subsidy. No practical suggestion has been advanced as to how you are to reduce the cost of building under present conditions so as to enable a man to pay a rent of 11 s. a week. A subsidy now is inevitable unless house-building for these poorer people is to stop. There are many of these people—I am thinking of unskilled labourers with families—who cannot afford more, than 7s. 6d. a week. The noble Earl who has just spoken said that he hoped that this was the last word in subsidies. I wish I could say that I thought that it was going to be the last word in subsidies, but I am quite convinced that you will never be able to supply decent houses for these poorer people unless later on you increase the subsidy so as to make it possible for them to go to a house for which they can pay a rent of 7s. 6d. a week.
214
I am not arguing that this subsidy should be at a level rate, so that everyone dwelling in these houses should share in it, but I believe that, if the problem is to be solved, you will be driven back upon a policy of giving special rent allowances for children to those who are living in these houses. I know that there are a number of economic and other objections that can be rightly urged against that policy, but the alternative is to allow these people to continue living in the slums without any hope of redress or change. I know that any scheme for dealing with the slums will cost large sums of money. That is quite inevitable. But when you realise the kind of condition under which people are living in those slums you will feel that almost any expenditure is worth while.
I do not know if any of your Lordships have seen the survey which was issued quite recently by what is called the Westminster Survey Group, dealing with the housing conditions in the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark. That survey was carefully carried out by competent and experienced investigators, and they describe a state of things which is nothing less than horrible. In street after street they found people living in conditions of darkness, dampness, and overcrowding, and in houses in which there was vermin. Sometimes a man and his wife and children were living in basements which have long ago been condemned as unfit for habitation. They quote the fact that the Medical Officer of Health for Southwark said that in one year there were ten thousand houses in Southwark alone that were not in a state reasonably fit in all respects for human habitation. When we are brought into personal contact with conditions like this, we feel that it is worth almost any subsidy to try to remove them. I feel it most unjust to blame the authorities of a poor borough like Southwark for the present conditions of affairs. The matter is far too large for any borough, or any medical officer of health or any individual to deal with. It is a problem which must be dealt with by the nation as a whole. I am glad that the Government have decided not to reduce the present subsidy. The measure before us is extremely simple. It simply means that the subsidy now existing is to be continued. It will give the Government time to prepare their plans for a measure

215
dealing with the slums which, I hope, will be both comprehensive and courageous.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate, by his intervention in the debate, has very much lessened the task that will devolve upon me in endeavouring to say something in reply to the observations of the noble Earl opposite. I very much appreciate the speech of the right rev. Prelate. As your Lordships are aware, he takes a very deep, consistent and persistent interest in this matter of housing, particularly the housing of the very poorest, of whom he has so many in his diocese, and I am sure that I express the opinion of all your Lordships in saying that we always listen to him on this matter, as on other matters, with great advantage. I wish to say a very few words. I do not want to make debating points against the noble Earl who, if I may be allowed to say so, made an extremely interesting speech, which I have endeavoured to follow as closely as I could. He used a great many figures, as is perhaps inevitable in this matter. Let me take one or two of his points. He complained that the Bill was not circulated. I do not know how that happened.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not complaining.
LORD ARNOLD: It ought not to have been so. I am sorry that it was so, and I will make inquiries. In regard to the general position it is true, of course, that there is a congestion of business this week, but what I may describe as more or less an agreement was come to about the course of business. When the noble and learned Lord said that Bills were more or less non-contentious, the noble Marquess the leader of the Opposition called attention to this Bill as an important Bill. Therefore, that point was not lost sight of in the general discussion. I found it a little difficult to follow the adjectives of the noble Earl, having regard to what happened in another place. He first said the Bill was a bad Bill and then, warming to his subject, that it was a mischievous Bill. Yet this Bill to which he applies these adjectives was not divided against by his Party elsewhere, and was not very seriously opposed; so I think he rather overstated the position. Despite
216
these rather alarming adjectives he said a little later that the Bill was a very modest Bill and all it did was to leave things as they are. I submit that the noble Earl cannot have it both ways.
The right rev. Prelate proved quite clearly that the subsidy had increased the production of houses over a course of years and that the reduction of the subsidy has decreased the production of houses. I think that is not now a matter of controversy; it is a matter of statistical fact. That is one reason why the Government in view of the urgent need of small houses feel that this Bill is a right Bill. I do not want to make this a point against the noble Earl, but if the subsidy is so harmful—I do not think that is putting it too high in view of what he said—may I ask why the late Government did not take steps to bring it to a speedy end? I would like to put before your Lordships a few figures on the relationship between subsidy and prices. The noble Earl gave some figures, so we shall not quarrel about where I begin. I admit that in these matters of statistical comparison as between prices and subsidies a good deal may depend upon where you begin and where you end. Some years ago, of course, there were abnormal influences at work. The noble Earl said with some show of triumph that owing, as I understood the argument, to the action taken by the late Government prices are lower than they have been since the War. In reference to that I would suggest that the price of nearly everything else is lower.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear!
LORD ARNOLD: Prices have come down, as we all know. He said that in December, 1922, the price of the non-parlour house was £346. That I believe is correct. In the first quarter of this year it was £339, and of that £339 the capitalised value of the subsidy was estimated to be £187. That brings it down to the figure of £152. If there were no subsidy could you construct a house for £152? Of course you could do nothing of the sort. I think it is perfectly clear that if you are going to produce houses at a price which will enable them to be rented by the poorer classes of the community—and they are the people who are

217
most concerned—you must keep the subsidy in being. The right rev. Prelate referred to this vital matter of rent and these figures mean that the actual charge so far as interest and sinking fund are concerned is only £152 because the rest is subsidy. I am not going into five places of decimals, but broadly what I have said is true. Then again, it is well-known that conditions which obtain in England differ from conditions which obtain in Scotland. The subsidy was reduced in England, but it was not reduced to the same extent in Scotland. According to the noble Earl prices in Scotland ought to have remained the same, but they have come down.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not make any argument about Scotland.
LORD ARNOLD: I do not say that prices came down to the same extent, but prices did come down to some extent, proving clearly that the effect of the subsidy in these matters can be greatly exaggerated. I do not think I need go into further figures. No doubt this is a matter which could be argued backwards and forwards for a considerable time, but I think the main points from both sides have been put, and I feel myself—although perhaps I am not quite unprejudiced—that the balance of argument is strongly in favour of the continuance of the subsidy. That is what this Bill secures and I hope your Lordships will assent to its being read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report by the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. RE-APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES.
The Sub-Committee on the Library was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—

The Marquess of Crewe,

the Earl of Ilchester,

the Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford),

the Lord Hylton,

the Lord Colebrooke,

the Lord Ernle,

the Lord Darling,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Commitree on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—

The Earl of Clarendon,

the Earl of Lucan,

the Lord Stanmore,

the Lord Muir Mackenzie,

the Lord Thomson,

with the Lord Great Chamberlain, and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. RETIREMENT OF SIR THOMAS DACRES BUTIEK, K.C.V.O.
The Committee heard with sincere regret of the impending retirement on the 31st instant of Sir Thomas Dacres Butler, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, who has given thirty-seven years' service to the House, and they desire to record their appreciation of the valuable service which he has rendered to the House.
They authorised the payment of a pension to him, based on his combined salaries of £500 per annum, plus the value of his official quarters, which is estimated at £400 per annum. This pension amounts to £555, together with a supplement (subject to quarterly revision) of £105 17 s. 6d., calculated on the current rate of bonus, making a total of £660 17 s. 6d.
The Lord Great Chamberlain and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod informed the Committee that they propose to fill the vacancy thus created by the appointment of Lord Esmé Gordon Lennox, as from the 1st of August, 1929.
Owing to the work on the Parliament buildings now being carried out by the Office of Works, it will not be possible for Sir Thomas Butler's residence to be occupied by Lord Esmé Gordon Lennox for a considerable period. The Treasury have authorised the payment of compensation by way of House allowance to Lord Esmé and are desirous that the payment should be made from the House of Lords Vote.
3. RETIREMENT OF HEAD MESSENGER IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE.
The Committee were informed that Mr. G. O. Mills, the head messenger in the Parliament Office, will retire on the 28th of August next, having completed twenty-two years' service.
The Committee sanctioned a pension amounting to £59 12 s. per annum, together with a supplement of £27 17 s. 10 d. (subject to quarterly revision), calculated on the current bonus, and also a gratuity calculated on the usual basis under the Superannuation Act, 1909, of £212 17s.
4. APPLICATION FOR INCREASES OF SALARY AND PAY.
The Committee considered a Report by the Sub-Committee appointed on the 14th of March, 1929, to consider applications for increases of salary and pay submitted by certain doorkeepers, coal porters and others.
They sanctioned a recommendation by the Sub-Committee that in future a special uniform allowance of £10 should be given to every doorkeeper on appointment.
They also approved an increase of pay of two shillings per week to the coal porters with the exception of the head coal porter whom they considered was at present well provided for.
5. HOUSEKEEPER'S SALARY.
The Committee approved the payment of a sum of 3s. per week for extra duties to the Housekeeper lately appointed, as part of her salary, as in the case of her predecessor.
6. ANNUAL ACCOUNT OF THE FEE FUND.
The Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ending 31st March, 1929, was laid before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.

GREENOCK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee: Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
INVERNESS WATER AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SUTTON DISTRICT WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BARMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY BILL.
HENDON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

ROMFORD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
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:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10).

The same were Ordered to lie on the Table.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
UNOPPOSED ORDERS.
Reported, without amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Committed for to-morrow.