Sitting of 29 July 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bournemouth Corporation Bill,
Bristol Cattle Market Bill,
Bristol Corporation (No. 2) Bill,
Cardiff Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July, and agreed to.
Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel Bill (Certified Bill),
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July, and agreed to. [Three with Special Entry.]
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill,
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July, and agreed to.
Southport Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Boston Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered:
Ordered,
"That Standing Orders 85, 216 and 242 be suspended and that the Amendments proposed by the Promoters be now considered."—[The Deputy Chairman.]
Amendments made.
Ordered,
"That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill [Lords],
Ordered,
"That, in the case of the London United Tramways Bill [Lords], Standing Order
236
243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [Lords].
Ordered,
"That any further Proceedings on the London County Council (Improvements) Bill [Lords] be suspended in order that the Bill may be proceeded with in the new Session of Parliament."
Ordered,
"That when the said Bill is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament it shall be read the First time pro forma, in respect of which stage no new fees shall be charged, and shall be ordered to be read a Second time."
Ordered,
"That the Standing Orders by which Proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session."
Ordered,
"That all Petitions presented in the present Session against the said Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, and that all notices and grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees relating to such notices shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament."
Ordered,
"That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session."
That these Orders be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Amendments to Standing Orders, new Standing Orders, and repeals of Standing Orders, relating to Private Business, recommended by the Select Committee on Private Bills, subject to minor drafting alterations, as set out in the Schedule attached hereto, be approved by this House":—

SCHEDULE.

  PART I.
  AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO THE STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS) TO CARRY OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE IN PARAGRAPHS 6 TO 8, 13 AND 14 OF THE REPORT.
  Standing Order 3, leave out the whole Order, and insert,—
  3. In all cases where Application has been or is intended to be made for leave to bring in a Bill relating to any of the subjects included in either of the two classes a Notice shall be published in manner hereinafter provided containing a concise summary of the purposes of the Bill, but without detailed particulars and without any reference to provisions of an ancillary, subsidiary, or consequential nature intended to give effect to any such purpose.
  Provided that if by the Bill power is sought to amalgamate with any company, or to sell or lease the undertaking, or to purchase or take on lease any undertaking, or to enter into a working agreement or traffic arrangement, the Notice shall specify the authority, company, or person with, to, from, or by whom it is proposed that the amalgamation, sale, purchase, lease, agreement, or arrangement is to be made.
  The Notice shall also state that on and after the fourth day of December a copy of the Bill may be inspected and copies thereof obtained at a reasonable price at an office (to be mentioned in the Notice) in London, and at the following office or offices (to be mentioned in the Notice) that is to say,—

  (a) in the case of a Bill relating to any particular city, borough (metropolitan or other), urban or rural district, at an office situate in that city, borough, or district;

  (b) in the case of a Bill relating to an undertaking at an office situate in the county in which the principal office of the Promoters of the Bill is situate;

  (c) in the case of a Bill authorising the construction of works, or the taking or compulsory user of lands, or extending the time granted by a former Act for any such purpose, also at an office situate in the county, or each of the counties, in which the works or lands are situate.

  The Notice shall be headed by the short title of the Bill, and shall be subscribed with the name of the person responsible for the publication of the Notice.
  Standing Order 4, leave out the whole Order, and insert,—
  4. In cases of Bills of the Second Class, and of Bills of the First Class in respect of which Plans are required to be deposited the Notice shall also contain—

  (a) the names of the cities, boroughs (metropolitan or other), and urban and rural districts, and in the case of rural districts the parishes from, in, through, or into which any work is intended to be
  238
  made, maintained, varied, extended, or enlarged, or in which any land intended to be taken is situate; and

  (b) a statement of the Officers with Whom plans, sections, and books of reference have been deposited in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 24 and 29; and

  (c) in the case of a Bill of the Second Class, a general description of the nature of the proposed works; and

  (d) in the case of a Bill authorising the taking or compulsory user of any common or commonable land the name, if any, of the common or commonable land, and of the parish or parishes in which it is situate.

  Standing Order 5, line 9, leave out "Lands in or upon," and insert "the name of the city, borough (metropolitan or other), urban or rural district, and in the case of a rural district the parish in."
  Standing Order 9, leave out lines 1 to 4, inclusive, and insert "Not later than the eleventh day of December the Notice."
  Standing Order 9a, leave out the whole Order, and insert,—
  9a. Not later than the eleventh day of December there shall be published once in the London Gazette, and, if any powers are sought by the Bill which affect Scotland or Northern Ireland, also once in the Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette, a short notice stating—

  (a) the short title of the Bill;

  (b) the name and date of publication of each newspaper in which the full notice has been or will be published in accordance with Standing Order 9;

  (c) the offices at which copies of the Bill may be inspected and obtained mentioned in the full notice;

  (d) in the case of a Bill of the Second Class or of a Bill of the First Class, in respect of which plans are required to be deposited, the Officers with whom plans, sections, and books of reference have been deposited in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 24 and 29.

  Standing Order 10, leave out lines 1 and 2, and insert "In the case of an."
  Line 8, after "shall," insert "not later than the twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 11, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Fifth day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 13, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the" and insert "Fifth day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 13a, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Fifth day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 14, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Fifth day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 15, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Fifth day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 16, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Fifth day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 17, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Twenty-first day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Eleventh day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 17a, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Twenty-first day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Eleventh day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 18, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Twenty-first day of December immediately preceding the," and insert "Eleventh day of December in the case of an."
  Standing Order 24, lines 20 and 21, leave out "Thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill," and insert "Twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 25, line 1, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 25a, line 12, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 25b, line 6, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 26, lines 4 to 6, leave out "30th day of November immediately preceding the Application for the Bill," and insert "twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 26a, lines 9 and 10, leave out "thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the Application for the Bill," and insert "twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 26b, lines 7 and 8, leave out "30th day of November immediately preceding the Application for the Bill," and insert "twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 27, lines 7 to 9, leave out "30th day of November immediately preceding the Application for the Bill," and insert "twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 28, line 6, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 29, line 10, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 30, line 12, leave out "thirtieth," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 32, line 2, leave out from "by," to "and," in line 5, and insert "the short title of the Bill."
  Line 8, leave out "Seventeenth day of December," and insert "twenty-seventh day of November."
  Line 9, leave out "Bill and Declaration," and insert "and Bill."
  Line 15, leave out from "same," to the end of the Order.
  Standing Order 33, line 1, leave out "21st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 34, line 1, leave out "21st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 34a, line 1, leave out "21st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 35, line 4, leave out "31st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 35a, line 7, leave out "31st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 36, line 1, leave out "31st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 36a, line 1, leave out "31st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 36b, line 1, leave out "31st," and insert "fourth."
  Standing Order 38, line 11, leave out "21st," and insert "eleventh."
  Standing Order 39, line 11, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth.'
  Line 13, leave out "30th," and insert "twentieth."
  Standing Order 57, line 1, leave out "January," and insert "December."
  Standing Order 66, line 27, leave out from "64," to the first "in," in line 49.
  Standing Order 69, line 5, leave out "January," and insert "December."
  Standing Order 79, line 3, leave out "28th," and insert "eighth."
  Standing Order 87, line 2, after "Chairman," insert "and the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."
  Lines 6, 7, and 8, leave out "and shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."
  Standing Order 91, leave out the whole Order, and insert,—
  91. There shall be a Committee, to be designated "The Select Committee on Standing Orders," to consist of the Chairman of Ways and Means (who, when present, shall be ex-officio Chairman of every such Committee), the Deputy Chairman, and two Members from time to time selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means from a panel to be appointed by the Committee of Selection at the commencement of every Session; three shall be a quorum, and the Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker.
  Standing Order 105, line 12, leave out "and Counsel to Mr. Speaker," and insert "which Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."
  Standing Order 123, lines 10 and 11, leave out "12th day of February," and insert "thirtieth day of January."
  After line 31, insert,—
  (d) any Bill in respect of which the Examiner shall not have endorsed the petition by the twentieth day of January certifying that the Standing Orders have been complied with.
  Standing Order 211, line 2, after "every," insert "opposed."
  Line 3, after "every," insert "opposed."
  Standing Order 213, lines 3 and 4, leave out "or a Railway or a Tramway Bill."
  Lines 5 and 6, leave out "and not a Railway or a Tramway Bill."
  Standing Order 217, line 1, at the beginning, insert "If the Chairman of Ways and Means shall consider such printing expedient."
  Line 10, leave out from "underlined," to "The," in line 12.
  Standing Order 220, line 1, at the beginning, insert "If the Chairman of Ways and Means shall consider such printing expedient."
  Line 9, leave out from "underlined," to "and," in line 11.
  Standing Order 224a, line 4, leave out "12th day of February," and insert "thirtieth day of January."
  Line 8, leave out "17th day of December," and insert "twenty-seventh day of November."
  Standing Order 230, line 5, leave out "17th December," and insert "twenty-seventh day of November."
  Line 5, leave out from "deposited," to end of line 13, and insert "on or before the seventeenth day of December."
  Line 16, leave out "17th December," and insert "twenty-seventh day of November."
  Standing Order 236, lines 2 and 3, leave out "Unopposed and."
  Standing Order 237, line 3, leave out the first "the," and insert "an opposed."
  New Standing Order 238, "The Committee on Unopposed Bills may consider a Bill referred to them without notice provided that a filled-up Bill has been previously deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office."

  Part II.
  Standing Order 1, line 17, leave out "County rate."
  Line 26, at end, insert "General rate."
  Line 30, after "Land," insert "taking."
  Line 31, at end, insert "Local Authority enlarging or altering Powers of."
  Line 38, leave out "Poor rate."
  Definitions, line 16, leave out from "vehicles," to end oh line 18, and insert "adapted for use upon roads without rails are moved by electrical power transmitted thereto from some external source."
  Line 18, at end, insert "the term 'classified road' means a road classified by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, in Class I or Class II, or in any class declared by him to be not inferior to those classes for the purpose of the Local Government Act, 1929."
  Standing Order No. 9, line 19, after "situate," insert "or if there be no newspaper published therein then in some newspaper or newspapers published in some county adjoining or near thereto."
  Standing Order 11, line 6, leave out "that," and insert "any such."
  Standing Order 14, line 30, leave out "the Peace," and insert "County Councils and Town Clerks of County Boroughs."
  Standing Order 24, line 16, leave out "Peace for every County, Riding, or Division," and insert "County Council of every administrative County, and of the Town Clerk of every County Borough."
  Line 27, leave out "the Peace," and insert "County Councils and Town Clreks."
  Line 38, leave out "Peace," and insert "County Council or Town Clerk."
  Line 42, after "Map," insert "published, prepared, or approved by the Ordnance Survey."
  Standing Order 27, lines 6 and 7, leave out "any Clerk of the Peace," and insert "the Clerk of any County Council or Town Clerk of any County Borough."
  Standing Order 29, line 14, after "any," insert "metropolitan or non-County."
  Lines 15 and 16, leave out "whether metropolitan or other."
  Standing Order 33, line 3, leave out "Private."
  Line 6, leave out "Private."
  Lines 6 and 7, leave out "relating to England and Wales."
  Line 10, leave out paragraph (3).
  Line 13, leave out "Private."
  Line 42, leave out "in England and Wales."
  Line 57, leave out paragraph 11, and insert "(11) Of every Bill relating to any company, body, or person carrying on business in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom:

  (a) If the business is carried on in a self-governing Dominion at the office of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs;

  (b) If the business is carried on in India at the office of the Secretary of State for India;

  (c) If the business is carried on in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions at the office of the Secretary of State for the Colonies."

  Line 70, leave out "Private."
  Lines 70 and 71, leave out "relating to England and Wales."
  Lines 81 and 82, leave out "if the property is in England."
  Line 91, leave out "Private."
  Lines 92 to 94, leave out "of land in England or Wales or which relates to the improvement of land in England, Wales, or Scotland," and insert "or improvement of land."
  Lines 102 and 103, leave out "in the United Kingdom."
  Standing Order 34A, lines 6 and 7, leave out "Road Authority," and insert "County or borough or district council liable for the maintenance of the streets or roads."
  Standing Order 36A, line 20, after "purposes," insert "of."
  Line 24, leave out from the first "the," to the end of the Standing Order, and insert "area for which the local authority act, that is to say:

  (a) the Acreage;

  (b) the population of the area according to the last Census;

  (c) the rateable value of the area according to the valuation list in force at the commencement of the then current financial year;

  (d) the rates in the pound of all local rates made within the area during the last preceding financial year;

  (e) the sum of the balances of outstanding loans raised by the local authority showing separately those in respect of (1) revenue producing undertakings, (2) housing, (3) education, and (4) other purposes, after deducting any sums in sinking funds."

  Standing Order 39, line 2, leave out from "deposited," to "duplicates," in line 5, and insert "with any Public Department in relation to any Provisional Order or Certificate by which it is proposed to authorise the taking of land or the construction of works."
  Lines 9 and 10, leave out "at any Public Department or with any County Council."
  Standing Order 60, line 5, after "34," insert "or Standing Order 255."
  Standing Order 61, lines 12 and 13, leave out "Peace of every County Riding or Division," and insert "County Council of every administrative county and Town Clerk of every County Borough."
  Standing Order 76, line 3, leave out from "evidence," to the end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order 84, line 8, after "34," insert "or Standing Order 255."
  Standing Order 99, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 111, line 2, leave out "not being a Divorce Bill."
  Standing Order 128, line 24, leave out "Commissioners," and insert "and Canal Commission or the Railway Rates Tribunal."
  Standing Order 132, line 9, leave out "main," and insert "county."
  Standing Order 134, line 5, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture," and insert "Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  Standing Order 141, line 5, leave out from "evidence," to the end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order 145, line 3, leave out "main," and insert "classified."
  Standing Order 151, line 11, leave out from "applicable," to end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order 154, lines 3 and 4, leave out "Turnpike Road so defined in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 and insert "classified road."
  Standing Order 157, line 12 leave out "Highway," and insert "public carriage road."
  Standing Order 158a, line 25, leave out "Paymaster General," and insert "Accountant General."
  Standing Order 166a, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 167, line 49, leave out "half-yearly."
  Standing Order 168c, line 6, after "1888," insert "and of Section seventy-two of the Railways Act, 1921."
  Standing Order 170, line 3, after "Subway," insert "shall."
  Standing Order 171, line 9, leave out from "them," to "Provided," in line 15.
  Standing Order 172, lines 6 and 7, leave out "Ministry of Transport or."
  Line 7, after "Health," insert "the Ministry of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners."
  Line 12, after "Ministry," insert "or Commissioners."
  Standing Order 175, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 176, line 5, leave out from "Affidavit," to the end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order 177, lines 16 and 17, leave out "value according to the Poor Rate or Land Tax Assessment," and insert "net annual value for Income Tax purposes as defined by the Local Government Act, 1929."
  Standing Order 178, lines 14 and 15, leave out "value according to the Poor Rate or Land Tax Assessment," and insert "net annual value for Income Tax purposes as defined by the Local Government Act, 1929."
  Standing Order 179, line 11, leave out from "for," to "in," in line 13, and insert "vesting the same in the appropriate authority of the area."
  Line 16, leave out "parish," and insert "authority."
  Standing Order 180, line 7, leave out "enfranchisement of copyholds," and insert "extinguishment of manorial incidents."
  Standing Order 184a, line 2, leave out "the county of."
  Standing Order 189, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 189a, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 190, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 191, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 192, leave out the whole Order.
  Standing Order 208, lines 1 and 2, leave out "not being a Divorce Bill."
  Lines 4, and 5, leave out "and if a Divorce Bill to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills."
  Standing Order 255, line 16, after "deposited," insert "and it shall not be necessary to comply with the provisions as to the deposit of copies of the Bills at offices of public Departments and other offices which are applicable to other Bills."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
  Major COLFOX: May we have some explanation of this Motion? Of course, we cannot ask for a detailed explanation of every item in this long Schedule, but can we have some kind of explanation as to the general effect of these alterations?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Dunnico): I should like to explain to the House that these proposed Amendments of Standing Orders have a two-fold object. The first object is to expedite the passage of private Bills through the Session by about 10 days. Those 10 days will do much to relieve congestion which has always to be faced at the end of the Session. Part II is almost purely drafting. The Amendments are consequential either upon the alteration of dates or upon the passing of the Local Government Act of last year. I may say, for the information of the House that these Amendments, consequential upon the alteration of dates, have been agreed to by the County Councils Association, the Municipal Boroughs Association, the Urban District Councils Association, the Parliamentary Bar, the Parliamentary Agents, and unanimously by the Select Committee of which I am Chairman. I think the House may rest assured that no change of real substance has been made, but that what is proposed is merely to expedite the passage of private Bills by about 10 days each Session.
  Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: No one wants to stop this business in any way, but may I ask whether there is no method of taking this prolonged business in Government time instead of it engaging so much of private Members' Question Time? I do not suppose that anyone wants to discuss these Amend-
  246
  ments, but they might wish to do so, and, if there were discussion, it might occupy the whole of Question Time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The ordinary time set apart for this business is from 2.45 to 3 o'clock.
  Question put, and agreed to.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for
"Return showing the number of experiments on living animals during the year 1929 under licences granted in pursuance of the Act 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 14, of Session 1929)."—[Mr. Short.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (ADVERTISING).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any representations have been made to the Empire Marketing Board criticising the Board's advertising programme from the point of view of design, expense, suitability, and efficiency, and what reply has been sent and what action taken?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Board received some months ago from the British Poster Advertising Association a paper criticising in particular their use of special frames instead of the public hoardings for the display of posters designed to further their policy. They were further asked to receive, or to arrange for their Publicity Committee to receive, a deputation from the Association. This paper was carefully considered by the Board, who were not convinced that its representations would justify the change in their policy which was suggested, or that a deputation on the subject could use fully be received. The Association were so informed at the time.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart

    247
    from the matters to which he has just referred, there is a great deal of opinion to the contrary, and that it is felt that, owing to the general similarity of these advertisements, the series is losing in effect?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am aware of the fact that this particular association is, quite naturally, anxious to get the business for itself, but we had to consider the advantage to the public, as against the particular advantage, and in this case the public advantage won.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the public does gain an advantage to the value of over £250,000 which has been, so far, spent on these advertisements?
    Mr. THOMAS: One cannot put an assumption of that kind in figures. The short point is that this particular association want the advertisements in their own particular way by which they particularly benefit—[Interruption.] I am dealing with the facts and the answer to the question is that, the matter having been considered, it was decided that, on balance, the evidence was against them.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on what expert advertising advice the Empire Marketing Board rely in the formulation of their publicity campaign?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Board rely mainly on the advice of their Publicity Committee, the membership of which includes persons well qualified to provide the expert advice required.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this advice is voluntary, or if any of it is paid advice?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not think that any of it is paid. If hon. Members look at some of the names—Sir William Crawford, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), Sir Woodman Burbidge, and a number of others—I am quite sure it will be agreed that they command confidence.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Secretary of State for War is not on this committee?

    AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the effect on industry and employment in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton of the recent Australian tariff; and whether he will make representations to the Australian Government on the subject?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 11th February last, alluding to the representations which had already been made.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of bringing before the Imperial Conference the question of the hostile attitude of the Australian Government towards this country?
    Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from the manufacturers of Wolverhampton in favour of Imperial Preference?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As regards the second supplementary question, I should require notice. This question refers to certain articles manufactured in the Wolverhampton area, and representations were made at the time. I cannot, of course, say anything at all as to what will be done at the coming Conference.
    Captain GUNSTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to "the hostile attitude" of one of the Dominion Governments?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that references of that kind ought not to be made.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure that the hon. Member did not mean that in any offensive way.
    Mr. MANDER: I was unfortunately unable to catch the remark which you made, Mr. Speaker, owing to the noise. Most certainly I do not desire to say anything which reflects on the attitude of the Australian Government, but I want to emphasise the fact that the action which they have taken is definitely injurious to this country.

    FOREIGN GRAIN (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade what treaties, if any, would prevent a general order prohibiting the import of bounty-fed grain?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: A general order prohibiting the importation of goods on the ground that they are dumped or bounty-fed would conflict with the provisions of the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions which is in force between the United Kingdom and six other countries. It would also conflict with the Anglo-German Treaty and the Anglo-Persian Tariff Autonomy Treaty. Apart from these instruments, there are eight treaties in force which specifically provide against the prohibition of the importation of any articles unless the importation of like articles from other countries is prohibited at the some time, and which contain no reservation in regard to bounty-fed or other dumped goods.
    Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would not these treaties permit prohibitive duties as distinct from prohibition?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes; in the debate the other day I tried to make it clear that it is a duty at large which is applicable all round. Then, as I am advised, no treaty question arises.
    Mr. McSHANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state which Government negotiated these treaties?

    SOFT FRUITS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of the following soft fruits have been imported this year and in 1929, and at what date in each case the first importations arrived: strawberries, black, red, and white currants, and raspberries?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the first six months of the present year, 51,672 cwts. of strawberries and 10,710 cwts. of currants were registered among the raw fruit imported, the quantities similarly registered in the corresponding period of 1929 being 50,500 cwts. of strawberries and 21,663 cwts. of currants. Similar particulars of raspberries and of the separate varieties of currants imported are not available. The earliest entries of fresh strawberries this year were re-
    250
    corded on 20th March in respect of arrivals by aeroplane, and on 2nd April in respect of arrivals by sea. Frozen strawberries were also recorded during March. Entries for fresh currants were first recorded this year on 5th June.
    Mr. CHRISTIE: Is it not a fact that this large quantity of imported fruit is bought by the jam-boilers from the representative of the importers, and that, though it does not actually appear in such a market as Covent Garden, yet it seriously depresses the prices obtained there for home-grown fruit?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that I could not hear the hon. Member's question.

    RUSSIAN TIMBER (IMPORTS).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of Russian timber imported into this country during the month of June?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total value of the imports into the United Kingdom of wood and timber registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) during the month of June, 1930, was £765,141. In quantity, these imports amounted to 52,627 cubic feet of hard wood, sawn, and 214,718 loads of other wood.
    Mr. HACKING: Is it not a fact that the White Sea was frozen over for part of that time; otherwise, the figures would have been very much larger?
    Mr. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend must give me notice of that frost.

    KRAFT PAPER (IMPORTS).
    Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the President of the Board of Trade the latest figures as to the imports of M.G. kraft paper into this country; and whether he has any information as to the number of firms producing such paper in this country?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total imports of kraft paper (unglazed, glazed, and machine-glazed) into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered during the first six months of 1930 amounted to 880,589 cwts., of a declared value of £837,107, as compared with 931,572 cwts., valued at £952,010, during the corresponding period of 1929. Separate particulars in respect of machine-glazed kraft paper only are not available, and

    251
    I am unable to state the total number of firms in this country engaged in producing this class of paper.

    WAR MATERIALS (EXPORT TO CHINA).
    Mr. P. OLIVERasked the President of the Board of Trade the date on which the last licence was issued for the export of war materials from this country to China; and will he consider the desirability of refusing such licences in the future?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The last such licence was issued on 11th July. Every application for a licence to export war material to foreign countries is considered on its merits and no decision to issue or refuse a licence is taken until the views of the Foreign Office and the Service Department concerned have been obtained.
    Mr. OLIVER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the interests of our trade and of peace in China, these licences should be definitely stopped?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That question would require to be addressed to another Department, to the Foreign Office or some other, because the duty of the Board of Trade in this matter is merely that of licensing authority. I have no jurisdiction beyond.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What has happened to the embargo on arms to China, which was signed by a great many Powers, including ourselves?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is plainly a matter for another Department. In any case, I should require notice of it.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not issue licences without consulting some other Department?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is made clear in my reply. The other Departments are very fully consulted, and the duty of the Board of Trade is merely to issue licences after the consultations.
    Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Foreign Office to see if these licences could be stopped?

    TIN ALLUVIALS, CORNWALL (DEVELOPMENT).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the President of the Board of Trade whether,
    252
    in view of the fact that £1,000,000 is offered by private sources for the development of a new industry, in connection with tin alluvials, on the Tamar and that the establishment of this industry would mean the absorption of many unemployed, he will take steps to facilitate the establishment of this industry, which is being held up by the fishing rights of individuals, seeing that no risk to the State is involved?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 24th June.
    Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inquiry, as the possibility of employment raised here is considerable?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The difficulty is that the firm in question, according to my information, have either abandoned the project, or at all events are not pressing it. If they would communicate with me, I would make further inquiries.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (AGENDA).
  Lord BALNIELasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which Dominions have already handed in for consideration at the Imperial Conference the question of bulk purchases; and what commodities are affected?
  Mr. THOMAS: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) on 30th June last, it is hoped before the end of the Session to give the House an outline of the agenda of the Imperial Conference both on the political and the economic sides.
  Lord BALNIEL: Is it not possible to give an answer to my question?
  Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lord knows that the agenda must be an agreed agenda. I said, in reply to previous questions, that we hoped to be able to give, before Friday next, a complete answer setting out the agreed agenda. I understand that arrangements are already made so that on Thursday of this week that answer, with the full details of the agenda, will be given.
  Lord BALNIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on 16th July the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in this House that certain of the Dominions had handed in this question for the agenda; and is it not legitimate to ask which Dominions have done so?
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not understand the grievance in this case. Previous Governments have always laid it down—and we are following in this case the precedent which has been set—that the agenda must be an agreed agenda. While it is true that certain Dominions have sent in requests, other Dominions are being consulted on the matter.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: What is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for not answering this question?
  Mr. THOMAS: The only reason is that the agenda on the Imperial and economic sides is long and complicated and that it would be much better to give to the House of Commons and the country the full agenda when agreement has been reached upon it.
  Lord BALNIEL: Are we not as Members of Parliament entitled to get this information?

  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  Mr. CHARLES BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any appointment has yet been made to the office of High Commissioner for Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland; and, if not, when such appointment will be made?
  Mr. THOMAS: The appointment of High Commissioner for South Africa is at present held by the Earl of Athlone in conjunction with that of Governor-General of the Union of South Africa. The arrangements to be made when Lord Athlone's term of office comes to an end are under consideration.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (LOADING REGULATIONS).
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further proposals have recently been placed before the merchant shipping advisory committee for the purpose of preventing over
  254
  loading of ships; and whether any new regulations have been made with regard thereto?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: No proposals with regard to the prevention of overloading have been placed before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee since their Report on Overloading of December, 1929, which was issued as Stationery Office publication No. 51–180 of 1930. Regulations to give effect to certain recommendations in that report are contained in Statutory Rules and Orders, 1930, No. 233, dated the 31st March, 1930.
  Mr. DAY: Are any discussions now taking place between the various shipping associations on the subject?
  Mr. GRAHAM: This matter is constantly being considered. I rather think that my hon. Friend is referring to the recent international conference on the load line, which is, of course, an entirely different matter, but this subject is, as I say, constantly under consideration.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the existing position or does he consider that further regulations are necessary?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps the best way of replying to that question is to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the report which is a very adequate reply.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not ask for a copy of the report. I asked the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible in this matter, if he was satisfied with the position?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, I am quite satisfied, but I would still advise the hon. Gentleman to read that report.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TIMBER SUPPLIES.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the timber used by his Department is of Empire origin; and, if not, from what other sources is the timber derived?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Sanders): Approximately 50 per cent. of the timber purchased by the War Office is of Empire origin. The remaining 50 per cent. is obtained principally from Russia, Fin-

    255
    land, Sweden, France and Germany. Wherever Empire timber is suitable, preference is given to it.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the action taken by the United States respecting this imported timber, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government that we should follow their example?
    Mr. SANDERS: I believe the notice of my right hon. Friend has already been called to that matter.

    MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War what would have been the difference in cost if British-produced meat instead of imported meat had been purchased for the Army for the period from 1st January to 30th June of the present year?
    Mr. SANDERS: It is estimated that the difference in cost of supplying the Army and Royal Air Force at home with fresh meat instead of imported meat for the six months in question would have been approximately £200,000. To avoid misapprehension I would add that the imported meat supplied was practically all of Dominion origin.

    RECRUITING.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he has now received the report of the Departmental Committee appointed by him to inquire into the reasons for the shortage of recruits for the Regular Army; and, if not, whether he is taking any steps meanwhile to enlist the aid of local authorities in order to make known the serious shortage which exists?
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received the report of the Committee which has been conducting a special examination into the problem of maintaining the strength of the Army; and, if so, whether he will tell the House what special steps are to be undertaken to improve recruiting?
    Mr. SANDERS: The examination to which the right hon. Members refer is not being undertaken by a Committee but by those who are responsible for advising the Secretary of State on these matters. Consideration of the problem is still proceeding, and the subject continues to be
    256
    closely watched. In the meantime no special steps are being taken.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to convey to the Secretary of State that we intend to raise this matter on the Vote to-morrow, and that we shall not be satisfied with any such answer as he himself has just given?
    Mr. SANDERS: My right hon. Friend is aware that the matter is to be discussed to-morrow, and is prepared to deal with the questions which will be put to him.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS OFFICERS.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War what is the present position with regard to medical officers in the Army; if there are any signs of more satisfactory recruitment to this service; and, if not, can he state the reasons for the present position?
    Mr. SANDERS: The present shortage of regular Royal Army Medical Corps officers is approximately 140, and my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the Army Medical Advisory Board as to the causes of this shortage and the possible remedies.
    Dr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman notice that I asked him if he could state the reasons for the present position. Can he do that?
    Mr. SANDERS: The question asks what is the present position with regard to medical officers, if there are any signs of more satisfactory recruitment, and, if not, what are the reasons for the present position. My right hon. Friend is making a comprehensive inquiry—
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Thinking!
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. 363.
    Mr. SANDERS:—through the usual channels of the Army Medical Advisory Board, and he will probably be able to add further information in the debate which, I believe, is going to take place.

    SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under Army Form W. 3458 certain other ranks who served during the War with the Somerset Royal Horse

    257
    Artillery (Territorial), 116th Brigade Royal Field Artillery, were credited with a balance of bounty of £10 each, which was subsequently omitted from their statements of account (Army Form W. 5065) on discharge; and if he will take such steps as may be necessary to have the balances referred to paid to the men concerned at an early date?
    Mr. SANDERS: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the bounty granted under Army Order 209 of 1916. Instructions were issued in 1920 for the balance of this bounty to be paid forthwith instead of being retained until the men concerned were discharged. I regret that at this distance of time when material facts and relevant documents are normally no longer available, I cannot investigate claims of this nature presented 10 years after they were due.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Am I right in understanding from the hon. Member's answer that the Government regards the moral liability of the State to its creditors as less than that of a bank to its depositors?

    OFFICERS PAY AND PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the pay and pensions of Army officers are subject to reduction in accordance with the falling cost of living, while the pay and pensions of other services are maintained at their standard rates, he will take the necessary steps to have this matter placed on an equal footing between all services?
    Mr. SANDERS: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The pay and pensions of other services no less than those of officers of the Army are at present regulated in relation to the cost of living. In the case of the Civil Service the basis has been a cost of living figure of 70 for the 12 months ending 31st August, 1930; from that date I understand the basis will be a cost of living figure of 65. In the case of Army officers, pay and pensions have been based on a cost of living figure of 70 for a period ending 30th June, 1931. The question of the figure to rule from that date will come up for consideration in due course.

  RUSSIA (REGULAR ARMY).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give particulars of the present war establishment of the Russian Soviet Government; and what increases have been made during the past year?
  Mr. SANDERS: The establishment of the regular army of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, according to the League of Natons Armaments Year Book, 1930, is 562,000. This figure, I understand, excludes all military formations other than the regular army. There has been no change in the figure shown since 1929.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the forces available for war in the Russian Soviet Republic have been materially increased during the last 12 months, when other nations have been reducing their armaments?
  Mr. SANDERS: The information that I have given to the House does not seem to convey the meaning expressed by the hon. Member.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Member make further inquires to bring his information up-to-date?

  SCOTLAND.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of farms acquired for small holdings in the nine northern counties of Scotland in the three years ended 30th June, 1930; the total acreage and the purchase price per acre; the total valuation paid in addition to the purchase price; the amount of valuation paid in respect of one, two, and three year old and older grasses, respectively; and the amount received from the let of grass parks or sale of grass or hay in the first nine months and/or year after purchase in the event of the Department of Agriculture failing to occupy such parks or placing tenants thereon immediately after purchase?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): As the reply involves a table of figures, I propose with the right hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    RETURN.

    County.

    Farms acquired during 3 years ended 30th June, 1930.

    Area.

    Price per Acre.

    Amount of Valuations paid in addition to price.

    Valuations for Grasses.

    Total.

    Net Amount received for Let of Grasses.

    1st Year.

    2nd Year.

    3rd Year.

    Acres.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Shetland

    …

    Ordale

    2,140

    1

    2

    6

    1,566

    14

    0

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Orkney

    …

    Nil

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Caithness

    …

    Lochend

    2,240

    4

    9

    3

    1,840

    18

    10

    244

    2

    0

    Nil

    Nil

    244

    2

    0

    344

    0

    0

    Hoy

    297

    6

    9

    6

    (Not yet fixed.)

    (Not yet fixed.)

    Nil

    Nil

    (Not fixed)

    103

    0

    0

    Braal

    367

    Sutherland

    …

    Nil

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Ross and Cromarty

    …

    Balnabeen

    290

    15

    13

    9

    1,503

    3

    7

    248

    16

    8

    (Included in purchase price.)

    248

    16

    8

    262

    5

    3

    Kinkell

    261

    20

    13

    9

    2,495

    17

    6

    420

    13

    9

    (Included in purchase price.)

    420

    13

    9

    239

    13

    6

    Dounie

    278

    12

    4

    7

    239

    3

    5

    88

    5

    0

    Nil

    Nil

    88

    5

    0

    147

    10

    0

    Raddery

    538

    9

    5

    10

    (Not yet fixed.)

    (Not yet fixed.)

    (Included in purchase price.)

    —

    —

    Inverness

    …

    Milton of Culloden

    162

    25

    12

    4

    867

    3

    10

    184

    10

    0

    69

    1

    2

    84

    19

    3

    338

    10

    5

    327

    5

    0

    Luskentyre

    5,400

    (Price not yet fixed.)

    (Not yet fixed.)

    (Not yet fixed.)

    Nil

    Nairn

    …

    Nil

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Moray

    …

    Nil

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Banff

    …

    Nil

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Aberdeen

    …

    Nil

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    10 farms

    11,973

    Not determinable.

    Not determinable.

    Not determinable.

    1,423

    13

    9

    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to state what number of new holdings and enlargements, respectively, will be constituted during the current year?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Applicants have either already been or will be given entry this year to 89 new holdings and five enlargements. In addition, 33 settlements on approved schemes are in view, and the Department of Agriculture have a number of other schemes under consideration, but it is impossible to say how many settlements will be effected under such schemes in 1930.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: When considering the new schemes, will consideration be given to the application for rough grazing in Balblair?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I could not answer that question.

    PUBLIC OFFICERS (TENURE).
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what municipal, local government, and other public officers in Scotland have security of tenure of office respectively; and what are the titles and sections of the Acts or Orders which provide that protection?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As the list is some-what long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    The undermentioned officers of county and town councils in Scotland are not removable from office except by or with the consent of the Court or a Government Department:
    Officers and Statutory or other Provision.
    The town clerks of Royal burghs—(Common Law).
    Medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors—Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, Section 15.
    Medical practitioners in the Highlands and Islands appointed by the county council for the purposes of the duties of the council as public assistance authority—Highlands and Islands (Medical Services) Grant Act, 1913, Section 3 (5).
    Medical officers of poorhouses—Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, Section 66.
    Inspectors of poor—Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, Section 56.
    Medical superintendents of sanatoria—Orders made under Section 64 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911.
    Public analysts—Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, Sections 15 and 35.
    Veterinary inspectors—Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, Section 3.
    Medical superintendents of certified institutions for mental defectives—Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act (General Boards) Regulations 1914, Paragraph 56 (1) (c.)
    Registrars of births, deaths and marriages—Registration of Births, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1854, Section 15.
    Under Section 1 of the Police Appeals Act, 1927, police officers have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against dismissal by the police authority.

    ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS.
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the purpose of substantially reducing the fees at present payable by entrants in connection with admission to the Faculty of Advocates, and also to abolish the present distinction between advocates and solicitors in Scotland?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I would remind my hon. Friend that the payments in question include payments to the Advocates Widows Fund (which are, of course, of the nature of insurance premiums), and also stamp duty. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that legislation is required in order to effect reduction in the other payments, but he is prepared to consider whether any action can be taken by him in regard to the matter. I am not aware that there is any demand for a fusion of the two branches of the profession.

    MILK SUPPLY (INFANT MORTALITY).
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children under the age of seven years who died of infantile paralysis during the year 1929; and whether, seeing that the high infantile mortality is largely due to

    263
    the drinking of impure milk, he will say what steps he proposes to take to ensure a pure milk supply?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: During the year 1929, nine children under the age of seven years died of infantile paralysis in Scotland. As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend is advised that the high death rate among infants is due in the main to causes that cannot be attributed to impure milk. He fully recognises, however, how important a pure milk supply is to the health of children and of the community generally and I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is one which is receiving the close attention of the Departments concerned. I am sending him a copy of a circular that the Department of Health for Scotland issued recently on this and other aspects of food administration.
    Major COLFOX: Is the hon. Member aware that any quantity of milk of any standard of purity required could be provided if the consumers were prepared to pay the extra cost entailed upon the producers?

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state his intentions in regard to the outstanding recommendations of Lord Mackenzie's Committee; and whether he is contemplating any other steps for the suppression of illegal trawling?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Further effect has been given to the recommendations of the Trawling (Scotland) Committee within the present month by the equipment of another of the fishery protection vessels with a fast hydroplane, mainly for service in the Moray Firth. My right hon. Friend is closely watching the situation with regard to illegal trawling, and he proposes to act upon other recommendations of Lord Mackenzie's Committee as time and opportunity permit.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can the hon. Gentleman say—I am very glad to hear the announcement which he has just made—whether there is any prospect that next Session we shall have legislation increasing the penalties for illegal trawling, because this is a most important question?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not in a position to promise legislation, and that question ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLER: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there has been a large number of very daring breaches of the law, and does he realise the urgent necessity for immediate action?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: In my answer I have already stated that action has been taken within the last month.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state when Part I. of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, will be brought into operation?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir; but my right hon. Friend hopes that he will be in a position to make an announcement on the subject when the House reassembles in the Autumn.

    EDUCATION EXPENDITURE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the total expenditure of over £2,000,000 mentioned in the last report of the Scottish Education Department as the estimated cost of providing accommodation for children of from 14 to 15 is estimated to be required for secondary schools; how much for the replacement or improvement of defective primary school buildings; and how much for the provision of central schools or classes with accommodation for practical instruction and for the addition of rooms for practical instruction to existing primary schools?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The information supplied by education authorities, upon which the estimate referred to by the Noble Lady is based, does not include the details for which she asks, and I am afraid that the precise apportionment of the estimate into the sections desiderated in the question would be a matter of some expense and difficulty.

    LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to carry out

    265
    his intention of setting up the committee of inquiry into the working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and into the question of Scottish local administration?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The constitution and functions of local authorities under the Local Government (Scotland) Act only came into operation on the 16th May, 1930, and, until experience has been gained of the working of the Act, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by setting up the committee of inquiry to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the Prime Minister aware of the apprehension that exists on account of the alarming increase of rates in certain districts in Scotland more particularly in burghal areas; and will he not institute an inquiry into the facts and the cost of local rating as a whole at the present time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the reasons why we have to wait a little. Instead of helping to make the minds of those areas settled an inquiry like this would only keep them unsettled.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is it not necessary to institute an inquiry now in order to see how the Act operates with regard to the incidence of the rates which are now being laid down.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SCOTLAND (RELIEF SCHEMES).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state, before the end of this Session of Parliament, what steps he proposes to take, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, to expedite consideration of Scottish unemployment relief schemes; and whether he will appoint a consultative committee, representative of Scottish local authorities, to assist in this matter, on the lines proposed at the recent conference of local authorities held in Edinburgh?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As indicated in my answer of the 24th instant, I am in consultation with the Ministry of Labour regarding various suggestions for expediting consideration of Scottish unemployment relief schemes, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the urgency of this matter, and does he know that the local authorities are waiting? Can he not give a definite answer to the second part of the question relating to the suggestion of appointing a consultative committee representing all the Scottish local authorities?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That is precisely the point on which I have given an answer.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes during the Parliamentary Recess to issue any statements from time to time concerning the proceedings of the Advisory Committee on Unemployment, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is a member?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Only if necessary or advisable.
    Sir K. WOOD: Would it be permissible or in order if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs issues statements during the Recess as well?

    CABINET SUB-COMMITTEE.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that the attendance of members of the Government at the Indian round-table conference will not interfere with the efforts of the Cabinet Sub-committee dealing with schemes of employment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines how many boys of 16 years of age or under are employed in driving ponies underground; and whether he will seek powers to ensure that persons in

    267
    charge of animals in mines should be over the age of 16 and adequately trained for the work?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. With regard to the second part, so long as the law allows boys below 16 years of age to be employed underground, it is not possible to prohibit their employment in driving ponies. The question of training I will deal with in the answer to my hon. Friend's next question.

    PIT PONIES.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines whether the suggestion made by His Majesty's inspector of mines for the Northern Division in his last report that an efficient scheme of training for pit pony drivers should be adopted by mine managers in that area has been officially considered; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that some form of preliminary training is already provided, and the question raised in the inspector's report of the extent to which such training can usefully be extended and systematised is, in my view, primarily one for consideration locally, by reference to the special needs and customs of the district, and does not readily lend itself to solution by direct official action. The matter is, however, one in which special and constant interest is taken by His Majesty's inspectors, and I will call for further reports in due course as to the progress made.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where the training of these boys takes place?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The training takes place in the pits.
    Mr. BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the number of mines in South Wales, Yorkshire, and the Midlands, in which no bedding is provided for the pit ponies; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SHINWELL: No statistical information is available but from recent inquiries I find that it is the general practice to provide some form of bedding
    268
    for pit ponies both in the districts named and throughout the country. The matter is one that receives the daily attention of the Inspectors of Horses in the course of their general duties and I have no reason to think that any additional action is called for at present.

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. MATTERSasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the law recently passed in Belgium under which a pension of 6,000 francs a year is to be paid to miners at 55 years of age when they have served 30 years underground, and at 60 years of age in the case of others; and whether consideration is being given to a similar pensions scheme for the mining industry in this country?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am aware that a Bill is before the Belgian Parliament to simplify and amend existing legislation in regard to pensions for miners and other workers. Variations of the pensions schemes in force in this country have received careful consideration but I am not in a position to make any statement in the matter.

    COAL CARBONISATION.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the estimated loss per ton of coal used of the most economic processes of coal carbonisation, whether at low or high temperatures, on mass production lines?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Low temperature carbonisation of coal is not being undertaken on mass production lines. In the case of high temperature carbonisation processes there is, so far as I am aware, no financial loss per ton of coal used. If however my hon. Friend means by "loss" the difference between the potential heat in a ton of coal and that generated by burning the products from the carbonisation of a ton of coal, then on that basis the loss in the most modern practice is from 10 to 15 per cent. This figure includes the heat value of the fuel used for heating the retort, and allows for the heat recovered by the use of waste heat boilers etc. In some processes the heat is obtained by the combustion in the retort of some of the material. In such cases the heat loss may be as low as 8 per cent., but the gas produced will be of low calorific value.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is there no record of any plant working by low temperature carbonisation which has a lesser loss by radiation than any high temperature plant; and can the hon. Gentleman say whether the products of the low temperature system are not as valuable as those of the high temperature system?
    Mr. SHINWELL: There may be such records as those to which my hon. Friend refers, but they are not in my possession.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE CHARGES (NIGHT RATES).
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether any estimate has been made by his Department as to the loss of revenue which would be incurred by the Post Office if the night traffic call rates were extended from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.; and can he give particulars?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): It is not practicable to make an accurate estimate, but it is certain that the annual loss involved would amount to many thousands of pounds.
    Mr. DAY: Can the Postmaster-General say whether he has received representations on this subject?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have not received representations, but my predecessor has.

    WIRELESS WAVELENGTHS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether any steps have been taken for the purpose of arriving at an international regulation with reference to wavelength; and can he give particulars?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The International Radiotelegraph Regulations, which were drawn up at a Conference at Washington in 1927, contain provisions for the allocation of wavelengths among the various types of services. These Regulations will remain in force until 1932, when they are due to be reconsidered and brought up to date at a Conference to be held at Madrid.
    Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulties which have been caused by German stations?

  WELSH ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. ELLIS LLOYDasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider at the first available opportunity the whole question of Welsh administration (land, education, local administration, county and municipal administration) for the purpose of establishing a system by which Welsh opinion can enjoy the rights of self-government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not clear exactly what my hon. Friend has in mind. I do not think that the present time, when our hands are so full, is opportune for considering any radical changes in the present system.

  CIVIL AND FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY).
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any alteration has been made in the reductions of pay of the Civil Service based on the cost of living; and whether similar alterations have been made in the pay and pensions of officers of the fighting services?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In conformity with the arrangement applied last autumn to the Civil Service, it was decided that the revision of rates of pay and retired pay of officers of the fighting services due on the 1st July, 1930, should be made with reference to a cost-of-living index of 70 instead of the actual index of 65. This revision will operate until the 30th June, 1931, before which the matter will be reconsidered.

  LICENSING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what expenditure has been incurred to date in respect of the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Licensing; and what is the total estimated cost of that inquiry?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The expenditure to date in respect of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) is approximately £8,000. I am informed that it is not yet possible to forecast when the Commission will con-

  271
  clude its inquiry. An estimate of the total cost is not, therefore, possible at this stage.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the duration of this Commission, how far it has proceeded, and when it is likely to conclude its work?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid it is not possible to do that. The Commission is still continuing its investigations.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman stop this waste of money?
  Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this Commission is achieving any useful purpose at all? Is it not a waste of public money?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Charles Williams.
  Mr. MATHERS—
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Did I not hear you call my name, Mr. Speaker, and may I put my question, No. 51?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did call the hon. Member's name, but I very often go back a little.
  Mr. MATHERS: May I ask if the Financial Secretary is aware that the sum which he mentioned, namely, £8,000, as the approximate cost of this Commission, is less than one year's profit on the Carlisle scheme at present?

  CIVIL SERVICE (COST OF LIVING BONUS).
  Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the current rate of the Civil Service bonus; and whether that bonus is given at a rate in excess of the index figure of the cost of living as at 1st July?
  Sir GEORGE BERRYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the cost of living having fallen to 55 per cent. over the pre-War rate, it is proposed to adjust the Civil Service bonus in conformity with this cost?
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Financial Secretary to The Treasury the annual cost falling upon the taxpayer
  272
  arising out of the difference of 15 points between the cost-of-living index figure of 55 and the Civil Service bonus figure of 70?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The bonus payable during the current six months up to the 31st August next is on the basis of a cost-of-living figure of 70, which is the rounded-up average of the figures for the six months ended the 28th February last. The Government have decided that during the six months commencing on the 1st September next Civil Service bonus will be payable on the basis of a figure of 65. A variation of five points over a period of six months involves a sum estimated at about £800,000.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that there has been a considerable change in the Government's policy on this matter?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No; I do not think there has been any considerable change. A decision has been taken which is similar to the decision taken last year.
  Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say on what basis the Government arrive at the figure of 65, when for a long period the cost-of-living index has been much below that figure?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Government have come to that decision just as last year they came to a decision to make it 70. This year they have come to the decision to make it 65.
  HON. MEMBERS: On what basis?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The figure for the six months would not be as much below that as is suggested on the question. It would probably be 60.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not with a view to getting votes at the next election?

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS, HARROW (MR. KIRSTEIN).
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. H. B. Kirstein was offered employment in the Stationery Office Press, Harrow, as a compositor, but was subsequently refused permission to take up this appointment

  273
  on the ground that he was not a member of the London Society of Compositors; that this society has refused to admit Mr. Kirstein to membership; and whether, seeing that Mr. Kirstein is a member of a trade union, an ex-service man, and a fully qualified compositor, he will now be permitted to take up his employment with the Stationery Office Press?
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: Mr. H. B. Kirstein applied recently for employment at the Stationery Office Press, Harrow, as a compositor, and was informed that he could not be engaged unless he held a card of membership from the London Society of Compositors. I would refer the right hon. Member, in this connection, to the reply which I gave him on the 23rd July last.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Why, when the hon. Gentleman is employing skilled compositors, does he discriminate in favour of one particular union and against other unions, even when they include ex-service men?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In the first place, we have reverted in this matter to the practice which prevailed at the Stationery Office before the stoppage of 1926—
  HON. MEMBERS: Strike!
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: —and which was the practice adopted in those days by the late Government. With regard to the particular question on the Paper, I understand that this man is not a member of a recognised trade union.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by a recognised trade union?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that he is not a member of any union at all.
  Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that this man, who was good enough to serve in the War, who took his part in the War, is not to be allowed to earn his living? [Interruption.]
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not a question of whether he is an ex-service man or not; it is a question of the practice which prevailed at the Stationery Office before 1926, and the Government have gone back to that practice.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: An important question of principle is involved here. When the hon. Gentleman says that the Printers' Provident Association, of which this ex-service man is a member, is not a recognised trade union, is he aware that the Stationery Office offered this man employment, saying, "We assume that you are a member of the union"—that is to say, the particular union to which he has referred—but that that union refused to admit him to membership? Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman, after what happened at the time of the General Strike, discriminate against this man?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The practice in this matter is one which existed before 1926—[Interruption.] I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in professions like those of barristers and doctors—[Interruption]—the professional bodies make regulations for the carrying on of their professions, and it is customary, in employing compositors in the London district, to employ men who are members of the London Society of Compositors. That was a practice to which the late Government took no exception, and which they carried on up to the time of the stoppage.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Did the hon. Gentleman revert to that practice—[Interruption]—on the instructions of this particular trade union, or why did he do so?
  HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
  Mr. NAYLOR: Arising out of the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, may I ask if he is aware that the organisation referred to is not recognised by the Printing Trades Joint Industrial Council?

  INDIA (CONFERENCE).
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to indicate the composition of the British side of the forthcoming Indian Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The House will remember that the suggestion of a Conference was first made in the letter addressed to me by the Chairman of the Indian Statutory Commission on the 16th October. He suggested

  275
  "that in this Conference His Majesty's Government would meet both representatives of British India and representatives of the States."
  His Majesty's Government have been considering how, without changing the character of the Conference as indicated in this letter, it can be used so as to give an opportunity to the representatives of India and this Parliament for exchanging and discussing views on the problems with which they are dealing and for understanding each other; and His Majesty's Government are impressed by the advantages that would result from the presence in the Conference of representatives of the other parties in Parliament. Thus we believe that difficulties and differences will be removed and that the legislation to be undertaken hereafter will be facilitated. For this reason, His Majesty's Government propose to invite the leaders of the other two parties to nominate representatives to attend the Conference from both Houses. But I must make it clear that His Majesty's Government cannot throw off their constitutional responsibility and must retain complete freedom in regard to the proposals which they will subsequently lay before Parliament as the outcome of the Conference to advance the purpose announced by the Viceroy after consultation with His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. BALDWIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, as the time is very short before we adjourn for the Recess, whether he has arrived at any conclusion as to the number of representatives?
  The PRIME MINISTER: At the present moment, I am exchanging views on the subject. I should very much like, if it were possible, that the names should be announced before we rise. The number that my mind is playing round just now is three or four from each of the Opposition parties, and I hope that number will be agreed to as I am sure it is the most convenient number.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will those who represent the two Opposition parties be there on equal terms with any other delegates? Will there be an equal status in any respect, so that they will be full delegates and will be taken into full consultation and will take part in every discussion, whether in a plenary session or in a committee or otherwise? I should
  276
  also like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has come to any conclusion as to the representation of the Statutory Commission, seeing that it is not an ordinary commission appointed by the Government, but a commission appointed under the authority of Parliament, the very names having been sanctioned by Parliament.
  The PRIME MINISTER: With reference to the first question, certainly, the delegates will be full delegates and will be entitled to sit in plenary session and in committees and take part in discussions and be put in possession of all the material necessary to enable them to fulfil their full functions as delegates to the Conference. With reference to the representation of the Statutory Commission, that matter has given my colleagues and myself a good deal of consideration and concern, and at the moment we are inclined to say it would be a great mistake to have them represented as delegates at the Conference.
  Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway should be very well satisfied with the generous representation that his comparatively small party is receiving at this Conference. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since he has been able to invite such a large proportion of the party opposite, whether he could not see his way to include in the Conference representatives of his own back benchers who hold strong views.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to revert to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I think it would be clearly undesirable that any member of the Statutory Commission should be appointed as a member of one of the party delegations. Yet is it not clear that this Conference ought to have the assistance of a representative of the Commission? Cannot the Government, with the consent of all parties—which would be forthcoming—ask the Chairman of that Commission to be present?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have received no notice that this question was to be raised to-day. As my right hon. Friends know, the matter is at present under consideration. The view to which my colleagues and myself have come up to now is that for very strong reasons it would be very undesirable that this

  277
  should be done. If I had had notice yesterday that this was to be raised and that I should be required to give a specific answer to it to-day, I should have proceeded further than I have gone with my negotiations, but I must tell the House that the view I hold at the present moment is that it would be a profound mistake to do anything of the kind.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman, then, propose to exclude from the Indian representation anyone who has signed another report, or has taken part in the Indian Central Committee, or is there to be one rule for Indian representatives, and another for British?
  The PRIME MINISTER: So far as the Indian Central Committee is concerned, no members will be represented, but we are at present in communication with the Viceroy on the whole subject, and it is awkward for me to say more on the subject than I have done at present. I have been perfectly candid with the House. We have considered it, we are at present considering it, and we are at present engaged in negotiations about it, but at the present moment I think the House would be very well advised to adopt my suggestion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I say, in reference to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman about not receiving notice, that I only heard about half-past Eleven last night that a statement was to be made. Not a word was said to me on that occasion as to the attitude of the Government with regard to the Indian Commission. I had no opportunity until a short time ago to consult my colleagues on the subject, and, therefore, I put the question straight away.
  Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government, in deciding upon this new policy of admitting the Opposition parties to the round-table Conference, have taken into consideration the probable serious reaction upon Indian nationalist opinion by this decision?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have, and I think it is perfectly obvious that, first of all, it is not a new policy. It is perfectly obvious that it is for the good of India as well as for our own good that
  278
  the discussion which takes place at this Conference should be very full and should be representative, and that the Government should have the benefit of listening to the most thorough thrashing out of all the problems that arise, and which will have to be dealt with by legislation.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, are we to take it that the three parties are each to have the same representation, or are we to understand that there is to be proportional representation, that is, representation proportionate to the numerical representation in this House? If the inference we place upon it is correct, it seems rather a peculiar position that the two Opposition parties are to have double the representation that the Government themselves will have. Consequently, I think a statement ought to be made by the Prime Minister.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the case. I have very little interest in proportional representation with regard to representation at this Conference. What we want to do is to get a representation which will be efficient in bringing ideas and making examinations of the questions that are before the Conference.
  Mr. WELLOCK—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It seems that this question has been dealt with long enough.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 75, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply; that Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock; and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS REPORTED.

  RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARDIFF, STOKE-ON- TRENT, AND WORTHING) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EAST DEAN AND UNITED DSTRICTS JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

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

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORECAMBE AND HEY-SHAM) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (TORQUAY AND WEYMOUTH AMD MELCOMBE REGIS) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (MACCLESFIELD AND WILLESDEN) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  APGYLL TRUST ESTATE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Public Works Loans Bill,
Navy and Marines (Wills) Bill,
Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill,
Education (Scotland) Bill,
Adoption of Children (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.
Housing (Scotland) Bill,
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVILEGE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th July].
  "That the speech of the honourable Member for the Kirkdale Division of Lancashire, reported in the 'Manchester Guardian' newspaper of Monday, 28th July, 1930, is a gross libel upon honourable Members of this House and is a grave breach of its Privileges."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. SANDHAM: May I, in the first place, express my regret that I was unable to be present in this House yesterday when the matter was raised? In the second place, may I intimate to the Noble Lord that I only got his letter at 8 o'clock last night? In the third place, may I remind Members of this House, and the Prime Minister in particular, that I am as conscious of my duty as any Member of this House as to what I ought or ought not to do. I shall be quite happy to read the speech referred to in the Motion if the House agrees, and you, Mr. Speaker, permit me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I said:
  "Comrades of Number 9 Division. It is now six months since I addressed you. At that time I passed some mild criticism on the Labour Government, and I also issued a warning. Six months ago I pointed out that the Labour Government would fail because it sought to deal with the problem of unemployment on precisely the same lines as the Tories. I said then that any Government which tried to solve this problem on other than Socialist lines was doomed to failure. Events have proved that my warning was justified. A year ago at the Brighton Conference, Mr. J. H. Thomas told us if we gave him until February of this year, he would work wonders. He has. Today there are half a million more men unemployed than when Mr. Thomas took on the job, and now in sheer desperation Mr. Thomas has been transferred to a more comfortable post and Mr. MacDonald is now responsible. Mr. MacDonald, if anything, has done worse than Mr. Thomas, and the reason is this. Although there has been a change of men. there has been no change of policy. In fact, we seem to have reached the position when our party is the only one in the country that does not possess at least a paper policy. I will deal with this later.
  When Labour took office, the idle rich, the parasite landlord, the usurer and the ex-
  310
  ploiter were all assured that nothing of a Socialist character would be tried. Society heaved a sigh of relief. The election figures had given it a fright. It had begun to picture the serious possibility of a revolting working class demanding justice for itself and its children. But when society saw that the first great act of the Labour Cabinet was to buy itself new tall hats in order to show its respectability, society's ruffled feelings were smoothed down. When Mr. MacDonald announced that there would be no Socialism, society laughed aloud. Here, it said, was no Government of the working class, but a collection of perfect English gentlemen only anxious to maintain the great British tradition."
  Mr. SPEAKER: When Notice of this Motion was given in the House, exception was not taken to the whole speech. Exception was taken to certain parts of the speech, and the hon. Member should deal only with those parts to which the Motion refers.
  Mr. SANDHAM: May I submit that that has been my grievance. It has been no part of my fault that the tearing out of certain sentences from the context has altered the meaning altogether?
  "Here, it said, was no Government of the working class, but a collection of perfect English gentlemen only anxious to maintain"—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that part of his speech.
  Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member, at the opening of his speech, deliberately asked the permission of the House to read the complete speech. I understood that that was assented to unanimously by the House, and now to ask the hon. Member to recast the whole line of his speech in the middle of it, would be putting him, it seems to me, in a most unfair position, when he is in a very difficult personal position.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If there is any question of unfairness connected with this, it is entirely my responsibility for allowing the hon. Member to read the speech, but I naturally thought that it was the proper thing to give him a chance to make his own statement. I naturally thought that the rest of his speech had some bearing on the passages to which exception was taken, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed on the lines he is going. He must confine himself to

  311
  those parts of his speech as to which complaint is made.
  Mr. MILLS: There is an Order on the Paper to-day, called the Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel Bill, which I have had the honour of working through this Parliament, and am I in order, as one of the ordinary Members of this House, in demanding that the hon. Member who is attempting to apologise should indicate whether he includes me in this general attack of corruption against Members of the House? [Interruption.] I cannot get at him outside, or I would.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have given the hon. Member my rulings. I hope he will abide by them in making his further remarks to the House.
  Mr. SANDHAM: I accept your ruling with very great respect.
  "Now I would just like to say a word on the suspension of Mr. John Beckett. The Mace, as you know, is the symbol of authority in the House of Commons, and is of gilt. Once there was a real gold Mace. A man called Oliver Cromwell, enraged for the same reason that some of us are to-day, because Parliament was becoming only a symbol of authority, too, ordered one of his soldiers to 'Take away that bauble.' The real gold Mace was lost—what is worse, Cromwell's spirit is also lost. When John Beckett touched the sacred symbol the other day, faces went white with horror. When J. H. Thomas took the initiative some time ago in handing over to the bankers the sacred reality of Parliamentary power, not a thrill of apprehension of regret stirred the conscience of these same custodians of democratic law and tradition. The sheer, stupid, tradition of this ghost-house has got most of the Members in its deadly grip. Labour Members can receive bribes to help pass doubtful Bills in the interests of private individuals. Labour Members can get stupidly drunk in this place. But none of these things are against the sacred traditions of the House. In fact, they are in keeping with them. It is known that Labour Members accepted money from moneylenders and other interests, and it is known that Labour Members of Parliament get drunk in the House. Our leaders see nothing wrong in that, or at any rate, such conduct is not bad enough to create a demand for their expulsion. But immediately John Beckett touches the sacred symbol, the gilt toy, all the pack are in full cry. They are as righteously indignant as would any tribe of savages be if somebody had desecrated the temple of their favourite medicicine man.
  Indifferent Members from the Opposition Benches, from the smoke rooms and terrace, careless as to India or anything else so long
  312
  as their Capitalist interests are safe; office-conscious snobs from our benches flattered by a little brief authority; all troop to vote against the handful of us on whose Socialist conscience the dead and imprisoned Indian martyrs lie heavily. It is too much for Beckett. I know the feeling so well myself."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has now concluded that part of his speech to which exception was taken. If he has any further remarks to make upon it, I shall be glad to hear them.
  Mr. SANDHAM: I submit to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, with great respect. May I now proceed to read my reply? I came to the conclusion that the position which I was placed in was a serious one, and I sat down and put into writing what I considered to be the reply that I ought to give with the clarity and brevity that I feel is essential in this House.
  In reply to the Noble Lord, I want to say at the outset that I stand by every word in my speech. Frankly, the honour of hon. Members opposite is of less concern to me that the honour of the working-class movement. I am not surprised that certain Members are indignant at my charges, but I can only marvel that the Member who seeks to indict me is the Noble Lord. Twenty-one years ago in this House he was earning a reputation for being very offensive to any Member of this House who came direct from the working-classes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order. That is not the Question which is before the House. What happened 21 years ago does not matter.
  Mr. MAXTON: I have never seen in this House an occasion when an individual making a personal statement was interrupted in the same way as my hon. Friend. I would advise him very strongly to take his seat now and not to rise again.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Let him have fair play.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On all occasions when a Member makes a personal explanation it is listened to most patiently, but it has always been laid down—and I have often referred to the Ruling given on these occasions—that the hon. Member who is making the explanation must

  313
  confine himself to the charge which is made against him and to the explanation in defence of that charge.
  Mr. MAXTON: I have the manuscript of my hon. Friend, and he was proceeding to refer to the occasion when the Noble Lord 21 years ago charged the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) with drunkenness in this House. Surely, when a charge of the same kind is levelled by the Noble Lord it is legitimate Parliamentary debate to reply to it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We must confine ourselves to the particular Question before the House.
  Mr. THORNE: As my name has been mentioned, I would like to say with regard to that incident that it is quite true to say that—[Interruption.]—I am not going to have any mud on my name now.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That only shows how wrong it is to diverge in this matter. Mr. Sandham!
  Mr. SANDHAM: Twenty-one years ago in this House he was earning a reputation for being very offensive to any Member of this House who came—
  An HON. MEMBER: Give us the truth about the bribery!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.
  Mr. NAYLOR: Justify it.
  An HON. MEMBER: Be a man. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does not the hon. Member wish to proceed any further?
  Mr. McGOVERN: You will not allow him. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, Order. The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) will be pleased to retire while this question is being considered by the House.
  The HON MEMBER The HON MEMBER withdrew accordingly.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move to leave out from "1930" to the end of the Question
  314
  and to add instead thereof the words "be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
  I think, Mr. Speaker, the duty of this House is perfectly plain. The Noble Lord drew attention to a speech delivered by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham). There were two statements in that speech to which special attention was drawn and upon which any action that this House may take will be based. The two statements are as follows:
  "Labour members can receive bribes to help to pass doubtful Bills in the interests of private individuals."
  It is perfectly obvious that the charge there does not mean that we are free to do it if we like, but that as a matter of fact it has been done. The second statement is:
  "It is known that Labour Members accepted money from moneylenders and other interests, and it is known"—
  and so on.
  Those are the two statements. [Interruption.] Those are the two very serious statements that have been made and which have to be dealt with by the Motion of this House. That is my point, and I want to confine the attention of the House at the moment to those two points—one point repeated in two variations. The hon. Member appears to-day, and he shows quite clearly that the statement was considered, was written out before it was delivered, and that it was coolly and deliberately given out to the world. To-day he has withdrawn nothing. He has explained nothing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give him a chance!"] He has justified nothing. The charges are perfectly specific. He must have in his mind facts, men, actions, and he must be asked to inform the representative Committee of this House as to whom he had in his mind and upon what basis he made his charge. In order that that may be done, I am going to move—and I mean to take up no further time about it—that the Resolution moved by the Noble Lord yesterday be amended so that all the words after the words "Monday, 28th July, 1930," be left out in order to substitute the words "be referred to the Committee of Privileges." I do that because I want action to be taken at once. I see that there is another Resolution or Amendment on the Paper asking for the setting up of a Select Committee. That is going

  315
  to take time, and a Select Committee cannot sit and cannot work when this House is not sitting. The Committee of Privileges is, as a matter of fact, a Select Committee. The Committee of Privileges has all the powers and authority that a Select Committee of this House has got.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does it sit when the House is not sitting?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that it cannot. That is why I want it to sit now. This is Tuesday, and we shall certainly not rise until Friday, and I believe that the Committee of Privileges can, at any rate, give us some indication between now and then as to what substance there is in those charges. If there is no substance in them, it certainly would be able to give us a report to that effect. Therefore, for expedition, I propose to move that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I have no desire at this moment to make a speech, but, as the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to endorse every word which has fallen from the Prime Minister, who, as the Leader of the House, has the honour of this House in his hands. I think that the proposal he has made is a perfectly correct one. We are bound to examine into this matter, and we cannot help it. The sooner we do it the better, and I hope that any necessary steps, if such steps are necessary, to enable the investigation to be continued at a later date after Prorogation will be taken. I beg to support the Prime Minister.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am quite in accord with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and with the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) is quite prepared to have this matter fully investigated by any competent committee. He is prepared to have the matter probed to its very foundations. He proposed to-day, if he had been permitted to carry his speech to a conclusion, to extend the charge and to limit it. He was speaking at a conference, occupying a privileged position. He had a right and a duty to look after
  316
  the good name of the Labour movement, and he was indicating to the people to whom he had a responsibility certain directions in which there were flaws and faults which ought to be corrected. He was putting that point to the people who had the responsibility and the power to make corrections in that direction. He proposed here to-day to make it perfectly plain that his charge was limited to a very small minority of Labour Members. That was the limitation that he proposed to make to-day. He proposed to extend the charge by saying that there was not merely such a minority in the Labour party but in the other parties as well, and that he was prepared to go before any responsible committee, where witnesses would be protected and privileged, to bring forward his witnesses in substantiation of his charge.
  Since I have seen the mood and the temper of the House to-day and the great unanimity among the Front Bench leaders, I am going to suggest that I cannot feel any confidence that the Committee of Privileges, while it may be capable of looking after the good name of the House generally, is a suitable tribunal before whom the hon. Member for Kirkdale can appear, because it is quite obvious from the proceedings here to-day that his case has already been prejudged. What I am going to suggest is, that the Prime Minister should add to the Committee of Privileges one or two Members who might be somewhat in the category of the prisoner's friends in a military court martial, otherwise I do not think that full justice can he done either to the House of Commons or to the offending Member. In these matters there are always two sides. It is absolutely necessary that the prestige of the House should be maintained, but part of the prestige of this House rests upon the fact that it is an old established principle that one man, however unpopular his cause may be, or however unpopular he may be in person, has full liberty, as representing his constituents, to stand and speak what he believes to be the truth. I do not wish to move an Amendment, but I hope the Prime Minister will accept my suggestion. In the event of that suggestion not being acceptable to the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the Opposition, it will be my regrettable necessity to vote against the Motion.
  Sir HUGH O'NEILL: On a point of Order and information arising out of the course which has been suggested for dealing with this very serious matter, may I ask whether the Committee of Privileges would normally deal with this matter in public, and if not whether it is in the competence of the Committee of Privileges or not to decide whether or not the matter should be dealt with in public or in private?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee of Privileges can decide that point themselves.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to make reference to only one phase of the charge or charges Which have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham). The phase of the matter to which I refer is that which concerns the possibility of hon. Members being under the influence of drink. This has been a recurring question in the House, hon. Members having to take the onus of making statements and, consequently, getting into considerable trouble. The Committee of Privileges ought before now to have had seriously under consideration the palpable fact, with which we are all familiar, that there is such a result taking place frequently in this House as hon. Members being under the influence of drink—[Interruption.] I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no hon. Member of this House who can dispute having seen from time to time Members of all parties in this House under the influence of drink. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish! and "Privilege!"] I want to suggest, and I am submitting it in the interests of the House and in the interests of common truth, that the Committee of Privileges ought before now to have given, and I hope that it will now give, serious attention to that particular aspect of the affairs of this House, in the interests of all concerned. We know perfectly well the situation in the House and how serious the developments are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] We know that in this House there are these shebeens in our establishment—the only part of the country where this provision is made without licence.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee of Privileges is to inquire into this matter.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I pass from that phase of the charge, but I do submit that it is a very serious matter for the Prime
  318
  Minister of this country to be dealing with an issue of this kind, and particularly with that particular charge, when he himself knows the serious results that have taken place in this House as regards even the Front Bench.
  HON. MEMBERS: Privilege!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: With all due respect, that is why I am submitting that for the prestige of the House it is essential and imperative that this matter should be taken into serious consideration, in the best interests of the conducting of the affairs of the House and the country.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: I desire to raise two matters on the Amendment which the Prime Minister has moved. I want, first of all, to ask whether the House can be informed how the Committee of Privileges is composed, and if it is not a Standing Committee to whom the selection of personnel for the purpose of dealing with this particular matter will be left. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a Standing Committee!"] If it is a Standing Committee, then I think in justice to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham)—I am sure that it is the desire of the House to be fair upon this point—the present personnel of the Committee might be announced and an opportunity given to the friends of the hon. Member, if they so desire, to suggest additional names. My second point is, that the Prime Minister has suggested that the Committee of Privileges is a better instrument than a Select Committee, because a Select Committee cannot sit during the Summer Recess, and because in his view it is essential that a report should be forthcoming upon this matter before the House adjourns.
  I wish to say to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have never, in public or in private, made charges of corruption against anybody, but there are charges in existence about which probably nothing would have been heard under ordinary conditions which become immediately relevant and overridingly important if a Member of this House is placed on trial, as it were, for saying that corruption does exist in the House of Commons. If some of the charges which are in existence are to be

  319
  adequately investigated, a longer period than three or four days will be necessary. If we are to probe this matter to the bottom, two conditions must be satisfied. The first condition is, that those who think they have information to impart—I am not in the least prejudging whether they have or not, or whether the information is of any value or not—it is essential to the proper probing of the case that the individuals who think they have information to impart must be assured that they can give evidence under conditions of safety. In the nature of the case, the kind of individual who will speak on this matter will not be the principals but the go-betweens, and the go-betweens in many cases are poor men, who will speak if they can speak safely. but who will not speak if they cannot speak safely. Therefore, if the House does desire a full investigation into the charge of corruption, it seems to me that we must give immunity to witnesses and we must allow adequate time for the investigation of the charges that may be made, with power to the Committee to subpoena not merely witnesses but documents.
  I trust that I have said nothing out of order. I have documents in my pocket about which I have said nothing outside or inside this House, but which are going to be investigated if this charge of corruption is gone into; but if I am to produce documents, I want an assurance that the conditions under which that Committee will operate will be conditions which admit of witnesses speaking freely and of adequate investigations being made. Surely, if one of our Members is to be placed on trial for having said that corruption exists, we have in duty bound to see that the investigation is of a complete and thorough character, and surely 1 am entitled to ask the Prime Minister for an assurance, before we pass this Vote, on these two issues, (1) as to how the Committee will be composed and (2) whether it will operate under such conditions as admit of a complete investigation of the truth or otherwise of the charges made by the hon. Member for Kirkdale.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown). If I could have had my way,
  320
  instead of sending this matter to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, I should, if I had been in order, have moved that a committee of Judges be appointed to investigate these charges. I think the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) would have accepted that proposal. We have to bear in mind that the hon. Member for Kirkdale is in almost the same position as a prisoner at the bar and the prisoner himself and his friends must be satisfied as to the fairness of his trial. Even the Law Courts in this country take considerable pains to see that the prisoner is at all times satisfied as to the proper conduct of his trial. [Interruption.] I may be trying the patience of hon. Members but I want to say quite frankly that we do not think that the prisoner in this case, the man who is being charged, is at all likely to get a fair trial. [Interruption.] I am going to make my statement.
  Take the speech of the Prime Minister to-day; consider the tone of it. Would any judge in this country make a speech in a case he was going to try of the tone in which the Prime Minister has referred to this matter? Would any hon. and learned Member of this House, any King's Counsel, if they were defending a prisoner at the Bar allow a juryman who had expressed himself in the same tone as the Prime Minister has this afternoon sit and try the case? If any member of the jury had spoken of a case in the same tone as the Prime Minister has spoken King's Counsel would certainly object to that man sitting on the jury and trying the case. The Prime Minister has already read out the charge, and the tone and temper of his speech shows that he thinks there is no foundation in fact for what has been said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing of the kind!"] The hon. and learned Member for one of the Nottingham divisions who has a great experience in the defence of prisoners at the Bar, if he were in the House, would say that if any member of the jury spoke in that tone he would immediately object to him trying the case.
  Look at the Committee of Privileges. It is well that we should consider, when a man is on trial, who are to be the jury; who are to be the judges. Let the House mark this point, that the man who is being charged to-day—[Interruption]—or who is to appear before the

  321
  Committee, is associated with a group—let us be quite frank about this matter—who are not popular in the House. I admit that with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) we are not popular. The only difference is this; that long after the so-called popular men have left this House I am likely to be here. But the more unpopular the man the more certain we should be that his trial is fair. Let me give an illustration from my own experience in the Law Courts. [Interruption.] I am going to insist upon my rights as a Member to state my case and no one is going to interfere with that right as long as I am in order. Recently, I had to appear in the Scottish High Court, and I heard the Judge who was trying a case say that the criminal was charged with a fearful offence but the more fearful and bad the offence the more certain he was going to see that he got a fair trial. That is the law.
  Let hon. Members try to put themselves in the position of the hon. Member for Kirkdale. Look at the group which is going to try the case. If any hon. Member put himself in the position of the hon. Member for Kirkdale would he be quite sure that he was going to get fair play? Look at the names. There is the ex-Prime Minister, the man who was accused from these benches three or four years ago with almost being a murderer and with having uttered untruths in this House and outside. He is one of the persons who will try the case. The Prime Minister has shown himself unfitted by his tone and his remarks. Then there is the right hon. Member below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Lloyd George) whom we have denounced from every platform as being incapable of doing anything right. That has been said in the Labour manifesto and on many public plat-forms—
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: He is not a member.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have made a mistake and I retract. I see that he is not on the Committee, but take the right hon. Member sitting beside the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). He is a Tory in disguise. Go over the names—Lord Hugh Cecil—[HON.
  322
  MEMBERS: "Order!"]—the right hon. Member for Oxford University. Is there a single miner or a single Labour Member of Parliament who would think of being tried by the right hon. Member? He is another. Then there is one of the late Deputy Speakers of the House—
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: He is not charged yet.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: He will be charged with a serious offence.
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: He made the charges.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no hesitation in meeting that point. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Kirkdale has made charges. [Interruption.] Have hon. Members gone so far that they have no sense of manners? It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Kirkdale has made charges, but he is in exactly the same position as a man who utters a criminal libel. The moment he goes before the Court the charge is against him, and the moment the hon. Member goes before the Committee of Privileges the charge is against him of having libelled his fellow Members. I want to claim this in common fairness. We will allow the three, six, nine, and 10 Members to remain, from whom certainly the hon. Member will not get a shadow of fair play. [Interruption.] There are 10 of them from whom we do not think the hon. Member will get a fair trial. In fairness we are prepared to allow them to remain. All we ask is this, and I hope that this Assembly will grant the request, that two names be added to the Committee of Privileges; and the names I suggest are those of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, West (Mr. W. J. Brown). [Interruption.] Why the hilarity? It is perfectly obvious that there are certain sections of the House from whom we cannot get fair play.
  5.0 p.m.
  I ask for the hon. Member for Camlachie to be added to the Committee because he is the only Member of our small group with any legal training. [An HON. MEMBER: "What group?"] Our group is well defined, and every hon. Member. knows it. I am not going to argue that matter now. It is also eminently fair to ask that the hon. Mem-

  323
  ber for West Wolverhampton be added. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is going to be a witness!"] With his Civil Service training, and also his training in connection with trade unionism, he is a man who, from our point of view, is absolutely essential on this Committee. I ask that these two names be added. There are your 10 Members, your packed jury, and all we ask in the interests of semi-decency—[Interruption]—is that these two names should be added. I see that the Chief Whip is conversing with the Prime Minister. It is a new found friendship. In 1917 he would have put him out of public life without a trial, because he was a patriot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order;"] My request is a moderate one. It is not asking too much, and, if the House does not give it to us, we will regretfully divide against the Amendment. I do ask every Member who has any knowledge of legal affairs, or who has any regard for the rights of Members of this House, to grant us our rights, even at this moment of our manifest unpopularity. We ask for two counsel for the defence, as against the 10 counsel who will be against us.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Certain private Members have been expressing certain opinions about the Committees of this House, I wish to say that other private Members do not share in those opinions. The vast majority of the private Members of this House, if they desired to give evidence before a Committee of Privilege or any other Committee of this House, would regard that tribunal as being as fair a tribunal as any in the world. A Select Committee of the House is limited to 15 Members. I do not know whether there is anything under the Rules of the House which would prevent the point which the hon. Member makes being met. The names of the Committee elected at the beginning of this Session were the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), the Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson)—who took the place of the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  324
  for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when he went on to the Statutory Commission, but I presume he now stands as a Member of the Committee—the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay), and the Home Secretary. That makes a Committee of 10. A Select Committee is limited, under the Rules of the House, to 15 Members, and personally I see no reason why, perhaps, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) might not be added.
  Mr. SPEAKER: When a Committee of Privilege is set up at the beginning of the Session, it is limited by the House to 10 Members. The Motion then is that the Committee should consist of 10 Members, and we cannot add to it now.
  Mr. BROWN: That, of course, affects the Amendment which has been moved. May I put it that it might be possible for one of the Members to retire in favour of another Member, because since the charges which have been made are so grave, there should not be the slightest suspicion of any kind outside this House that the House as a whole does not mean to do utter justice in this matter.
  Mr. TINKER: I would make an appeal to the House, seeing the grave character of the charge in which everybody is involved. There seems to be some doubt as to the composition of the Select Committee. I do not share that doubt myself, but I would suggest that it might be well that, in order to give satisfaction, a few more Members might be added to the Committee. There can be no objection on the part of the House to adding one or two more Members.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee as set up by the Resolution of the House is confined to 10 Members.
  Miss LEE: If I am correctly informed, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is away and cannot possibly be back during the time this Committee will be sitting. Therefore, a vacancy will be created which another Member can fill.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Strictly speaking, this Committee has no more power than any other Select Committee. It will not judge anything. Only this House has power to judge. The House

  325
  alone has power to inflict the penalty. But the Committee of Privileges must sit in the first instance to inquire into and investigate the whole subject raised by the alleged breach of Privilege, because that is their particular function. When they have made that investigation they will make a report to the House. Nothing will happen until the House acts on that report, or does not act on it. The Committee might recommend further investigation before a judicial tribunal. The Committee might find that when the matter is scrutinised there is nothing in it, or that it arose out of some trivial circumstance, and put the question aside; but it would be quite open to any Member who was not satisfied with the decision or the recommenda-
  tion of the Committee to move anything he likes on the consideration of the Report of the Committee. The whole power lies entirely with the House. The Committee is only a committee of investigation in order that the House may be thoroughly advised about the facts of the case.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Are we to have no reply from the Prime Minister?
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes, 419; Noes, 8.

  Division No. 474.]

  AYES.

  [5.8 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Butler, R. A.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

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

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

  Egan, W. H.

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

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Elmley, Viscount

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Cameron, A. G.

  England, Colonel A.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Cape, Thomas

  Erskine, Lard (Somerset, Weston-s-M)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Alpass, J. H.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

  Fermoy, Lord

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Arnott, John

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

  Foot, Isaac

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

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ayres, Walter

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Chater, Daniel

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Balniel, Lord

  Church, Major A. G.

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

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke).

  Barr, James.

  Clarke, J. S.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Batey, Joseph

  Close, W. S.

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Bellamy, Albert

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Moseley)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Gill, T. H.

  Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Gillett, George M.

  Benson, G.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

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

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Compton, Joseph

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Berry, Sir George

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gould, F.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Crichton, Stuart, Lord C.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Blindell, James

  Crookshank,

  Capt. H. C. Granville, E.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir

  Philip Gray, Milner

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Daggar, George

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bowen, J. W.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E, W

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Boyce, H. L.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Bracken, B.

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

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Day, Harry

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter F.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Brooke, W.

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Brothers, M.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

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

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Hall, Capt. W. G, (Portsmouth, C.)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Dukes, C.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

  Duncan, Charles

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Ede, James Chuter.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Buchan, John

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hanbury, C.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Edge, Sir William

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Burgess, F. G.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Markham, S. F.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Marley, J.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Haycock, A. W.

  Marshall, Fred

  Sanders, W. S.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Mothers, George

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Matters, L. W.

  Sawyer, G. F.

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

  Melville, Sir James

  Scott, James

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Messer, Fred

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Middleton, G.

  Scurr, John

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Millar, J. D.

  Sexton, James

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Mills, J. E.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Milner, Major J.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Herriotts, J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sherwood, G. H.

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

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Shield, George William

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

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

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Shinwell, E.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Morley, Ralph

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

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Sinkinson, George

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Isaacs, George

  Muff, G.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Muggeridge, H. T.

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

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Nathan. Major H. L.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Snell, Harry

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

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

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Sorensen, R.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Oldfleld, J. R.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Knight, Holford

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O (W'morland)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Lang, Gordon

  Palin, John Henry

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Lathan, G.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Penny, Sir George

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

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Perry, S. F.

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

  Lawrence, Susan

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Leach, W.

  Phillips. Dr. Marion

  Tillett, Ben

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Pilditch. Sir Philip

  Tinne, J. A.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Potts, John S.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Toole, Joseph

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Pybus, Percy John

  Tout, W. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Townend, A. E.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Train, J.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Turner, B.

  Longden, F.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Lowth, Thomas

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Walker, J.

  Lunn, William

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Lymington, Viscount

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

  Wallace, H. W.

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  McElwee, A.

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

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Ritson, J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  McKinlay, A.

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

  Watkins, F. C.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Ross, Major Ronald D

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

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

  Rowson, Guy

  West, F. R.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

  Westwood, Joseph

  Mansfield, W.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  White, H. G.

  March, S.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Marcus, M.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Charles (Devon Torquay)

  328

  329

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Womersley, W. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Charles Edwards.

  NOES.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Maxton, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Mr. Kinley and Mr. McGovern.

  Buchanan, G.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Ordered,
  "That the speech of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Lancashire, reported in the 'Manchester Guardian' newspaper of Monday, 28th July, 1930, be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

SUPPLY.
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1930.
  CLASS VII.

    OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £408,670, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."—[NOTE: £205,000 has been voted on account.]

    POST OFFICE.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £35,275,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[NOTE: £25,000,000 has been voted on account.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1930.

  WAR OFFICE.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £879,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."

  ARMY ORDINANCE FACTORIES.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1931, for Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc."

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATES, 1930.
  CLASS II.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £120,930, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—[NOTE: £75,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. CHURCHILL: After the extremely important and deeply agitating matters which have engaged the House for the last two hours, it may require an effort of special concentration for the Committee to contract their attention to such a topic as the state of affairs in Egypt. Nearly 600 persons were killed and wounded in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria during the last fortnight. The riots which took place led to a great destruction of property. A virtual state of siege has been proclaimed in Cairo by the Government. The British troops have been held in readiness, strictly confined within their barracks. British ships have hastened across the Mediterranean; the Queen Elizabeth is at Alexandria, the Ramilles at Port Said, and another vessel at Suez. The state of the foreign communities has been such as to cause the greatest anxiety, and has led to complaints by them to their Governments, with severe censure of His Majesty's Government in almost all the newspapers of Europe. That is the state of affairs in Egypt to-day.

    331
    Is it not providential that the British troops had not in fact been withdrawn from Cairo before this situation developed? Imagine that the treaty which it was vainly sought to negotiate had come into operation and full fruition, and that you had had the events which took place in Alexandria 10 days ago, with the expectation of far greater commotion in Cairo itself—imagine such a situation occurring and there being no British ships nearer than the Canal. Obviously the Government would have had to give orders for the troops to march from the Canal to Cairo, or for Lord Thomson's armoured cars to be sent to Cairo, at the same time as the Socialist Government were compelled to order the battleships of the Mediterranean Fleet to appear off the different Egyptian ports.
    That is the situation which has now been disclosed in Egypt. Let me ask the Committee to contrast it with the position a year ago. A year ago Egypt was tranquil. There had been great trouble four years before, but the country had been reduced to tranquillity and there was a complete calm. A foreigner could walk about the streets of Cairo by day or night as safely as he could walk about London. Nothing could exceed the tranquillity of Egypt a year ago. But I quite admit that there was one important circumstance in the condition of Egypt a year ago which could not possibly be left where it was. It was impossible to allow Egypt to continue in a condition in which all the work of a Parliamentary assembly was suspended. It was clearly necessary for the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian authorities, or their British friends and advisers, to cooperate by every means in their power to reconstruct and revive suitable institutions which would enable a legislative assembly to be called into being to act as a counterpoise and corrective to the powers of the Court and afford adequate expression for the wishes and will of the people. That was a task which clearly lay before the Egyptian Government and before His Majesty's Government a year ago.
    For that task they were well circumstanced by the tranquillity which prevailed in the country. They were also well circumstanced by the fact that, both Mahmud Pasha, the then Prime Minister
    332
    and the then High Commissioner, Lord Lloyd, were anxiously and hopefully looking forward to the construction of those constitutional institutions which would have the effect of providing a proper and adequate foundation for Egyptian Government, and one much broader and more capable of progress than either the present dispensation or a pure protectorate such as has existed in the past. That was the position then—tranquillity and the possibility of constructive work. I have described what the situation has been reduced to today. We ask the Government how has this great change from peace and the hope of progress to the present riot and certainty of increasing strife, been brought about in the course of a single year? Who is responsible for it? What is the responsibility of the Government for it, and what are the particular acts which have led to this degeneration in the state of affairs?
    Let me retell the tale to the Committee. A year ago, almost to a day, His Majesty's Government laid their hands strongly and vehemently upon Egyptian affairs. They procured—they provoked—the resignation of the then High Commissioner. They procured that resignation in such a way as to cause the maximum of disturbance in Egypt and throughout the East; in such a way as to give the greatest possible encouragement to subversive forces and forces antagonistic to the Anglo-Egyptian connection. They procured that resignation in such a way as to strip Lord Lloyd's successor of almost every vestige of that influence so precious to Great Britain in the conduct of her affairs with Egypt. That was the first step. The next step was to inaugurate negotiations with the Egyptian Government with the object of reaching a treaty, the main purpose of which was to be the evacuation of Cairo and Alexandria by British troops, and the withdrawal of those troops to the Sudan and the Canal. This step, I must explain, overlapped the dismissal of the High Commissioner. Before the High Commissioner was provoked into resignation, if I may use that expression, negotiations were far advanced between the Foreign Secretary and Mahmud Pasha, who was visiting England on other matters; and although we were assured a year ago that

    333
    those negotiations were then only at their first, initiatory stage, as a matter of fact a few weeks later we were confronted with a draft agreement which obviously had been arrived at a considerable time before.
    Mahmud Pasha took the draft agreement. He had not expected to negotiate such a treaty, but, being well received, being, as the Government described him, "a most reasonable man," finding himself agreeably entertained by the Government, the negotiations prospered and he took the draft agreement back to Egypt. Not until he reached Paris did His Majesty's Government open to him the full intention of their policy. When in Paris he was informed that the agreement must be ratified by an Egyptian Parliament elected upon a basis of manhood suffrage. If I am asked to specify the disastrous step of the government which has produced such evil conditions in Egypt, that is the step which I select. From it all these evils have flown and from it, I predict, a long series of evils and embarrassments will continue to flow.
    This was a grave interference in the internal affairs of Egypt and it was a mad interference. The election of a Parliament on manhood suffrage in Egypt! Why, even in this powerful country, with generations of prescription and tradition behind it—this country which even now preserves the strong remains of a well-knit political structure—our affairs have not prospered with the wide extensions of the franchise which have been give. But to pretend that the peasants of the Nile Valley, the fellaheens, the slaves of centuries, the slaves of yesterday—aye and, but for the British influence, the slaves of to-morrow—to pretend that the Egyptian fellaheens, 92 per cent., or it is even said 95 per cent. of whom are illiterate, and therefore unable to have the protection of the ballot, could be made the electoral foundation of representative institutions similar to those which exist in Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States, is the veriest farce and the most contemptible casting aside of the duty of mental effort of which it is possible to conceive. It is so easy to say, "Have a general election on a universal franchise and let things rip." That was the contribution which was presented to
    334
    Mahmud Pasha when he left these shores and arrived in Paris.
    I need scarcely say that this decision in the first place destroyed altogether any prospects of negotiating a reasonable treaty. In the next place it destroyed the tranquillity of Egypt, and it destroyed, there and then, Mahmud Pasha, "the reasonable man," the man whom the Government had used so intimately to bring a treaty forward once again between Great Britain and Egypt. The broken instrument was cast aside. Mahmud Pasha did not even take the trouble to make an attempt at carrying on. As soon as he got back to Egypt he asked that a successor should be appointed and disappeared. A stop-gap Government was brought in under Adley Pasha to provide for the installation, after a general election, as to the result of which there was no doubt, of the Wafd party caucus in power. The Wafd made the elections. Although not actually the Government they were obviously the great authority and power, and backed, as was believed, by the influence and good wishes of the British Government, they made the elections most effectively. No one else was allowed to stand at all. Those who voted were dragooned in accordance with the powerful machinery which this corrupt and fanatical caucus is able to employ.
    Brutal violence was used where necessary, but in fact there was uncommonly little violence because it was not necessary. Not a single one of the Liberals of the moderate middle element, without which you will not build up the necessary instruments of self-government in that country, not a single one of those very representatives upon whom Lord Milner's report counted so much to serve as the foundation for a future assembly and government, dared to present himself at the poll. They were simply swept aside, and this complete destruction of all the moderate elements resulted from the decision of the Government and from their interference in Egyptian affairs in dictating to Mahmud Pasha the character of the electoral law under which he was to hold the elections. I shall, no doubt, be told that I have said all this before. It is quite true that I am almost using the notes of a speech which I delivered nine months ago. On 23rd December, I said:

    335
    "Mahmud has gone, and now you are face to face with Nahas Pasha… In a few months therefore, His Majesty's Government have annihilated all those Liberal elements in Egypt on which the Milner Report counted in an especial degree. … They have produced a profound degeneration in the Egyptian situation, and Egyptian society and encouraged a struggle between the Wafd and the Court the end of which cannot be predicted. Long before the five years are up events will occur which will afford evidence of the need of the British troops in Cairo. I do not know how long will be the life of His Majesty's Government but I believe that they will live long enough to reap some at lease of the wrath and evil and folly that they have sown."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; cols. 2008–2009, Vol. 233.]
    I repeat those words without hesitation, hoping that they may receive more consideration now than they did when I first used them in the House of Commons. The Wafd came to power as a result of the elections. When they came into power they put into operation what is called the spoils system of which we heard the other day from the Treasury Bench—a vigorous spoils system. They dismissed great masses of officials and put in their own special trusted agents. The mudirs of eight or nine provinces were replaced by the sworn adherents of this secret political society. Only consider the effect of that. If the present régime, the Sidky Pasha régime, lasts in Egypt, it is inevitable that these newly appointed agents of the Wafd should be in their turn removed and replaced by other governors acting in loyal accord with the new régime. Consequently, you will have the whole provincial government administration of Egypt subjected to one disturbance after another to the cruel injury of the fellaheen population.
    Negotiations were now resumed with Nahas Pasha, and, as I think, in conditions which rendered them doomed to certain failure. I tried to explain to the House of Commons in December why it was impossible to have any settlement with the Egyptian Nationalists on the basis which the Government had prescribed, and I think rightly prescribed. Although I thought that they were most foolish in offering to move our troops from Cairo, I thought they were wise in the strict attitude which they adopted on the Sudan. I ventured to point out that no Egyptian party would be able to agree sincerely to a settlement which
    336
    practically excluded Egypt from the Sudan. I said then:
    "To talk about conciliating Egypt and gratifying Egyptian sentiment and brushing away all causes of friction and suspicion, without conceding them at least an equal share in the administration of the Sudan, is folly. No one can pretend that these causes of dispute will be removed by anything short of that; either you must be prepared to concede the full Egyptian claim about the Sudan, or you must be prepared to face a continued quarrel with all those forces in Egypt at whose behest we are now to evacuate Cairo."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,
    23rd December, 1929; col. 2002, Vol. 233.]
    I remember being mocked by some of those who are sitting now upon those benches, though there were more hon. Members there then; I suppose that they are outside discussing the agitating events of this afternoon. I remember being mocked when I pointed out that you would not get a settlement with Egypt on the basis which the Government—quite properly, in my opinion—adopted in regard to the Sudan. You will not get an Egyptian Government which will take the responsibility for cutting the connection to such a large extent between Egypt and its southern province for which such immense sacrifices have been made by Egypt in the past. What follows? The negotiations failed. I think that it is creditable to the Wafd leaders and Nahas Pasha that they acted in a straightforward manner, and that they did not simply take the agreement for what it was worth, and then proceed to use it to get more. Anyone could have told you beforehand that these negotiations, for the sake of which such disturbances were made, were foredoomed to be wrecked on that point, provided that the representatives of the Egyptian Government acted with sincerity, which they did. The Treaty was rejected, so that the whole elaborate process, the costly process of getting rid of Lord Lloyd, of negotiating with Mahmud and the betrayal—I can use no other word—of Mahmud, of the interference with the electoral law in Egypt by the Egyptian Government on the direction of the British Government—
    The PRIME MINISTER: Who interfered?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman interfered by directing that there should be a reference of the Treaty to Parliament elected without a change

    337
    in the electoral law. The installation of Adly Pasha and his caretaker Government in power, the installation of the Wafd in power, the resumed negotiations, the sittings up day and night and the goings on that were heard of in the Foreign Office—for the whole of this elaborate and wearisome pilgrimage the Government had nothing whatever to show. In the end they had nothing to show for nine months of disquieting intervention and interference in the course of Egyptian affairs. But though the Government had nothing to show, the consequences of their action remained. We see them now—two live autocracies facing one another in Egypt. There is an oriental court entrenched by the practical necessities of law and order, facing a corrupt and fanatical caucus which is armed with a Parliament falsely professing to represent some definite expression of the wishes and interests of the people. That is the situation which His Majesty's Government have managed to create. They have segregated Egyptian politics into two extreme categories. It is marvellous how so much mischief could have been scientifically produced. They have segregated and divided Egypt into its two most extreme aspects, and now, having got them at the opposite corners of the ring as it were, His Majesty's Government declare absolute impartiality—like in the general strike, when we were asked to adopt absolute impartiality between the fire and the fire brigade.
    They have declared absolute impartiality, but it is not a passive impartiality. The Government are backing both sides. They sent their warships to Alexandria and other ports, to encourage the Government. They made a declaration that the electoral law with its manhood suffrage basis is not to be altered, in order to encourage the Opposition. Both are given their fair, even-handed support. What is it you are doing in Egypt? Is it a prize fight which you are promoting on the brilliantly illuminated stage of Cairo? Is it a fight in which you want to make sure that both sides have an absolutely even chance and are capable of realising the utmost combativeness which is in them, and that there is no danger of a premature termination of the fight or no risk of the spectators complaining that they have not been adequately
    338
    entertained? Is that the policy? If not, what is it? Is it a scenario of a film that you are making upon the banks of the Nile of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell in an Egyptian setting? Is that what you are doing? Such a spectacle has never been presented to the Chancelleries of Europe as the spectacle of the Government, having first of all created these opposing forces and cleared the arena for their conflict, making quite sure that each shall be kept in the highest possible condition and furnished with all that is necessary to carry that conflict to the most severe and hard-fought-out conclusion.
    I warn the Government that we are not by any means at the end; we are only at the beginning of this conflict. They have started the conflict, and one cannot tell what form it will take before it is finished. We are told that there should be no interference with the internal affairs of Egypt. The interference has been incessant. There has been interference at every point, and in a manner calculated to promote strife, to foment strife and to protract strife, and the result is that, needlessly and wantonly, Egypt has been cast into confusion and disorder. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have found that it is impossible to disentangle Great Britain from Egyptian affairs. You cannot withdraw to the Canal and to the Sudan, and shrug your shoulders and allow matters to take what course they will in the intervening areas. You cannot possibly do it. British influence must be used to guide and aid Egypt. His Majesty's Government have been forced to interfere. Why have they been forced to interfere? Just because their influence has fallen so low. They have lowered the influence of their representatives in Egypt, and they have lowered the influence which this Parliament, by a consistent policy, has exercised over Egypt, to a point to which it has never fallen since we were concerned with the affairs of that country.
    When influence is gone interference emerges—naked, blind and crude. Interference in the shape of the movements of ships and the influence of troops is what the Government have been forced to rely upon. We have to restore British influence. It is a plant of slow growth. It is very difficult to cultivate. You struck

    339
    it a fatal blow a year ago when, in a rough and almost insulting manner, you struck the High Commissioner from his position—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but we are paying for it. It may be laughable to the hon. Gentleman, but we and all those who are living in Egypt are paying the price of this action. Six hundred casualties in a fortnight, volleys of musketry firing into the crowd and bullets piercing one human body after another are not things to laugh at. We may be wrong in our view of the remedy, and the Government of course may be right, but, at any rate, these are matters which Parliament ought to discuss. I am no party with those who say that the House of Commons should not discuss these grave matters affecting the oriental interests and policies of the Crown. We have to restore our influence, and to use an influence weighty, because it is not unsupported; an influence discreet, because it deals with matters in the early stages; an influence faithful, because it has no other object but the well-being and tranquillity of the country.
    We have to restore that influence so that we can make one side concede and another forbear. We have to try to recreate the conditions which were so laboriously and slowly gathered together in the four years preceding the change of Government, and which were so wantonly squandered on the morrow of the accession to power of the party opposite. It is no use waiting until life has been lost and until foreign residents are in danger and appeal for help to their Governments, and when the British Government come in with force of arms, as they have been forced to do on this occasion. It is no use doing that. In our relations with Egypt we must try and make a good job of it, and make things work out well for the general interest of the country, and we must work behind the scenes with all the influence we can towards the achievement of such ends. We must pursue our policy so as to bend the boughs while they are still twigs. All that has been cast aside. We are now back to 1922. The 1922 Declaration specifically provides for the welfare of Egypt, that is to say, of its people, being one of the first steps we must take into consideration. We cannot divest
    340
    ourselves of the care for the welfare of the population.
    We hold no brief for any party in Egypt, and it would be a pity if British parties were to ally themselves in such a way, but we have enduring obligations to secure that good and peaceful conditions of life and labour should come to the peasantry in whose interests we were originally drawn into the country—[Laughter.] Everything that Great Britain has done is a source of scorn and mockery to a certain class of citizens, but they, in turn, are held in well-deserved contempt by the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. We cannot lose confidence in our mission, either in Egypt or elsewhere in the East, to serve faithfully the interests of the mass of the population; and far better should we concentrate our attention on that than be drawn into these intricate politics and intrigues with the politically minded section of the community. The Government's policy, judged by its results, has made Egypt a worse place for every class and every race to live in than it was this time last year. They have inflamed all passions. They have complicated every difficulty. They have armed every hatred, and they leave us with a future of weakness and embarrassment, the end of which no man can foresee.
    6.0 p.m.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have listened for half an hour or thereabouts to the most highly coloured and inaccurate chapter in history to which a Front Bench politician has ever given voice. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that during the period of peace and tranquillity to which he referred Parliamentary institutions in Egypt were suspended. He has forgotten that he and his own Government gave instructions—at least they were not instructions, but advice: we never gave instructions either—of precisely the same character in 1926 that we gave in 1929. Because we gave that advice in 1929 he wishes to put at our door all the untoward events that have since happened in Egypt. In 1926 Lord Lloyd, seeing the impossibility of carrying on longer without a restoration of the Parliamentary régime, which had been suspended in 1924, proposed to advise the Egyptian Government to conduct elec-

    341
    tions on the present electoral law, the law which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to hold up to scorn, that is, universal manhood suffrage, and his proposal was approved by the then Government, What is the good of this sort of debating talent being wasted on the most futile display of harmless fireworks? Egypt is a problem, and nobody ought to know it better than those who preceded us. When the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the situation to-day he is no better on his facts. We saw a lurid picture of Cairo empty of troops five years after the Treaty had been ratified. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten two very important things. First of all, he has forgotten that it was not British troops which were employed in Egypt the other day. I say the right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten that, for his arguments amounted to nothing if he had not forgotten it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I stated clearly that they had been strictly confined to barracks.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Then what is the meaning of that? The situation is handled in Cairo, and in Alexandria by troops. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Treaty had been put into operation, or, at least, five years after it had been put into operation, there would have been no troops there; but, as a matter of fact, the troops themselves were not affected by any provision of the Treaty. That is the first point. The second point is that the British troops now in Cairo were confined to barracks. He said so. As a matter of fact, the occupation of Cairo, so far as the events of the last few days were concerned, had no effect on the methods by which the riots were put down. But that is not the whole story. The British troops were confined to barracks in Cairo, and, therefore, the barracks in Cairo were not in action; but, if the Treaty had been put into operation, within five years after its ratification, according to the provisions of the Treaty, those barracks would have been used by Egyptian troops. If barracks tenanted by troops in Cairo are essential to the maintenance of law and order in Egypt the Treaty
    342
    makes better provision for the maintenance of law and order by the use of barracks in Cairo than the right hon. Gentleman himself provided in his time. You cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: You cannot have it that way.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The fact of the matter is that all this talk about British troops being necessary in Cairo in order to maintain law and order in Egypt has again and again been proved, and never more effectively than by recent events, to be a mere fiction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a mere fiction of a rather swollen Imperialistic imagination.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Why have you sent warships there?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In the ordinary way when one hare is run down somebody tries to jump another one, and—but there is one point I cannot leave over, the great turning point in the history of the relations between Egypt and ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman says that when Mahmud was here never a word was uttered about a Parliamentary regime, that we never said a word to him that the existing system of autocracy was not a sufficiently broad foundation for a Treaty between Egypt and ourselves. Who told the right hon. Gentleman that? That is not the case. He says that Mahmud never had that whispered in his ear until he got to Paris. That is not the case. Mahmud and everybody concerned knew perfectly well that when a Treaty between Egypt and Great Britain is to be made, taking out the four reserved points, that Treaty cannot be delivered except by a Government that has got at any rate a very large measure of support in Egypt. I again refer to the fact that in 1926 the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member recognised that fact. If he now wishes to argue that in the transition stage between autocracy and Parliamentary Government we shall run the risk of unsettling the tranquility of autocracy, which he apparently imagines ought to remain permanently in Egypt, I say we must even face that risk, if the relations between Egypt and ourselves are to be placed on the foundation that we have again and again pledged ourselves to put them upon.

    343
    The fact of the matter is that these events did not arise out of the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—that is, the events of the last few days. They arose out of circumstances which we prefer to regard, and which I think we are perfectly right in regarding, as arising out of the internal affairs of Egypt. We are not entitled to carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman says we ought to. In one of his sentences he said that our mission was to go up the Nile Valley to protect the fellaheen. What becomes of all the bargains we have made with Egypt, and all the declarations that Egypt was a self-governing and independent country? Is that reserved in one of the four points? Will the right hon. Gentleman, with all his imaginative ingenuity, squeeze that responsibility into any one of the four points? He cannot. He knows perfectly well that if the fellaheen in the Nile Valley are to be protected it is their own Government which will protect them, and if their own Government fails to protect them they will have to bear exactly the same responsibility as the electors of this country would have to bear in the same position.
    Our mission in Egypt is confined now—not by us, but I think is rightly confined—to the safeguarding of four specific points, and one of those points is our responsibility for foreign life and property in Egypt. To refuse to accept that responsibility would be criminal folly. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something else which is quite inaccurate. He told us that we had had representations, official representations, that there has been a great feeling of unsettlement among foreign nations over what has happened. He has been absolutely misinformed. No such thing has taken place.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said "official representation."
    The PRIME MINISTER: Really—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman very ingeniously restates his propositions in a form which leads them further away from their original intentions every time. I never said that the Government had had official representations. What I said was that there had been bitter complaints by the foreign
    344
    community in Egypt, and that the foreign newspapers in almost every country concerned had been very scathing in their comments—or something like that.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the right hon. Gentleman should be very sparing in any authority which he places in those. Would he be very much surprised if many of these attacks were rather less concerned with matters arising out of Egypt and were made in order to weaken—made in the ordinary sort of way which nobody complains of, but which everybody understands, and therefore gives them their proper value—were made, not for the purpose of making legitimate complaints, but just for the purpose of weakening the prestige and authority of this country wherever it finds itself mixed up with occurrences like those we have here? First of all, the official complaints never raised the point at all—beyond just the recognition of the fact that disturbances had taken place, and nothing more; one of the purely formal, proper diplomatic forms, without making complaints of any kind whatever. So far as complaints from communities are concerned—I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means the Egyptian communities—so far as I know, and I have asked, we know nothing whatever about them.
    What happened was this. There were riots, there were disturbances. There was talk that a new constitution was to be promulgated. There were difficulties in the way, purely internal Egyptian difficulties. As the result of those internal evolutions disturbances happened, very serious disturbances. One of our responsibilities under the four reserved points is that we must see to it that foreign life and property are protected. Now there is room for difference as to how that responsibility is to be exercised. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) raised his new hare about the warships. It was in accordance with that responsibility that warships were asked to go to Alexandria to stand by, and that will be done again and again whenever the circumstances may necessitate and so long as there is no agreement on that particular reserved point. I am glad to say that owing to the state of affairs in Egypt to-day the warships have found it possible to leave.

    345
    What have we done to remind Egypt both of our interest and of our neutrality? We told Mahmud last year exactly the same thing as the Government of 1926 decided should be communicated to the responsible members of the Egyptian Government. Our circumstances were slightly different, because the draft Treaty came in, but we told him that in our view an attempt made to get sanction for an agreement, such as developed later into the Treaty, after an election which was conducted on a constitution and a franchise Which were narrower and less liberal than the constitution which then existed, would be a great blunder. We never asked that a change of constitution should take place. We never interfered with this franchise, which the right hon. Gentleman makes so light of, because it happens to be manhood franchise. We simply said if you had any chance of getting an agreement between Egypt and ourselves, our judgment leads us to this conclusion that that attempt that you are going to make ought not to be preceded by an attempt to cook your registers, to narrow your franchise, and give every one of your political opponents a chance of saying, and acting if they came into power, that this agreement, as a matter of fact, was effected behind the backs of the Egyptian people, and that the Egyptian people were in no way responsible for carrying it out. That is the advice given to Mahmud which the right hon. Gentleman says was the turning point of British policy. I will repeat it again and again should the circumstances arise.
    What have we done in regard to our interests and our neutrality? We have said that if there is an attempt to change the constitution as it now exists we ought not to be used as tools for the alteration of the constitution, and that it is not to be given out that it is done with our consent, our connivance, or with our approving knowledge. We have said it is purely an Egyptian question. It belongs to that field of Egyptian political activities where the Egyptians rule without interference by us; it is their own affair, and they can do what they like. We have warned them in this connection that if in the change of the constitution the conditions of law and order should so deteriorate in Egypt that foreign life and property would be
    346
    put into jeopardy then our responsibility under that reserved subject would be taken up by us, and we should have to interfere. That is the position.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Interfere in the matter of keeping law and order, or interfere in the guidance of policy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Interfere in the matter of keeping law and order. That is very important, and I am exceedingly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. No sooner were the words out of my mouth than I saw I might be held to have said something which was never in my mind when I uttered the words. It is one of the great difficulties that one has to face, especially in a foreign debate, unless one has written out every word of the speech. Unfortunately I have not had time to do it. It is a very great danger that one standing as I do now runs in all these foreign debates, especially when they are more or less informal. We are blamed for having warned Nahas Pasha as well as the responsible Government. Sometimes the very narrow strip of legal interpretation of an obligation may save you from censure of a legalistic character, and land you in very serious trouble in reality, and what our advisers and the Government felt was that this was no case for red tape.
    What is the situation? Now the Opposition agitating against the present Government is in fact the majority. If Parliament were sitting it would be the ruling authority in Parliament. It is embarking upon a political agitation (I say political, now, at any rate advisedly), designedly or undesignedly—God forbid that I should say—I am an objective spectator—the result of which has been the events of the last week or so. Is it desirable, is it wise, is it the right thing to be so objective that that political machinery will be allowed to work and work, and produce perhaps event after event which will involve us on account of this obligation to which I have referred without saying to the political party responsible, "You must share your responsibilities" if the results are such as may happen, and which as a matter of fact have happened? There we left it. I believe it was a very wise decision to take, although, on strictly legalistic lines, it may have somewhat exceeded the letter of the law or the letter of the bond.

    347
    Therefore our position is that Egypt is free to govern itself within the limitations of the four reservations. Within those limitations, and as long as those reservations are not brought into question, we have no business to interfere with Egyptian affairs. We have offered a fair chance for a settlement of those reservations. There is an Egyptian agreement in existence which was negotiated and by that we stand. There is one outstanding point. By that we stand. As soon as Egypt is prepared to come to an agreement with us upon those lines, we are ready to effect it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I may be allowed to express my regret, and the regret of all Members of this House, that owing to ill-health the Foreign Secretary is unable to take part in this debate. Nevertheless we are very glad that the Prime Minister has taken part in this very important discussion. It is very difficult to conduct a discussion of this kind without the danger of something being said that might be mischievous under the state of things which now exists in Egypt. I was glad to hear the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government were fully alive to their responsibilities under the reservations of the treaty to protect the lives and property not merely of our own nationals, but of the nationals of other countries under the Declaration of 1922.
    This is very vital, because there is no doubt that unless that duty is discharged, and discharged effectively, there are countries that will see that their nationals are not massacred, and that might not only endanger the independence of Egypt but mean the substitution of the Government of another country. Therefore, it was very important, from the point of view of our own nationals, and from the point of view of our position in Egypt and the whole of the East, that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary acted very promptly in ordering warships to Egypt. It was found to be unnecessary to call our troops out. The Prime Minister is very sanguine that it will not be necessary, and I hope he is right in that respect. I would like to point out that the policy which would justify the Government in using warships for the protection of life and property is also a policy that would justify them in using
    348
    troops, if it were necessary, and if the Egyptian Government found itself unable to cope with the difficulties.
    There is one point which I would like to make. The Prime Minister was very clear in his statement that we ought not to interfere in the internal affairs of Egypt. I am not quite so sure that some of the declarations which the Prime Minister has made will not land him in interference. The statement which the right hon. Gentleman made the other day was, in my judgment, a very serious interference with the internal rights of the Egyptians. After all, the kind of franchise, and the basis on which you elect your Parliament, is one of the primary rights of any country. I do not agree with what was said in 1926. I think it is a great mistake for us to use what power we have in a way which would increase the rivalry between the two parties in Egypt. We must not give the impression that we are taking sides upon the question of the franchise, or upon the question of how you should elect the Parliament of Egypt. It must not be forgotten that, after all, Egypt is not accustomed to Parliamentary government, and it is not accustomed to democracy. Egypt does not understand democracy; it has taken this country hundreds of years to understand it.
    In 1870 we had universal education, but it was 50 years after that that universal suffrage was granted to the people of this country. In Egypt you have a peasantry of which quite 95 per cent. are illiterate. They are not merely illiterate, but they have not had the sort of practice which our own people have had in local self-government, where we choose freely our local governors, and as far as the Central Government of Egypt is concerned, they have not consulted the people for thousands of years. It is no use applying our ideas in Egypt without our experience. I do not want to make any charge of corruption against any party in Egypt, but there is no doubt that the fellaheen do not exercise the franchise as freely as we do in this country. The local bureaucracy there is not an independent bureaucracy, but a political one. It is appointed by political parties, and it is dismissed by political parties. The fellaheen are very much under the domination of the officials there, and those officials undoubtedly exercise their power and

    349
    authority to, I will riot say compel, but to guide—I do not like to use the word "herd"—the fellaheen to the poll. It is no use saying that you are getting at the mind of the Egyptian peasant. After all, you do get at the mind of this country more or less in an election. A Government is either popular or unpopular. Opinion sways this way and that way, for reasons which have sometimes appeared to us to be very inadequate. [Interruption.] They may be quite reasonable, but they are reasons that dominate the individual. They do not merely dominate the group, but they dominate the individual, and, if you talk to him, you will find what is influencing him. That is not the case in Egypt; they are just marched to the poll, and you are not getting representation.
    There is trouble in Egypt. I think it will emerge all right, but 1 do hope we are not going to interfere unless there is danger to the lives and property of foreigners and of our own nationals. I think that that is very important. I had the pleasure of meeting Mahmoud Pasha when he was here. I thought he was a man of singular ability and great independence. I also had the privilege of meeting at the Foreign Office, when the Prime Minister also was there, the late leaders. They seemed to me to be very able men, and they belonged to the most honoured profession in the world, that is to say, the legal profession. I am told, also, that the present ruler of Egypt is a singularly able man, and it must not be imagined that he is merely a man of autocratic ideas. I am not an apologist of him at all; I have simply been making some inquiries. As a matter of fact, he was a follower of Zaghloul; he was one of the men who went into exile with Zaghloul; but he is clearly not an autocrat; he is probably a nationalist.
    That is their business, and I hope we shall not interfere with responsible Egyptians thinking oat their own problems of Government for themselves. We more or less indicated to them, "Here you have the most perfect system in the world, universal suffrage. We not merely mean to confer the blessings of universal suffrage upon you, but we mean to insist that you shall take it"; and, although the right hon. Gentleman said
    350
    that he had been giving advice, in substance it was an indication to Mahmoud Pasha that the terms of the Treaty very largely depended, or rather, the attitude of the Government depended, upon his acceptance of universal suffrage. I think that that is a mistaken attitude in a case of this kind. It goes rather far. I do not know to what extent we have a right to force western ideas of democracy and Government upon the East. It is very much older than Europe, and the biggest ideas in the world have come from the East. There is a great deal in what the Easterner thinks about the occidental, namely, that, although we are wise in practical affairs, the deepest things of life he understands better than we do. We say to him, "We are so much wiser than you, although we are much younger in experience of Government, and, therefore, you must take our ideas of Government." That seems to me to be a vice which is extending. I would put this to the Prime Minister, because, although he did not say to-day that he is going, not to impose universal suffrage upon them—because he certainly would not do that—but that he is going to impress it upon them, what he did say, I think, was that, if he thought that the denial of universal suffrage is going to interfere with law and order, then, under Reservation (1), he would interfere. I think that that is rather—
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should have let that go if it were merely for this country, but I do not like it to go to Egypt. I did not mean that at all. I am not going to lay down a formula, I am not going to lay clown a rule, but what I did say was this, that if, in a given set of circumstances, we were advised, and were convinced that our advice was sound, that a great political change—I am not imposing anything, but, if any great political change were going to be made, in those circumstances the Government, whatever Government was in power, would be perfectly right in saving "We are sure that our responsibilities for foreign life and property will have to be undertaken at once." That is what we did, and in that spirit we did it, and in that method of handling affairs. Beyond that I am not going to say I shall go at the present moment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Prime Minister is satisfied with just that sentence, then it might not be very mischievous, but I think there is an indication that the British Government, while the Egyptians are trying in their own way, which is the oriental way, to solve their own difficulties, not necessarily by Parliamentary means, but by means which they understand probably very much better, may intervene and say, "We disapprove of what you are doing, and we do so because we are responsible for law and order." I hope that we shall allow them, I will not say to fight it out, but to work out their salvation in their own way. The responsible leaders of opinion in Egypt are thinking out their problems. They are not necessarily the leaders of one party or another, and I think that, if they are left alone, always provided that there is no peril which will compel us to intervene, it will be very much better. At any rate, however, it is a salutary warning to us, when we come to deal with a population which is oriental, of the perils which are involved in forcing western institutions upon a people who are quite unaccustomed to them, who do not even comprehend them, but who have deeply rooted in their hearts, through the tradition of centuries, another method of government. When you put a Parliamentary institution upon them, it will really be not Parliamentary, but will be the substitution of one autocracy for another.
    Mr. MILLS: Have they not had four elections already?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know, and this is the present condition of things.
    Mr. THURTLE: There is a breach of Parliamentary control now.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know; I do not want to argue that, because it would look as if I were interfering in the quarrel. At any rate, they have gone so far as to suspend the meeting of Parliament for three months. After all, Nahas Pasha was not dismissed; he himself went, very likely because he had difficulties which he would rather leave other people to deal with. At any rate, the only plea that I want to put is that the Government here shall not seek, either directly or indirectly, to impose a basis of election upon the Egyptian people which their wisest leaders in their
    352
    hearts believe is thoroughly inapplicable to them.
    Mr. NOEL BAKER: The debate this afternoon, like several debates in recent times, has shown us that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has become in some sense the Leader, and certainly the spokesman, of his party in questions that relate to international affairs. It has also shown that there is a profound divergence between the policy which the right hon. Gentleman advocates and the policy which is being pursued to-day, and which has been pursued in recent times—indeed, ever since the War—by His Majesty's Government in this country. We heard in the Disarmament debate that the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to the policy of reduction by agreement, which every Government in this country has professedly pursued. We hear this afternoon that he differs from the whole of the policy of 1922, the policy of real Egyptian independence and the settlement of outstanding points by agreement, to which not only our Government, but the Government of which he himself was a member, has been committed.
    We are prepared to admit that that is not a difference of purpose, but a difference of method. We are prepared to recognise that the purpose of the right lion. Gentleman, and of all those in his party on the other side of the House, is really the same as ours—that they are not guilty of what we call Imperialism in any sinister significance of the word, but that we are all agreed on the main objective that we have in view, namely, a prosperous and well-governed Egypt, in which the interests of foreigners shall be secure, in which Egypt shall be safe from invasion, in which there shall be created an efficient Egyptian administration, manned, guided and controlled by Egyptians representing and acting for the Egyptian nation as a whole. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will believe that I, for one, have no desire to accuse them of any jingoistic wish to keep Egyptians in subjection, or wave the British flag on foreign soil; but there is, in regard to that common object, a profound difference of opinion as to how it should be achieved.
    Lord Grey, I think, said a little while ago that there were being pursued with

    353
    regard to Egypt two particular policies, the policy of Lord Lloyd and the policy which His Majesty's Government up to the present time have adopted; and he said that those two policies are not only fundamentally different, but are mutually exclusive, that we must choose between them, and that there is no compromise that can be made between them. The policy which the Prime Minister has explained this afternoon, and which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has explained very frequently in recent times, is, in the first place, the policy of 1922, of accepting, not in form but as a reality, the independence of the Egyptian nation as a member of the society of States; and, secondly, and as a necessary consequence of that acceptance of Egyptian independence, what Lord Grey called a clean sweep in internal interference in Egyptian information, and absolute neutrality in Egyptian politics. With great deference to the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side, I maintain that it is that clean sweep in regard to interference, that absolute neutrality in Egyptian politics, which the Government up to the present time have pursued, and, so far, that second point in the policy has been universally accepted. Lord Curzon said in 1924 that it was a commonplace which we could accept; Lord Grey said not long ago that the whole purport of the Declaration of 1922 was to give up our rights to interfere in the internal affairs of Egypt. It seems to me, therefore, a necessary consequence of the acceptance of Egyptian independence, and a consequence which is not only in our interests but in the interests of Egypt as well.
    The third point in that policy, and one which is equally an essential consequence of the acceptance of Egyptian independence, is the settlement by agreement of the four outstanding points, the protection of foreigners, the defence of the Canal, the Sudan, and the protection of Egypt from foreign invasion. That is an essential consequence because, in the first place, in the declaration of 1922 we made as solemn a pledge as it is possible for any nation to make that the outstanding points would be so settled; and because, in the second place, as history has shown, and as everyone knows, we may be compelled to intervene in Egyptian affairs in such a way that,
    354
    although we only do so to protect foreign rights and foreign life and property, the effective independence of Egypt will be imperilled. It is the ambiguity of the present situation, the uncertainty, the lack of legal basis for the present position, which is the real cause of the danger in Egypt and the real cause why we may be compelled to intervene in such a way that the independence of Egypt will be imperilled.
    That is the first policy. The alternative is the policy that has been stated frequently by Lord Lloyd, which has been stated again to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and to which apparently he is now committing the party for which he speaks. It is the policy of not formally repudiating the declaration of independence but of, nevertheless, retaining in our hands effective control over the machinery of Egyptian Government; of being ready to intervene in a decisive manner in Egyptian affairs whenever we think it is necessary to do so; and of making no settlement of those four outstanding points with regard to which there is ambiguity—the retention in our hands, that is to say, not for a short time, but for an indefinite period—the right hon. Gentleman said it quite openly—of absolute power in regard to these four spheres of national government. I hope that is not an unfair summary of the policy for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping stands.
    The first of these policies is the policy which the present Government have sought to pursue, as we think, with vigour but with forbearance. It is the policy which the late Government sought to pursue in their negotiations with the Parliamentary Government of Sarwat Pasha, who was elected on the Parliamentary franchise to which exception has been taken, a policy pursued by them, as we think, spasmodically and with dangerous reservations, but which, nevertheless, in its essential principles is precisely the same as the policy for which the Government now stand. The second policy has been described to us in its actual effect by Lord Lloyd. He told us it means getting effective control of the Egyptian army, effective control of the Egyptian police, maintaining the so-called European bureau. I am convinced that on Lord Lloyd's conditions it would in all probability be impossible to settle by

    355
    agreement the outstanding four points. If this were so, we should remain without any agreed legal basis for the protection of foreigners, which is so important. That would mean inevitably that we must be prepared at any moment to intervene in Egyptian affairs, exactly as Lord Lloyd himself intervened when he prevented Zaghloul Pasha from becoming Prime Minister in 1926. It means in addition, as Lord Lloyd and the right hon. Gentleman have said, intervening to protect the fellaheen from exploitation. That was not the policy of the late Government. It is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman for Epping as stated today. I thought he stated it with great moderation and great clarity. He said definitely that he wanted the British Government to prevent the fellaheen from becoming slaves in the future. He said he wanted us to help to restrict the Egyptian suffrage, to protect the fellaheen by taking their vote and establishing a plutocracy. With great deference to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the whole of his argument was simply that.
    I do not believe that any case can be made against the Government that they have intervened over the suffrage, but if we are discussing the merits of the franchise as it exists to-day, I should like to call into question some of the arguments that have been used on the other side. When did this country ever deny to illiterates the right to vote? I have seen elections in countries where there is a very high percentage of illiterates on the roll. I have seen those elections held in such a way that there is no doubt that the ballot was secret and that they gave a reasonably satisfactory democratic verdict as the result of the poll that was taken. The right hon. Gentleman wants us—in his speech he made it quite plain—not only to intervene in Egyptian politics, but he wants us never to settle the questions that are outstanding between our nation and the Egyptian people. That is the inevitable conclusion of the argument that he used, because he said it would always be impossible, in his opinion, for us to reach agreement with the Egyptian representatives in regard to the Sudan and, therefore, it was a mistake ever to try, ever to start negotiations with
    356
    people with whom we should not be able to agree. I call that policy, for which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, a policy of Crown colony government. I know quite well that hon. Members opposite sincerely believe that it is the right way to carry to its proper conclusion the work which Lord Cromer so admirably began. I am the last person in the world to deny the benefits that Lord Cromer brought to Egypt. Lord Cromer created that prosperous nation which now desires to be free. But although hon. Members opposite believe honestly that all they desire is to carry out Lord Cromer's policy as he began it, in fact their policy is not Cromerism; and certainly it is not practical politics. It is not in the spirit of the policy of Lord Cromer.
    What was the policy of Lord Cromer? From first to last it was a policy of governing Egypt with the co-operation of the Egyptians. From the very beginning, the whole system was designed to train the Egyptians for governing themselves, to bring them into the machinery of administration as fast and as widely as he could. Let us remember that, after all, we did not create the Egyptian Government as we created the Government, let us say, of India or the Sudan. It was created half a century before we went there. We did not desire that our occupation should be permanent. We remember very well Lord Salisbury's protest against acting as bailiff for the bond-holders. We know that Gladstone offered to come out in 1887. We know Lord Cromer's methods. He never governed through British officials acting as a governmental authority. The British officials were advisers to the Egyptians. We know, too, that Sir William Hayter, a distinguished legal adviser to the Egyptian Government has stated that before the War great changes were taking place and that Egyptians, such as Zaghloul, whom Lord Cromer made Minister of Education, were exercising great practical control in their country's affairs. We remember very well that Lord Kitchener accelerated the process of change by creating the Legislative Assembly and, if he had had his way, he would have done what he could to abolish the institution of European advisers.
    I want to submit to hon. Members opposite that the whole of that policy

    357
    depended upon securing the willing cooperation of those Egyptians who were able to speak for the nation and that, therefore, this policy which is advocated from the Opposition benches is not Cromerism, but is in contradiction to the very spirit for which Lord Cromer stood.
    I want to submit also that it is literally impossible in present conditions to carry through. There is a great new fact in world affairs which we sometimes think hon. Members opposite are liable to forget, and that is the nationalism of the Eastern nations which we in Europe have done so much to create. Even the leader of the Liberal party seemed not to appreciate that nationalism in Egypt is a real force that goes right down to the very root of the nation and moves the simplest peasant, and that the secret of the power of the nationalist party lies just there, that there is a passionate desire on the part of every Egyptian citizen, however humble, to be a member of an independent and self-governing nation. Even before the War, nationalism in Egypt existed. It was the very glory of our British system that we had been able in so short a time to create a nation that wanted to be free. The War had enormously strengthened that movement. In that War we were fighting for the weaker nations. We were fighting to make the world safe for democracy, to protect nations whose integrity had been violated in contravention of international law. We were fighting to break up the Imperialist Empires of the world in Europe and elsewhere. We were fighting for the 14 points and, in so doing, we brought in millions of Orientals who fought on our side, including 1,000,000 of the Egyptian nation.
    We not only smashed the prestige of Europe in the rest of the world among what we used to call the subject peoples, but we created this new force of nationalism with the tremendous power that it now wields. These nationalists believe we are pledged to carry out this policy of independence and negotiation. They have not only the pledge of the 14 points and the pledge of the Milner report. We remember very well that, although the Cabinet here turned down the Milner report, Lord Allenby always
    358
    insisted that it must be taken as a binding offer to the Egyptian people. But we have also the actual pledge of the declaration of 1922 itself. There the thing is crystal clear:
    "The British Protectorate over Egypt is terminated and Egypt is declared to be an independent sovereign State."
    7.0 p.m.
    We must allow words to have their meaning, but he went on to say that the four reserved points were only reserved until such time as it might be possible by free discussion and friendly accommodation to conclude agreements in regard thereto. Can we be surprised if a nation which has suffered as the Egyptian nation suffered in the War and passed through such events as took place in 1921 should regard that as binding? If we tried to call it in question we should be doing much to sacrifice the good will which we have gained. It was Lord Curzon who said in 1923, speaking to the Imperial Conference, that the British Government had done everything in their power to encourage the belief throughout the world that this country was never untrue to its word. He said that was the basis of our moral authority, a moral authority which the British Empire had long exerted and would long continue to exert in the affairs of mankind.
    I submit also that the events for the last 10 years prove overwhelmingly that no other policy than this policy of independent negotiation has any chance of direct success. We only once came within measurable distance of the Crown Colony government which hon. Members opposite are now reviving, and that was in 1919. But that led to the terrible explosion which took place in Egypt. Lord Curzon said at that time that if the policy of settlement was refused it would lead to disaster, and that explosion which took place was the inevitable result of the rejection of a policy for which he stood. At every stage in the last 10 years the policy of force has proved to be wholly futile to solve the Egyptian problem or even to achieve the purpose for which it was intended. In 1919–22 we had absolute control, we had a Protectorate, we had a great occupying force, we had martial law, and it was in that period that the great campaign of murder of British citizens took place.

    359
    I submit, on the other hand, not only that that policy is bound to fail, but also that the other policy has been proved by history to have been a success. Take, for example, the Milner report, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) was so distinguished an author. We know that was not accepted by either side, and yet we know that the mere fact of the publication of the Milner report did a great deal to bring about pacification in Egypt, where formerly chaos and disorder had existed. We know that the Declaration of 1922 was not accepted by some of the Egyptian people, and yet it established the Egyptian Government. If we come to the present day we know that the recent Treaty negotiations have not yet reached agreement, although we believe they will. But they have led to an immense improvement in the relations between the Egyptians and the British people, and that is the reason why, in the recent crisis, there has been no anxiety in regard to the safety of foreigners in Egypt. We believe that our policy works, and has been proved to work, because it takes into account and works through the passionate nationalism of the Egyptian people, and because it honours the pledges which we have made. We believe that the policy of the Front Opposition Bench must fail because it flouts the nationalism of the Egyptian people and dishonours the pledges to which we have put our hands.
    I recognise that it is very natural for some people to have doubts. No doubt foreign communities who lived through the events of 1921 have doubts to-day. But so did the foreign community of the British Concession in Hankow in 1926, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir Austen Chamberlain) had the courage, in spite of opposition from the British community there, to make a Treaty with regard to Hankow and to give up the British Concession, with the result that to-day the foreign population of Hankow is as safe and as happy and prosperous as it has ever been, and, instead of having a Russian adviser with a Nationalist Government, we have a British adviser and a friendly White Government. Of course there are risks in our policy. There are always risks inherent in the
    360
    introduction of democracy among an illiterate Oriental people. We do not deny it, but we have seen that process carried through in a number of cases. We have seen Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and others grow up into strong and free Republics, and I beg hon. Members opposite, and I beg this Committee to consider that this is not a question in which we can just acquiesce and take no risks.
    There are always risks in everything you do in regard to public affairs. The difficulty of the Conservative party at the last Election was that there is no such thing as "Safety First." It is always a choice. We know the risks of their policy. Do they dispute that they have risks? We know those risks. We have seen the condition of Egypt in 1921, and the Milner Report describes those risks to us, and we know that Lord Curzon, when his Cabinet rejected his proposals, said they would make of Egypt another Ireland. Since we have to choose between the risks I prefer the risk of a policy founded on agreement, on trust and on mutual understanding, and we on this side choose it with confidence, because we know that those are the great creative forces in the world to-day.
    Sir RENNELL ROOD: I will endeavour not to detain the Committee very long, but there are really three points on which I would like to speak to-night. I regret that any special direction should have been given or any restriction placed on the discussion on the Vote for the Foreign Office because we so seldom have the opportunity of voicing certain ideas which I think ought to be put before the Committee. I am, however, very glad that the question of Egypt is among those matters on which I can speak tonight, because I have long waited for an opportunity to draw attention to a point of considerable importance. I sought to do so during the discussion on the Optional Clause, but I failed to find an opportunity. During the debate on the Adjournment of the House last December, the question of the bearing of the Optional Clause on the Egyptian issue was raised by one or two speakers, but it was really raised rather in a general sense, and no reference was made to the reservations which, to my mind, are really, so far as Egypt is concerned,

    361
    a serious consideration in this question. Even the bearing of the Optional Clause on the Egyptian situation did not lead to a very satisfactory answer. The point is rather a close and difficult one to follow, but I should be very glad if I might have the attention of the Committee for a few moments.
    It will be within the knowledge of the Committee that when the Declaration of 1922 regarding the future status of Egypt was made, Notes were at the same time despatched to foreign Powers which made it perfectly clear to them that we should consider any foreign intervention in the Egyptian question as unfriendly acts. That was tantamount to publicly announcing that until certain conditions which had been put forward to the Egyptian Government had been fulfilled, and while we were still in military occupation of the country, we considered the question of Egypt to be a domestic question. In the case of the Optional Clause of the Covenant, His Majesty's Government were no doubt perfectly right in reserving questions of an internal and domestic nature, but unfortunately an addition is made to these reservations. It in fact reserves disputes with regard to questions which, by international law, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. I shall no doubt be told that this phraseology is derived from the Covenant of the League of Nations itself. That is quite true, but as it is used in the Covenant it has rather a descriptive than a precise or a restricting value. The addition of the words "by international law" appear to my mind not only to vitiate the value of the reservation but to constitute a serious diminution of sovereignty, inasmuch as the decision to decide what is a domestic and internal question is thereby taken out of our hands.
    What is international law, and how far has international law led us to determine what does or does not fall within the jurisdiction of a particular State? The sanction of international law has hitherto been the extent to which its principles are generally accepted by the Society of Nations, but it must be remembered that, with the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice, international law will now have a new sanction in decisions given by that Court,
    362
    and that to all who have adhered to it the Permanent Court will in future make international law. That is not merely an opinion of my own. Let me quote one of the most eminent living authorities in international law, the Registrar of that Permanent Court, the celebrated Swedish international lawyer, Mr. Ake Hammerskjold, who, in a recent lecture given to the International Institute of Foreign Affairs, said:
    "Acceptance of the Optional Clause. … means at any rate, acceptance of the obligation to appear before the Court, upon arraignment by another State, in order to answer, if not on the merits, at least as to the existence of reservations applicable in particular cases; and to acquiesce in the award rendered by the Court, firstly on this point, and secondly, should the Court overrule the plea to the jurisdiction based on the reservation, on the merits of the dispute also."
    I raise this question particularly in relation to Egypt, because its bearing is extremely important, and it has a very much wider, and more far-reaching bearing also. I am not for a moment imputing to the Government or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a double dose of original sin for having landed us in this very unfortunate position. But I do suggest that, to satisfy a sentimental opinion in this country in favour of the Optional Clause, the right hon. Gentleman has not given sufficient consideration to all the implications of the reservation. By signing the Optional Clause with a reservation couched in these terms, we are henceforth deprived of the exclusive right of determining for ourselves what is or is not an internal or domestic issue, and we have turned that decision over to the International Court.
    That is one point which I wish to raise to-day, and if the Committee will bear with me for a moment, I would like to turn now to the actual position in Egypt. The view of hon. Members on both sides have been pretty freely ventilated on former occasions, and the fact that the subject has been selected for discussion at the present moment appears to me to show that it has been raised with the idea of drawing attention to the more recent actions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who, for reasons that we all very much regret, is unable to be here to-day to justify or defend his policy.
    I certainly see points for question and for criticism, but I shall endeavour to put them with great moderation, because I

    363
    realise that when internal questions arise in a country whose independence we fully recognise things may be said in this House which may only render far more difficult the position of the men who are trying to preserve order in an extremely difficult and complicated situation. The attitude which His Majesty's Government claim to have adopted in this matter is one of non-intervention and impartiality in the internal affairs which must be settled by the Egyptians themselves. So far so good. What we have to consider, in reviewing the action of the Government, is how far have they acted, and are they acting, with strict impartiality?
    When, a year ago, the terms of the Treaty were being discussed with the then Egyptian Prime Minister, agents of the Egyptian Opposition were very active in London and in continual contact with Members of the Labour Government. These agents appeared, I have reason to know, to be extremely well informed as to the progress of those negotiations, and they certainly did not learn anything about them from the then Egyptian Prime Minister, who, as it is generally understood, was contemplating certain modifications, not in the general system of election in Egypt, but in the distribution of constituencies. That those contacts had their influence appears to be undoubted, and the fact may be presumed from the speech which was delivered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Welwyn on 9th August last, in which he announced that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    "had made it a condition that Parliamentary Government in Egypt which had been destroyed by Lord Lloyd should be restored and moreover that there was to be no change in the electoral system."
    We are all familiar with what then took place—the resignation of the then Egyptian Prime Minister and the return of the Opposition, always in a majority, to power. What is happening now? There does not seem to have been any difficulty, from the utterances which we have heard in this House, in finding out with which groups in Egypt the sympathies of hon. Gentlemen opposite lie. They are perfectly entitled to their sympathies. It is a very natural thing, and a typically British thing, to be convinced that what is good for us must equally be
    364
    good for other people. They do not, I am sure, doubt for a moment that our Parliamentary system, the result of many centuries of evolution, shaped by the particular character of the British people, can almost immediately be assimilated without difficulty by an Eastern people without Parliamentary experience and tradition and without any system of controls or sanctions to keep the machine in order.
    The simple, illiterate, submissive peasant class in Egypt who comprise the overwhelming mass of the population have always, since the beginning of time, been dominated by a small pre-potent or intelligent minority from the time of the Shepherd Kings to the days of the Khedives and Pashas. Under the long British control in Egypt, many of these old tyrannies disappeared. I am convinced, having lived there for eight years and knowing something about the subject, that if a more satisfactory system of education had been possible, consistent with the race against bankruptcy which was so laboriosuly won, the natural cleverness of the Egyptian people would have been turned to excellent account along sound—by which I mean practical, and certainly not political—lines. As it is, the results accomplished of recent years have been very remarkable, especially in female education, from which I hope great things in Egypt. But with the removal of control and the opportunities which have been offered to a very small group of the intelligentsia in Egypt by the introduction of a full-grown system of Parliamentary Government in a soil which really nobody could think was completely ready to receive it new and perhaps more insidious tyrannies than those which have gone before menace the country.
    Any impartial observer in Egypt during the past few years could have no doubt whatever that an Egyptian Tammany has been constituted which has endeavoured to control, and has largely succeeded in controlling at certain times, the administrative machinery of the country and replacing any officials who were not entirely subservient to it by officials of its own. Efforts to introduce legislation which would permanently consolidate the position of a close oligarchy masquerading as democracy has already twice led to conflicts, one of

    365
    which is acute at the present time, or recently has been acute. I keep in contact with Egypt and I have very good information that this acute conflict is wholly unnecessary. The measures brought into the Egyptian Parliament were not confirmed by the King, but would if reintroduced have come into force automatically in six months. Instead of waiting there was started what, I am sorry to say, has been a very serious and a somewhat bloody conflict in the country. What, in these circumstances, has been the attitude of His Majesty's Government, and how far have their professions of impartiality been carried out? We have seen a note of warning addressed to the present Egyptian Prime Minister, who has been called upon by the King of Egypt to deal with a very critical situation. But we have seen simultaneously a message addressed to the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to have been as pleased to receive it as the Prime Minister was surprised and disconcerted by the note which reached him.
    I have my own views upon the matter, but, rightly or wrongly, we have recognised the independence of Egypt, and in those circumstances it seems to be anomalous and also unprecedented that views should be exchanged with, or communications addressed to, any but the Government called into office by the Sovereign of that country. All that I can say is that from my knowledge of Egypt any other course could hardly fail to be interpreted in that country as an indication of sympathy and partiality. Our influence in the East has hitherto been due to our complete single-mindedness and straightforwardness, and any action which can be interpreted there as giving any colour to the slightest suspicion of intrigue will be disastrous to this most valuable asset.
    I wish to say a few words regarding the position in Russia. Repeated attempts have been made from this side to elicit information from the Government as to the production of certain commodities in that country by forced or prison labour at prices with which producers in other countries cannot possibly compete. The replies from the Government have not appeared to be very convincing or very sincere. The Assistant
    366
    Under-Secretary of the Treasury of the United States has been far more communicative. He is reported to have stated that embargoes are likely to be placed upon other commodities entering the United States beside that of wood pulp, on which an embargo has already been placed, and that inquiries are being made into the conditions under which several commodities are now being produced in Russia. Are we making any similar effort to inform ourselves?
    The whole question of trade between this country and Russia has become an extremely difficult one for this reason. The Government there have a virtual monopoly of trade and have enforced a system which results in production under conditions with which workers in no other country can possibly compete. The Government have taken credit to themselves for having by their policy secured the placing of certain very important orders by Russia; orders facilitated, shall I say financed, by guarantees to the producers which we have to furnish ourselves because all ready money available in Russia is required for other purposes. Of the purchases made on behalf of the Soviet State there is one in particular for which credit could not be obtained, at any rate in this country, and that is the purchase of arms and warlike material, which, according to my information, has invariably been paid for in cash both in this country and elsewhere and which is being accumulated at a rate which is causing serious preoccupation on the Continent. The credits which we give for the acquisition of other commodities merely help to liberate resources which are being used to provide warlike material, not to mention propaganda. and other occupations of that Government. For what purpose is this warlike material being collected?
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us from what countries these armaments are being imported into Russia?
    Sir R. RODD: Some have been bought in this country. I do not think that it would be advisable to say what are the other countries. I do not wish to in valve myself into difficulties with any other countries, but I am prepared privately to inform the hon. Member afterwards. What is the Meaning also of

    367
    certain movements of ships with which those who have to watch the distribution of forces have, for some weeks at any rate, been familiar? Though I have long ceased to take any active part in diplomacy, I retain many associations and I am not altogether uninformed about the trend of opinion in other countries. I am aware of the very grave misgiving which exists as to what these movements and this accumulation or warlike material may portend. What I ask is, is our optimistic Government alive to the preoccupations which are undoubtedly affecting other countries? I do not suppose that I shall receive an answer to that question, but as an old and experienced watcher of the political sky I must say that I also recognise indications which cause me grave misgivings. There are portions of this old Europe where we know that a small spark readily produces a great conflagration. I have felt it to be my duty to bring forward this point, which reaches me from a source in the accuracy of which I have confidence, although I am not able to disclose it here. I think it is right that the Government should keep a vigilant eye on what is going on in Eastern Europe and I conclude that warning with the Roman words videant consules!
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: The hon. Member who has just spoken has had long experience as a diplomatic servant of the State and, naturally, the House pays much attention to any views which he expresses, particularly in regard to the countries of which he has personal knowledge. It is, however, extraordinary how often the diplomats have been proved to be wrong. Throughout the whole of the last ten years most of the predictions and opinions expressed in relation to Russia by those who hold the views which the hon. Member has expressed to-day, have been consistently wrong. I would like the hon. Member to give us more information about the somewhat alarming purchases of armaments by Russia, to which he alluded. I understood him to say, in response to my interjection, that some of these armaments have been purchased in Great Britain. If my memory serves me correctly, it is impossible to export armaments from Great Britain without an export licence,
    368
    and I have yet to learn that there have been any export licences granted for the export of armaments to Russia of a character likely to give rise to any public concern. If Russia is purchasing munitions of war in this country, that might very easily be stopped if the people who are supplying them were not willing to execute the orders. The hon. Member promised to give us private information but refrained from giving publicity to the source of supply of these great accumulations of war materials. I should be very interested to learn from what countries these huge supplies have been obtained. In any case Russia is not the only nation that is buying armaments in the modern world to-day. I take it that in relation to her population she will from time to time undoubtedly make a certain amount of purchases, but no information has yet been disclosed to the House which would justify the people of this country, and particularly those who are engaged in trade with Russia, in suffering from any lack of confidence in the execution of orders, because of this new armament scare.
    We are often told that the Labour Government have done nothing to honour their pledges. We are told that not only from the Opposition benches, but often hon. Members on this side of the House have indulged in that criticism. I want to thank the Government and to express my appreciation of the success that has attended them in their efforts in the realm of foreign policy, and particularly for the success which has so far attended their handling of the Anglo-Russian problem. During the period, less than nine months, that has elapsed since the Russian Ambassador presented his credentials, we have reached such a stage that in October next the Committee is to meet to consider the debt settlement in relation to the difficulties outstanding between Great Britain and Russia. That is a very great contrast to the four and a-half years of inactivity during which the late administration made no attempt to protect the interests of those small investors who lost money and property as a result of the upheaval in Russia. We sincerely hope that those who speak for Russia at the forthcoming conference will realise the importance which this question bears to the whole future of Anglo-Russian relations. Many of us are

    369
    not so much concerned with debts in the sense of securing our pound of flesh, but certainly in relation to those debts contracted in the normal course of trade and those debts arising from investments in pre-War Russian Government and municipal loans. It does strike a fatal blow at that confidence which must exist between nations, if they are to live together in amity and concord, if debts of that character are to be repudiated as a general principle, because operations involving long term credits, which require certain years before they are brought to final fruition, cannot take place if there is lack of confidence as to the fulfilment of obligations entered into.
    In saying that, I do not want for one moment to minimise our responsibility for the very serious economic loss and even the very serious loss of life that resulted in Russia through our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of Russia. Russia, quite clearly, has a proper and rightful claim in relation to damage done to her during the period of intervention. Whilst it would be quite unreasonable to expect her to recognise in full or agree to pay the Czarist War debts, and whilst we desire fully to recognise any claims that she may have. it is a fundamental principle of international good will and an essential basis of international trade that it should be recognised that debts contracted in the ordinary normal course of trade should be honoured, as far as it is possible for those who have contracted them to do so.
    I need hardly remind the House that the full responsibility for the delay in bringing about a settlement of this matter has not rested with Russia, because Russia on her part recognised in the Trade Agreement of 1921 the principle of payment of compensation for those particular classes of debts. The inactivity and refusal of the Conservative administration to proceed to a conference to settle this issue is one of the reasons why we have had no settlement up to the present time. One may safely say that in so far as there has been a real case against Russia in relation to propaganda, the effect of the renewing of diplomatic relationships by giving us the machinery to discuss these difficulties as and when they arise, has had the effect of causing a subsidence in the propaganda against the British Empire,
    370
    and I think that in that connection Russia has made a hopeful contribution towards a settlement of our difficulties.
    The restoration of diplomatic and trade relationships has brought considerable benefit to certain areas which have a special interest in the development of Russian trade. In the nine months from the 1st August last year to the 25th June this year the Russian trade organisations in this country, including in that term the co-operative societies, have placed orders to the extent of £13,000,000, as against £6,000,000 in the corresponding period of last year. Those orders have already brought considerable employment to our engineering, electrical and chemical industries. In those industries orders to the extent of £6,000,000 have been given, as against orders to the amount of £2,000,000 in the same period of last year, and in the Lincolnshire towns, where workmen have been employed on these orders and where the traders have got the advantage of the circulation of money, we appreciate the action of the Government in dealing so ably with this very difficult problem of Anglo-Russian relations.
    I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether he and his Department will consider how far some orientation of the present policy is necessary if we are to get the full trade benefits from the renewal of relationships which appear to me to be possible, provided that we adopt a policy which meets the difficulties of the situation. One of the great difficulties in dealing with orders from Russian trading organisations is the fact that there is in this country, and has been since 1924, a credit barrage which has operated in the form of refusing accommodation for Anglo-Russian trade transactions, or refusing accommodation to firms engaged in operations which in the normal course of business would be readily forthcoming if the orders were from some other country. From the evidence at my disposal I am driven to the conclusion that it is not a matter of the refusal to give accommodation because of ordinary commercial reasons but is rather part of a policy designed to hamper the development of this particular trade. That means that firms engaged in this particular class of enterprise have had to mortgage right up to the hilt of their resources in order to give terms which

    371
    are somewhat competitive with other traders in Germany and particularly in the United States. One of the reasons why a larger volume of Russian trade has not been forthcoming has been the difficulty of giving credits which are reasonable and proper, in relation to the nature of the transaction, to Russian buyers, credits which are similar in kind to those which they receive from German and American sellers.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: What has the hon. Member in mind.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I have in mind the German Government scheme under which credits were available from two and a half years to four years according to the class of goods and in relation to certain transactions in America where credit has been up to four and five years duration. At the present time the only machinery we have which can help manufacturers in our depressed industries to deal with this difficulty is the machinery controlled by the export credits department, under which each individual transaction is submitted to a particular committee who may either refuse or accept the proposal according to their judgment. Whilst, theoretically, each transaction is considered on its merits what really happens is that the committee responsible for dealing with these applications absolutely decline to give any consideration whatever to a proposal in relation to Russian credit if the period exceeds more than 12 months.
    Sir H. CROFT: What credit does the Russian Government give us?
    Mr. TAYLOR: I am not interested in that matter.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Member aware that they want cash in advance.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I have noticed that hon. Members opposite always laugh when the question of Russian trade is mentioned, but I want to ask them to look at the problem a little more calmly and perhaps they will see that it is to the mutual advantage of both countries that a change should take place. The only justification for this machinery is the fact that it will help to restore trade and promote employment and, therefore, I want the Under-Secretary to face up to
    372
    this issue, and if possible give me an answer, why his Department are exercising no pressure in the direction of securing an easement of the situation. Suppose a firm in Lincoln which for many years prior to the War and since has done a considerable volume of trade with Russia comes along with a contract, on a basis satisfactory to both sides, involving perhaps £200,000 or £250,000 but requiring some 18 months or two years before final payment is made. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived when the policy of the Committee which controls the granting of these credits should not be sufficiently oriented so that each individual transaction can be considered on its merits, with a view to helping manufacturers and placing men in employment. There you have works with capital and skill and everything ready for the application of labour, and if this barrier could be removed it would be possible to place a considerable number of men in employment without any new legislation.
    When the Overseas Trade Act was passed it was clearly laid down that credits up to five years might be granted for certain of the heavy industries, and all I am asking is that these individual transactions shall be considered on their merits. At the present time I have evidence that orders of a substantial character have been offered to several firms in the steel trade on the basis of one-third of the total cost in 12 months, another third in 18 months, and the final third at the end of 24 months. As far as the shipbuilding industry is concerned, orders are available on the basis of credits extending from one to six years. So far as the general engineering and electrical industry is concerned, orders which can be placed almost immediately are available with credit terms varying from 12 months to five years. As far as the machine-tool industry is concerned, orders could be placed in this country on the basis of one-third in 12 months, the next third in 18 months and the final third at the end of two years. That does not seem to be unreasonable, having regard to the character of the product required. If you consider the normal shipbuilding equipment, or the equipment for an electrical power station or the equipment for a new factory, in the ordinary normal course of things no country buys them on absolutely cash terms.

    373
    If it is a case of selling abroad in India or South America the normal course by which these transactions are financed is for a loan to be raised for periods of 15 and 20 years, the proceeds being used for buying this kind of capital equipment, repayment taking place as the new productive power becomes effective. In regard to our own municipalities, if we want to lay down a new power station we have to raise a loan in order to get the money to pay for the transaction, and repay the cost of the new station over a period of years. Certainly, in relation to the demand for these particular classes of goods it is impossible for Great Britain to get that share of the market that is available through the expanding industrial activity of Russia unless we can evolve some form of credit machinery which will enable us to sell goods at prices which Russia is willing to pay and which will enable us to compete with our competitors. It is argued that there is no need for any special trade agreement or any use of credits under the export credits scheme in regard to Russian trade. It is said by hon. Members opposite that the money derived from Soviet trade in this country shows a very great balance in favour of Russia, and that if she would use the total volume of credits she has got by her imports into Great Britain there would be no necessity for any credits to enable her to make purchases for capital construction, and so on. I want to deal with that matter and to see exactly what happens in regard to the credits raised by the imports of Russian goods into Great Britain.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I am very reluctant to stop the hon. Member because technically he is quite in order on this Vote. I understand that the Minister in charge of the Overseas Department is really attached with the Foreign Office and to some extent responsible to the Foreign Secretary whose salary is included in this Vote.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is not this subject dealt with by the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, who has a certain relationship with the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is my difficulty. I understand that the Minister who controls this section is in-
    374
    directly under the control of the Foreign Office, and because of that I am rather reluctant to intervene, but I think there must be a limit. We cannot go into too great detail.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that there seems to be some difficulty in this matter. It is quite obvious that this is a subject which should be discussed, and it is difficult for hon. Members who are interested if they are to be ruled in one part of their observations. I quite see your point that we cannot go into considerable detail, but there must surely be some way by which we can discuss general policy, and I rather gather from your ruling that, so long as we do not enter into too much detail, general questions of policy might be referred to on this Vote.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The fact that I have allowed the hon. Member to go as far as I have, indicates that I am reluctant to be too strict in my Ruling. I feel that the Foreign Office is to some extent responsible for policy and as long as hon. Members do not go into too great detail I am prepared to allow the discussion to proceed.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I am obliged to you for your Ruling, but I was induced to go into these matters by the interjections of hon. Members opposite. I was dealing with the point as to the situation created by Russian imports into this country, and I was hoping to use it as an argument to induce the Under-Secretary to pay immediate and responsible attention to the possibility of negotiating a new trade agreement with Russia, on similar lines to that which was successfully negotiated and completed by Germany under which a credit of 300,000,000 marks was made available for financing long-term operations. Almost every country with which Great Britain does business has a favourable trade balance—favourable in the sense that the credits raised by her imports into Britain are greater than the volume of goods which she buys from Britain. That must necessarily be so, because Great Britain has to receive some £350,000,000 a year in the form of invisible exports and payments due for shipping, banking and so on; and those payments have to come into this country in the form of goods.

    375
    When Russia has paid for purchases, whatever cash is paid for the purchases the balance of the money derived from the sale of Russian goods in this country is very largely used for the purchases of raw materials on the London market. Purchases of hides, purchases of cotton, purchases of jute, purchases of tea, purchases of sugar, and so on, are made on the London market, and incidentally have the effect of transferring the purchasing power from Britain to those countries which produce foodstuffs and raw materials. Certain parts of the British Empire benefit by these purchases. From these purchases by Russia they derive the purchasing power with which to place orders in Britain, say for oil engines for power stations, or for any other of the manufactured goods which they buy from this country. Therefore, because the money is not spent direct in this country it does not in the least mean that it is not finally available for the purchase of British goods. Then, of course, payment has to be made to our shipping companies, and for the banking and insurance services which we render. The staffs who are employed in the Soviet trading organisations in this country have to be paid for, and it is a very noticeable fact that, since the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia, the larger part of the shipping used by Soviet Russia for the transport of her goods has been diverted from the Swedes and Norwegians to British ship-owners. I believe that in the last navigation year some £2,750,000 was paid by the Russians for shipping services, 75 per cent. of which was paid to the Norwegians and the Swedes. Since the resumption of diplomatic relations between this country and Russia, the position has been entirely reversed, and now that large proportion is being paid to Britain. Therefore, in reckoning the total balance sheet between the two countries, when we come to analyse the matter in detail it is not true to say that the total volume of Russian imports into Britain represents a sum which is available for the purchase of British goods in Britain to be exported to Rsssia.
    In this matter of a possible new trade agreement, or an alteration in the policy of the Export Credits Department, there arises the question as to whether or not
    376
    Russia can be trusted. I think the best test we can apply is the test of the post-revolution experience of the transactions carried out by the Russian trading organisations. I have not heard of a single case where a single British trader has lost a penny by doing business with any Russian trading organisation. Certainly in my own constituency the experience has been that they have met their commitments promptly, and that from the financial point of view there has been no difficulty on that side. Therefore, we have, first of all, the experience which has been built up, and, secondly, we have the test as to whether further default or repudiation would really pay Russia in present day circumstances. We must not overlook, in this connection, the fact that the confidence now enjoyed by Russian trading organisations in this and other countries has been built up slowly and very painfully over the last 12 years, and that, from that point of view alone, it would not pay them, apart from any other considerations, to default on any of their purchases, because a single default would destroy this confidence which it has taken so many years to evolve.
    A third consideration which I would commend to the Committee in this connection is the fact that at the present time, and, so far as one can see, in the future, for all practical purposes in connection with credits Russia's economy is very dependent upon the sale of certain exports abroad, and, in view of her increasing dependence on the sale of exports abroad, it is extremely unlikely that she will default in any of her payments. I hope my hon. Friend whose Department is supposed to exist for the purpose of promoting the maximum development of Britain's overseas trade, will pay attention to this particular aspect of the problem, and I venture to express the hope that, in the forthcoming debt negotiations, both those who represent Britain and Russia may take a reasonable view and that we may get a settlement of this very difficult question which will commend itself both to British opinion and to Russia as being equitable to both sides, and thus help to remove one of the greatest difficulties in the normal development of trading relations between the two countries.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to intervene for more than one or two minutes, but I should like to emphasise the point which has been put with such great force by the hon. Member who has just sat down, who urged the Government to reconsider the terms upon which credit is accorded to British goods to Russia. Let me say at once that I am not considering in the least the interests of Russia in this respect, but entirely the interests of our own trade. Here we are with very serious unemployment figures. Our iron and steel industries are suffering greatly. Yet there is no doubt at all that there is a very great demand from Russia for goods of the very quality which we can produce, and which we can produce better than any other country in the world. We had this under consideration at the time of the Genoa Conference. It is no use now going into the reasons why it failed, but one of the matters we considered was that of increasing the allowances in regard to export credits, and trade facilities. I was very strongly in favour of it at the time, as were those who were with me at the Genoa Conference—which failed for reasons which are quite irrelevant to this particular consideration.
    I believe there is a prospect of getting very considerable business from Russia, and I do not think we ought to mix up the question of business with the considerations which I know my right hon. Friend will be urging with his usual earnestness and force in a very short time about propaganda and things of that kind. We cannot really begin to discriminate between our customers on the basis of our approval or disapproval of their methods of government. If we did our export trade would drop very much more seriously than it has done within recent months. This is not the only autocracy in the world where liberty has been completely crushed, and with whom we are still doing very good business. I should like to see the business with Russia expanded.
    It is very difficult to know what is happening in Russia. I have done my best honestly to find out from people of all ways of thinking as to what is happening, and I cannot get two men to agree. I sometimes meet a man, who may be supposed to know how things are going, who says that things are going badly. I have met others who tell me
    378
    that we are going to have a very great surprise in regard to what is going to happen in Russia. I will not say that I do not attach importance, because I do, to the statements made by the Russian Ministers themselves. Ministers naturally emphasise the aspect of their administration which is most favourable to their own country; but on the whole, when they come to give figures, I do not think they are quite manufactured, and I believe the figures which they might give as to the progress which is being made in industrial developments and in agricultural production would be a great eye-opener as to what is happening in Russia. There is no doubt that there has been an enormous increase in the production of grain, and that there is a still greater industrial revolution going on. They are short of machinery and of other goods which are produced by Germany and the United States of America. They cannot produce them in Russia. They have not got the skilled workmen. That is one of the things of which they are really short, and they are sending to America and elsewhere, for the purposes of training their workmen in order to build up the kinds of commodities which now they can only get here or in America or Germany.
    During the next few years, before they have trained their men, they have got to buy those goods in one of three or four countries. Why should not that country be ours? Do not let us mix up the question of propaganda in this matter. If the Soviet wants to buy these things, we want to sell them. Our workmen are out of jobs, and if they can put stuff of this kind into Russia, my own opinion is that they will get paid. All our experience, at any rate during the time I had something to do with it, was that whenever there were orders of that kind, they were paid for. In that connection, I was impressed with the argument of the hon. Member who has just sat down: It is not in their interests not to pay. The Russians are very able men. I dealt with Russians during the War, and I dealt with Russians after the War, and as far as capacity is concerned there is no comparison between the two groups from a business point of view, and I am sure it would be worth the Government's while to give consideration to this matter, and if the hon. Gentleman who repre-

    379
    sents the Department is not able to give an answer to it, I hope that at any rate he will not bar the door, or will give such an answer as will make it impossible for the Government to reconsider the position. I hope he will consider whether something more cannot be done in the way of giving credit for an extended period, so that when it comes to a question of whether an order should go to Germany or to the United States of America or to us, our industrial concerns will find themselves in a position in which they can go in with their machinery on its merits without being handicapped by better terms being given by our competitors. I strongly urge that upon the hon. Gentleman.
    Captain EDEN: For my part I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his dissertation on Russian trade, but endorse the right hon. Gentleman's judgment that we should be ill-advised to mingle political and commercial matters in our relations with Russia. That is one reason why I regret that we have been so inconsistent in our attitude towards the Soviets and did not adopt the same attitude as did the United States of America. If we had we should not now find ourselves in the very difficult position of at one moment lecturing the Soviet Government for its political misdemeanours, the gravity of which no one doubts, and at another moment holding out our hand to try to receive trade from the self-same Government. There has been that inconsistency in the past and is so to-day. However, I do not now desire to speak about trade with Russia, but, as this is one of the rare occasions on which a Foreign Office Vote is discussed, to say one or two things about matters concerning our foreign policy. The first is this. I am sorry the Under-Secretary is not here, but I hope the representative of the Board of Overseas Trade will convey this to him.
    As I understand it, when the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, whose absence we regret, goes to Geneva, one of the things he proposes to do is to give his approval to certain very important Amendments to the Covenant of the League. I have asked questions about this once or twice, and I have been told in reply that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter before the
    380
    actual decision is ratified. That is really of no value at all. It is shutting the door after the steed has bolted. If discussion is to be of any value it must be before the Foreign Secretary gives an undertaking on behalf of the British Government. The Foreign Secretary's reply was rather curious. It seemed to imply that this House was not fully qualified to discuss Amendments to the Covenant of the League, and that if we did discuss such Amendments we should get into confusion. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that this House is quite as capable of discussing these matters as of discussing Amendments to any Bill.
    I understand that this matter is to be raised in another place to-morrow. My object in referring to it to-day is to emphasise the importance with which at least some of us on these benches regard these Amendments. We believe them to constitute new commitments by this country. I should not like the present Government to go down to history as the one that has done nothing but create new committees and new commitments. For it to gain such a reputation would be a pity. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be very chary of signing these new commitments until the House has had an opportunity of expressing approval of them, and that the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us that we must be satisfied with a plain "Yes" or "No" to ratification. These are just such Amendments as might well be altered by this House.
    Another matter to which I wish to refer relates to Egypt. It seems to me that the Government should persist, throughout the present anxious period in Egypt, in maintaining a policy of strict neutrality—neutrality in fact, deed and word. I gathered from the Prime Minister's speech that that is what the Government is attempting to do. Unhappily it is not altogether what it has done, in two respects at least. I share with an hon. Friend who has spoken regret at the terms of the Note recently sent to the Egyptian Government. I am sure that what was meant was to imply neutrality, but I am sure that that was not the effect of the Note. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should follow carefully the precedents set by the late Government and the late Foreign Secre-

    381
    tary. There is naturally a temptation for hon. Members, with their political persuasions, not to wish to be placed in a position which would be deemed to be hostile to Parliamentary government in Egypt. If neutrality is to mean anything at all it must mean the refraining from any kind of interference with the constitution of Egypt or with any attempt which the Egyptian people may make to change it. We have nothing more to do with the setting up of Parliamentary government than with the setting up of autocracy in Egypt, provided that the four reserved points remain untouched.
    That is the mistake which the present Government is making. It was rather emphasised by the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker). What he said about the value of Parliamentary institution may be absolutely correct and true, as I am sure he believed it to be, but that is not our business if we mean to maintain neutrality in face of the present Egyptian situation. I think that the Government has to make up its mind about that. I say frankly that I read that Note in this way: That there was the reflection that the Government would not be used to break up the constitutional machine in Egypt, that that was put in as a sop to hon. Members behind the Government, and to counterbalance that a Note was sent to the leader of the Opposition as well as to the Prime Minister of Egypt. That is how I read what the Government did, and that is without doubt how it was read in Egypt. It was a profound mistake to send that Note to any but those who are responsible in Egypt. I would advise the Government, in their future relations on this subject, to confine their Notes to those who are directly responsible.
    I welcomed the Prime Minister's reference to his realisation of the responsibility of this country for the protection of the lives of foreigners. I welcomed it, not because I doubted that the Government ever lost sight of it, but because there are plenty of people who would be eager to pretend that the Government had lost sight of it. The Prime Minister's expression of opinion at this time should be distinctly helpful and salutary in Egypt. The only other thing I have to say about Egyptian affairs is this: I am
    382
    old-fashioned enough—perhaps I may say that I have seen something of the different peoples of the East—to be as sceptical as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs of these experiments in Parliamentary government amongst Eastern nations. I think them something of an impertinence. Here, whatever our faults and failings may be—they are certainly considerable enough—this democracy of ours has grown on our own soil. There the plant is exotic, of a foreign growth which may not be suitable to the temperament, condition and historic past of the people.
    Nothing could be more harmful to the future of the British position in the East and to the real benefit of the nations concerned than that the British Government should appear to be weighted on one side or the other in the internal disputes in countries which we have declared to be independent, or even that we should throw that weight on the side which the Government of the day here believes to be that which should receive their support. Neutrality must be real. I do not believe it has been real up to date. I believe there was some justification for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that the Government had actually done harm by the weight that they threw on one side of the scale. Let neutrality be real, and I do not believe that hon. Members on these benches will have any criticism to make on that score.
    I must apologise for travelling from one part of the world to another. On Saturday last the Prime Minister made a speech which filled me, as it must have filled other hon. Members who read it, with very considerable astonishment. He was talking about the peace of the world and foreign relations and disarmament, and he wound up with this sentence:
    "He claimed that the Labour Government had set the feet of the world far more clearly upon the road of peace than ever they had been in the history of the world."
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    Captain EDEN: Do hon. Members really believe that too? If so, the position is infinitely more serious than I appreciated from the Prime Minister's own statement. For one moment I shall have to analyse the position. This speech of the Prime Minister is incidentally in

    383
    direct contrast to the speech which he himself made in this House not very long ago at the conclusion of the negotiations for the Naval Agreement. It is natural that when we step from this House to the platform the actions of our own party should appear in a rather rosier colour than they do in debate here. I am afraid that the motive power must have been strong for so extravagant a statement as that of the Prime Minister. The Government's case is so weak that where it has done comparatively well the right non. Gentleman needs to emphasise it. The Prime Minister in his statement certainly led the world to think, or led us to think, that he believed the feet of the world were set upon the path of peace. I am not an alarmist. But the right hon. Gentleman himself told us in this House, on the conclusion of the Naval negotiations, that he was anxious about the position in Europe. I do not think there is any straightforward observer who can be otherwise. In fact the work of the Naval Conference is only half finished, and it has been left in a position of considerable anxiety for us. When we read that the Prime Minister made a speech like that, which would seem to imply complete Satisfaction with the existing state of internal affairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "That's an exaggeration"!] I will read the last sentence of the speech again:
    "He claimed that the Labour Government had set the feet of the world far more clearly upon the road of peace than ever they had been in the history of the world."
    The Under-Secretary when he replies can say if that is or is not a gross exaggeration of the present state of affairs. So far from the feet of the world being more firmly set upon the paths of peace the position in Europe to-day is infinitely more anxious than it was a year ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can justify my statement and I think nobody who has made a candid examination of present conditions can deny it. Few people will deny that the outcome of the Naval Disarmament Conference was to leave the feelings between some of the Powers more exacerbated than they were before. I propose to ask the Government what steps they are now taking to complete the work of that naval agreement? What is being done to push matters further?
    384
    The speech to which I have just referred left on me the impression that all was well, and that no further effort was called for. If that impression be wrong I shall be glad to have it corrected but I think it is a pity that the House of Commons should disperse for the Recess leaving the impression that we were content to leave the work of the Naval Conference half done when that work, so far, leaves this country in a particularly anxious situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Surely hon. Members are aware of the terms of the agreement? They must know that our future naval programme is dependent on the programmes of France and Italy.
    That is why I say that the agreement leaves us in an anxious position. That is why I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us if he has any information as to the present state of negotiations between France and Italy, how those negotiations are progressing, and whether we may look forward to any announcement of a naval agreement between those countries in the near future. I am anxious to see progressive international naval disarmament but I am not prepared to express satisfaction with the present state of affairs and that is why I have read with anxiety a speech which might be so interpreted. I believe that the hon. Member who spoke a short time ago from this side was not exaggerating when he said that there were points on the horizon in Europe which made for anxiety, though I do not know the information on which that statement was based. We all desire peace and we all share the hope that the Government will be successful in improving international relations but they will only be successful if they face the existing facts; they will not be successful if they hide their heads ostrich-like in the sand while congratulating themselves on achievements which are not really to their credit.
    Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: This debate so far has centred mainly around Egypt and Russia but as the debate is on the Foreign Office Vote I propose to speak more generally on the work of that Department of the Government. Though some of us who sit on the back benches week after week, month after month have been here for one year only, yet we have progressed several stages

    385
    in the art of distinguishing those speeches which have substance in them from those speeches in which there is no substance. I feel that there has been very little substance in the attacks made on the Foreign Office this afternoon. [Laughter.] If the hon. Member opposite who laughs had the time to sit on the back benches and listen continually it is just possible that he might become more expert in detecting what has and what has not substance. We who sit on the back benches after listening silently for so long would be almost mentally deficient if we did not become a little expert in the matter.
    If the attacks made on the Government in the course of this debate had been in relation to unemployment of which we have heard so much there would at least be a certain amount of substance in the statement that we have shared in a world depression, and hon. Members opposite could pretend to think—although in their heart of hearts they do not think it—that unemployment in this country is due to the policy of the Government. But to point to the various parts of the world where there is trouble and then to turn to the Foreign Office and say, "What are you doing about it"—has indeed little substance in it. We have been told about embarrassments in Egypt and it has been suggested that these are due to the actions of the present Government. I think some of the hon. Members opposite get so excited with their verbosity that they do not realise how little substance there has been to-day in their attacks on the Government. To what are the embarrassments in Egypt due? Are we not aware that all over the world in various countries there is a desire for self-determination? We often said in years gone by we went through the War to secure, self-determination for small nations. Does not everybody know that the troubles in the Eastern part of the world are largely due to the natural desire of nations to secure self-determination, and we have always declared this is right for the smaller nations. If there can be no more potent charge brought against the Foreign Office than to point to the various nations of the world where trouble exists and to say, "What are you doing about it"? then indeed the criticism must be small.
    386
    Let me speak of the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government in the last year which has added to the prestige of the nation and raised its standard in the eyes of the world. Does not everybody know that when this Government came into office there was a naval race, perhaps a silent race, nevertheless a real naval race going on between this country and America? That is now almost old history, so many things have happened since. When the Prime Minister went to America he did, indeed, set a new pace in the movement towards the peace of the world. Never has a Prime Minister had such a reception as our Prime Minister had in America last year and a now era and a more hopeful outlook for peace was the result of that visit. As regards the foreign policy of our own nation, never had a Chancellor of the Exchequer such a reception in England as our Chancellor of the Exchequer had last year. Indeed never has a Cabinet Minister, since the days when Disraeli came back from Berlin, had such a reception in this country as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Then I turn to the prestige of His Majesty's Government in Geneva and throughout the world. It was the policy of the Foreign Secretary which led to the signing of the Optional Clause in reference to the Court of International Justice. That was another step towards permanent world peace and I am amazed that the hon. and gallant Member opposite should see so little in those steps that were made towards permanent peace. Not only did our action in calling upon the other nations of the world lead to the signing of the Optional Clause, but our Foreign Secretary also brought forward and spoke in favour of a general act of arbitration. An Englishman who is a keen supporter of the League of Nations Union coming back from Geneva after attending successive Conferences there told me that the stock of Great Britain was never higher than it was last year after the policy of the present Government had been declared. He told me that he had no politics and belonged to no party but I feel convinced that he is a Conservative. My experience is that the man who says that he has no politics is always a Conservative, but this gentleman honestly said to me that our stock had gone up as the result

    387
    of the actions of the present Government at Geneva, and that once again he was proud of being an Englishman.
    A well-known American passing through England last year told me that when the Labour party came into power with our Prime Minister, a flame of hope ran through America for permanent peace. Hon. Members may smile, but these things are true. I am aware that hon. Members do not like to hear these facts, but they are true nevertheless. The work of the Government has prepared the way for peace where the late Government failed. What have we got in front of us now? The Preparatory Commission for general disarmament, in which the late Government entirely failed. It was suspended for two years owing to the policy of the late Government and now it will be renewed. Hon. Members opposite speak more often about the prestige of this country than we do, but I am not ashamed to speak of the prestige of our country; I am proud of it. Nations to-day have confidence in His Majesty's Government, because they know that their policy is free from any attempt of tyranny be it ever so skilfully veiled; they know it is free from desire to dominate other nations of the world, and they realise that the present Government are pursuing a policy which will eventually lead to the permanent peace of the world.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Miss Picton-Turbervill) will forgive me if I do not follow her in her vehement praise of her Front Bench. In the early part of her speech she made some remarks with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I gathered that it was the criticism of a back bencher of the long and not always interesting speeches which we hear from the Front Bench. If that had been her theme, she would have had a great deal of agreement from this side, but when she went on to say how perfect everything is under a Socialist Government, she will realise that I am not to be expected fully to agree with her point of view. I wish to confine myself to two subjects. One of these was the matter which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in dealing with the speech which had pre-
    388
    ceded his on the subject of Russian debts and Russian trade possibilities. The right hon. Gentleman made the curious statement that we should at once dissociate future political agreements with Russia from the question of trade with Russia. I utterly and entirely disagree with that view, because I feel perfectly confident that it would not be possible to build up a satisfactory trade organisation with Russia, or, indeed, with any other country, unless it be built up on the basis of good will and mutual trust.
    A further important point is that the political aspect, particularly in connection with propaganda, is part of a definite agreement which has been made between this country and the Russian Soviet Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman's remark is to be taken as any indication that the time has come to bring that agreement to an end, I can assure him that he will meet with the strongest opposition from Members on this side, and probably from some on all sides of the House. It is useless for Members to say that Russian propaganda is declining. So far as I can see, there is no sign of that. There are hon. Members here who have had put into their hands in the last few weeks productions, particularly of the A.I.V., sent out from Russia in German and English, containing the most bitter attacks on this country, in connection with India. It would be hopeless to consider a permanent satisfactory trading agreement with Russia unless it be on the understanding, which has been laid down in definite agreements between this country and Russia, that this propaganda against the British Empire and the British race should cease.
    The other points I want to raise are in connection with Egypt. I am in entire agreement with some of the recent actions of the Government in connection with that country, but I am certain that, unfortunately, their previous actions have led to some extent to the present situation there. There can be little doubt that their activities have been based on goodwill towards Egypt and have been made with excellent intentions, but I am afraid that there has been a great lack of knowledge behind them. The Government have not declared definitely at any time during the last year really where

    389
    they stood, and the one thing above all others that is necessary in dealing with eastern nations is that we should make our position absolutely clear. As regards the future, I welcome the Prime Minister's declaration to-day, but it is essential that we should go even a little further than he has done in making clear what our position is. I know that the matter is an extraordinarily difficult one, and the last thing I want to do is to make it any more difficult for the Government; on the contrary, I want if possible to help by saying where the difficulty actually lies. The Government made a very bad mistake in sending a warning to the leader of a political party which was not in power. I am sure that the intention was excellent, but the immediate results have not been excellent, for this message has been taken as some form of support for the political view held by that party.
    The Prime Minister said that it was essential that we should make clear that we do not intend to interfere with the internal affairs of Egypt. We all agree with that. At the same time, he made it perfectly clear that there must be no question of our leaving aside for a moment our responsibility under the four reserved points. We all agree with that. But are we all equally clear what we mean in connection with these two statements? If I may put it in another way, exactly how far do we mean to go in support of our position in regard to the four reserved points, and yet not interfere with the internal affairs of Egypt? The Prime Minister found it necessary to send warships to Alexandria, presumably, if it had been necessary, to land troops therefrom. It is difficult for the ordinary person to see that it may be permissible and necessary to land troops from warships in order to keep the peace, and yet not permissible to use the troops which we have in barracks in Cairo. It is because of these difficulties that I want the Government to consider very carefully where they stand. I want them to make it clear to Egypt how far we are prepared to go, and how far we should refuse to go. For example, take the position of foreigners, their prosperity, their trading arrangements and everything connected with them. All these people are dependent upon us under one of these four reserved points. It is perfectly clear
    390
    that an Egyptian Government can affect them in a way which at first sight may not call for our interference.
    Quite recently there has been in power in Egypt a Government which has dissipated practically all the financial reserves it had inherited. Within a few months that Government has curtailed the credit of the country and seriously interfered with its resources. Last January it inherited a carefully built-up reserve of some £40,000,000 odd. About a third of that money has been spent on buying cotton and in trying to support the cotton market; they have failed in that and are now in the difficult position of having to decide whether to spend more money in order to keep up prices or, alternatively, to stop that procedure and face the loss. They spent nearly £15,000,000 in buying up part of their own National Debt, a most dangerous proceeding for any Government. The result is that there are exhausted reserves and very little money in the Treasury. What is the position, if it be held, as it can be held, that these actions seriously interfere with the livelihood of foreigners? These are points for the Government here to consider, and while I wish to make it clear that I do not want to add to the difficulties of the Government, I think it is essential that we should make it clear exactly how we stand; what we are prepared to see happen in Egypt without our interference; to what extent we think that internal matters are apart; and to what extent we shall feel it necessary to interfere if and when it should become desirable for us to do so in support of the obligations we have under the four reserved points.
    There is one last question I wish to ask the Under-Secretary. It is reported in the newspapers that the new trooping programme will provide four battalions to go to the East, only two of which are to remain in Egypt. It looks as if there is to be a net reduction of two battalions in the Egyptian garrison. Shortly, the position is that some of these new battalions are going to Palestine and some to Egypt. It seems that four are to be removed from Egypt and only two are to replace them. I wish to know whether that is a reduction of troops in Egypt or not, because it is difficult to follow from the trooping programme exactly what is happening.
    Mr. MILLS: I must express myself as in disagreement with those who have initiated the debate on Egypt and who blame the Labour Government for the stand they have been compelled to make. The speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), which in some respects was helpful and constructive, was in relation to Egypt of a character which may do us infinite harm. The fact is that the Labour Government have been endeavouring, within the limited time at their disposal, to give effect to the general feeling that has prompted this party right from its very beginnings. The Opposition, in spite of all they have had to say about the Government, must admit that throughout the whole of the negotiations with both Russia and Egypt the Government have maintained a standard which puts them beyond criticism in regard to their safeguarding of our national rights. As one who visited Egypt some years ago I profoundly regret that the Egyptian delegation did not take advantage of the treaty that was open to them. If they could have heard the volume of Conservative cheers on the day it was announced that negotiations had broken down they would have had the first real idea of what they had missed by their failure to get a settlement at the moment. They could have left other points open for future consideration. Nahas Pasha, the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Parliamentary group, at least paid a tribute to the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, and stated that although the negotiations had broken down they went away feeling convinced that the friendship of the British people could at last be relied upon by the people of Egypt. That is a distinct step forward, and I am only hoping that the forces of constitutional progress at work in Egypt will meet with success.
    The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs rather belittled their Parliament and the methods by which it had been obtained. We cannot stop the growth of the ability in backward races to govern themselves, and in spite of blunders they will eventually arrive at the status of other nations. The best answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that already there have been four elections. It is all very well to say that in the first
    392
    election people were led up to the polling booths and were rather coerced into voting a certain way, but in spite of the hostile influence exercised in every village they scored a victory, securing 90 per cent. of support in favour of their policy. Though blunders may be made by the Egyptian people in their struggles towards the goal, yet they have displayed a real sense of national ability which we ought to help them still further to develop.
    Regarding the work of the Foreign Secretary, I wish to pay my tribute to to him for the initiative he has displayed in furthering an important international aspect of the work at Geneva, the General Act of Arbitration. It will be interesting to hear the comments of those who are to follow as to what part the Conservative Government played towards achieving that step during the five years they had in office. I assert that the work of the Foreign Secretary has definitely paved the way for a Parliament of Europe, if not for a Parliament of the world: it is distinctly nearer fruition than it has ever been. The hon. Members opposite, in criticising this Government, have suggested that we are always belittling the British Empire and all that goes to make it up. Those who have followed the work of the British Empire Delegation at the League of Nations Union are well aware that the present Foreign Secretary has done more than any of his predecessors in bringing together the British Empire Delegation for discussion and securing agreement on points that come up.
    I intervened in this debate primarily on account of the state of unemployment in the division I represent and in the division which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) represents, that is to say, on the lower bank of the Thames, in Woolwich, where I am a councillor and where I am one of the constituents of my right hon. Friend. On the Kentish side of the Thames we rely very largely not on British markets but on world markets. I am speaking of the firms which exist along the banks of the Thames like the Western Electric Company, Callender's Cable Works and Hall's Pump Works, and Vickers at Erith and Dartford. These are all exporting firms which could not provide employment for their work-people for another month if they de-

    393
    pended on the internal markets. They depend upon the export trade, and in that respect I claim that whatever the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) may say about the danger of having trade relations with people who mix up their trade with propaganda, the whole history of these great trading concerns is that they set aside all political disagreements in the pursuit of trade the world over.
    In 1921 I went to Russia and saw it at its worst. I met some of the people who are now the leaders of that country. I was not impressed with their philosophy or their ideas of communism, but I do say that, whether one agrees or disagrees with such men as Stalin or Gandhi, if you include China, Russia and Egypt, those countries represent nearly 900,000,000 people whom we should regard not from the colour of the ties of their respective governments, but purely from the point of view of the units of their various populations, and we should see how far we can correlate their needs with our waste energy. The greatest exports from Russia are largely raw materials, and there is an increasing need in Russia for manufactured articles. On this point I hope the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will be accepted by the Government, and especially by the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, speaking with the responsibility of an ex-Prime Minister of this country, has definitely said:
    "Never mind about the propaganda side which goes on between every Government in the world. It goes on in the Primrose League in Britain and the Communist party in Russia. Do appreciate the fact that our competitors with greater capital resources are giving more extended credits, and by the simple use of that process are getting in at our expense."
    That is my point. To-day we have thousands of skilled engineers in this country who have become skilled after 10 years of working. The manipulating of tools to a thousandth part of an inch can only come by a sense of touch. It is no good giving those people work on the roads, because that will destroy their efficiency as engineers for another two years. The proper thing to do is to give to each man the job to which he has been accustomed. If we can look
    394
    upon the opening up of avenues of trade with Russia as a possible solution of unemployment it will be invaluable.
    9.0 p.m.
    My closing words are that so far as the propaganda of the Russian Government is concerned, I wish that the Foreign Secretary would put a stop to those supplies, and he could do as easily as the previous Government could have done but did not do so because they preferred the more spectacular method of burglary to get hold of documents. The Government could stop the supplies which result in propaganda in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) spoke about "grovelling for orders." The Government are not grovelling for orders. A guarantee for three years has been asked for, and it is only a question of giving the necessary backing. If the Government will give more assistance in that direction I believe that we shall obtain even greater results.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: We have had a most interesting debate, and certainly one of the most interesting speeches is that which has been made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills). It is quite true that the hon. Member is a constituent of mine in the West Woolwich Division, and I am very grateful to him for the support which he has always given to me, in fact I regard my return to Parliament as being in no small degree due to his efforts. One of the most pathetic portions of the hon. Member's speech was that in which he endeavoured to find something to put to the credit of the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and after looking round a long way, he came to the conclusion that the crowning achievement of the Foreign Secretary was that he had brought the British Empire Delegation at Geneva closer together. What an extraordinary statement. As if it was ever necessary in this connection for any Foreign Secretary to make any efforts to bring the Dominions and ourselves and their representatives closer together.
    I wish to address a few questions to the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department upon a matter which has been constantly spoken of in our debates, and which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Dartford—I refer to our relations

    395
    with Soviet Russia. I think it is as well, in view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Dartford, to recall to the Committee the exact position, so far as this country and Soviet Russia are concerned. The hon. Member for Dartford said that one country after another indulged in propaganda, and therefore we ought not to treat this matter very seriously. That is not the position of the Government. I recall to the Committee the position which was taken up by the present Government at the beginning of their term of office on the question of our relationship with Soviet Russia. That is what the Prime Minister said in 1924:
    "His Majesty's Government means that these undertakings regarding propaganda shall be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit and it cannot accept the contention that whilst the Soviet Government undertake obligations a political body as powerful as this is should be allowed to conduct propaganda and support it with money which is in direct violation of the official agreement with Soviet Russia, which either has or has not the power to make such agreement. If it has the power it is its duty to carry them out, and see that other parties are not deceived. If it has not this power, and if responsibilities which belong to the State in other countries are in Russia in the keeping of private or irresponsible parties, the Soviet Government ought not to make an agreement which it knows it cannot carry out."
    The Prime Minister, not only in 1924, but at the beginning of his present term of office, said that he intended to see that that undertaking, that pledge, and that interpretation of our agreement with Soviet Russia were carried out strictly, both in the letter and in the spirit. The questions which I desire to address to the Under-Secretary are based on that agreement, and that agreement alone. Apart altogether from whether it was wise or unwise of the Foreign Secretary to enter into an agreement of that sort, I say that, if such an agreement has been entered into, it is at any rate the duty of the Government, either to see that it is carried out, or to come to the House and say quite frankly that it was an undertaking which they had found it impossible to get fulfilled.
    Mr. MATTERS: Which would you do?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member must address that question to his own Government; it certainly is not my responsibility. It is a most extraordinary atti-
    396
    tude to take to ask me what I would do in respect of an agreement which I myself never made. It is an extraordinary question to address to someone who is in no responsible position so far as that agreement is concerned. What I am asking the Under-Secretary is where he stands to-day as regards that agreement. Only yesterday—and one of the purposes for which I rise to-night is to endeavour to find out the position—I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could make a statement in regard to the position, because a few months ago he thought of a very wonderful expedient for dealing with this question. He said that 500 questions had been put to him in this House about breaches of the agreement in relation to propaganda, and that that was becoming intolerable—
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Alleged breaches.
    Sir K. WOOD: He said that it was becoming intolerable, and that he must set up what he calls machinery to investigate the allegations which are being made. That is a very convenient device. No one has told us what this machinery is. I suspect that it is some sort of committee set up at the Foreign Office. It is a most mysterious investigation, and, from the day on which it was set up, no one has been able to find out either what this committee is doing or how this piece of machinery is functioning—whether they have made any investigation at all, or what is the exact position of the matter. Some months have passed. There has been ample time for this machinery to work, and a full opportunity to test all the allegations that have been made so constantly as to the breaches, as we allege, of the agreement which has been entered into by the British Government and Soviet Russia.
    Is it not very surprising that this machinery has been set up at all? Is not the very fact that the Foreign Secretary has had to set up this machinery an admission that there is a prima facie case for investigation as to the bona fides of the Soviet Government, and as to whether they are in fact keeping their solemn obligations with this country or not? Is it not very difficult to see why this machinery has been set up at all, unless as a sort of smoke screen by the Government behind which

    397
    they can hide with respect to the obligations into which Soviet Russia has entered with them?
    I put it to the Under-Secretary that the Secretary of State himself does not deny, and has not denied during his whole tenure of office since the agreement was signed, that the agreement has been broken, and that breaches in respect of propaganda have been constantly committed by the Soviet Government. Did not the Foreign Secretary himself say in this House that he had never denied that propaganda was going on, and that he was not going to try to persuade the House that it was not going on; and did he not also say in the same connection, only a few months ago, before he thought of this device, that the Government had not denied that there was a good deal with which they were dissatisfied? Is it not the fact—I invite the Under-Secretary to deny it—that it was obvious from the very first, from the moment that the ink was dry on the agreement, that the Soviet Government did not intend to honour its undertaking in the sense in which the British Government interpreted the agreement; and is it not the fact that, ever since the agreement was signed, the Government have been put in a most humiliating and degrading position with regard to it?
    The Government have been driven back step by step. In November, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that he had an undertaking, and he repeated the undertaking to the House, that the Soviet Government would not be allowed in any way or at any time to indulge in propaganda. We now have the admissions of the Foreign Secretary, and his abject withdrawal from the position which he once occupied, and we now have this miserable expedient of so-called machinery to examine into the position. I do not think that many Members of the public would, perhaps, complain if it simply meant humiliation for the Foreign Secretary himself, but it is humiliating for this country, and it certainly lets down Great Britain before the world, when an agreement of this character and with these solemn obligations is entered into, and when, ever since the pen was put to paper—there is no doubt about it—that agreement has been wantonly and flagrantly broken.
    398
    Probably few Members of the House would dispute that, ever since that agreement was signed, propaganda has gone on unceasingly in all parts of the world. You have only to look at the official communiqué which was issued by the Government of India as to the events there. To use the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, wherever there is a chance Soviet Russia is stirring up trouble. Even since this machinery was supposed to have been established by the present Government, there is direct and indirect evidence, from the Russian Press and from Communist publications, that during the last few months the agents of the Soviet Government have been endeavouring to interfere and make trouble.
    The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) has certainly not endeavoured to defend this side of the Treaty, and few people can, but he has endeavoured to put before the Committee that it would be to the advantage of this country from the point of view of trade if we could have direct relationship with Russia. That, of course, does not dispose of the fact that an agreement has been entered into and has been flagrantly broken, and I do not think he has ever answered the proposition that has been put forward again and again that America, which has entered into no such relationships with Soviet Russia as we have done, has been able to trade quite freely with her. I am very sceptical about the advantages and the intentions of Soviet Russia as far as trade is concerned, and I recall many speeches that have been made by the hon. Member for Lincoln and others in days gone by as to the advantage that would accrue to this country if we only entered into proper relationships with Russia.
    A few months ago it was not a question of asking this House to give further credit to Russia. It was stated again and again that, if we would only enter into proper trade and diplomatic relationships, we should have an immeasureable advantage in a comparatively short time. I suppose no one talked more about the advantage to this country, so far as agricultural machinery is concerned, than the hon. Member, and yet only yesterday we were informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade exactly what has taken place.

    399
    The hon. Gentleman has asked what was the total value of exports of agricultural machinery to Soviet Russia during November, December and January last. The reply was:
    "The total declared value of the exports of agricultural machinery and parts thereof manufactured in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered during the period from 1st November, 1929, to 30th June, 1930, inclusive, as consigned to the Soviet Union (Russia) amounted to £14,527."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1930; col. 19, Vol. 242.]
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two principal agricultural machinery factories in Lincoln were both closed last October?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not at all surprised to hear it, and I should not be surprised to hear that more had closed down. Whatever excuses are made, and whatever happens to Lincoln, and however many factories are closed down, the fact remains that, after all that was going to be done, the amount of agricultural machinery purchased by Soviet Russia during this period was £14,527, a miserable result justifying none of the statements the hon. Member has made. History repeats itself. He now comes forward and makes exactly the same kind of speech that he made week after week and month after month, and the burden of his speech to-night was that if only we would do something more, only give them longer credits, things would be better. I prefer to take facts as I find them, and it is a most miserable and unsatisfactory result.
    It is a very favourite device of the Soviet Russian authorities, so far as I can see, to go about the country talking about all the orders that they are going to give us. I know no more illuminating illustration of the position than the recent history of the purchase of 3,000,000 pairs of footwear that the Soviet Government have said they were about to purchase. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the other day made a speech in the country and, endeavouring to withdraw attention from the actual facts concerning the Government of the day and their successes, referred to the purchase of these 3,000,000 pairs of boots and said to the assembled multitude:
    "The Government have entered into diplomatic negotiations with Russia and you
    400
    in a district such as this, interested in the manufacture of boots, will be pleased to hear that Mr. Arthur Henderson, the Foreign Secretary, told me that, as a direct result of negotiations with Russia, an order for 3,000,000 pairs of boots has been placed in this country, and it is certain some of this trade will come to the Thornbury Division,"
    There is a sequel to that, which we had yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will be familiar with this. He was asked this question:
    "Whether the Soviet delegation has placed with other British boot and shoe manufacturers the order for 3,000,000 pairs of footwear not accepted by the Northamptonshire boot and shoe manufacturers?"
    A very self-sacrificing attitude on the part of the Northamptonshire boot and shoe manufacturers. He was asked whether those gentlemen who had been promised by the Noble Lord these 3,000,000 pairs of boots, whether this order had been placed and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who is a straight and truthful man, gave this reply:
    "No, Sir, not so far as I am aware."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1930; col. 20, Vol. 242.]
    Then the question was asked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware of this speech and what was done. I am sorry to say, such is the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman of the statements of his colleagues, that he was unable to throw any light on the circumstance.
    This is an illustration, not only of the methods of the Government in going down to a constituency which is very hardly hit by unemployment at the present time—as are most other constituencies in this country—and holding out to them some prospect of an order of 3,000,000 pairs of boots, that is bad enough, but of the methods of the Soviet Government so far as trade in this country is concerned. I do not think anyone in this House believes in this order of 3,000,000 pairs of boots and shoes. I do not think anyone believes that the Northamptonshire people turned it down. I do not think anyone believes that it was ever offered to the boot and shoe manufacturers in the Thornbury Division. No, this is an illustration of the sort of baits that are held out to people in this country if they will only give the Soviet Government still further credit. Actually, in this case, it was found on investigation that the only justification for his statement in respect

    401
    of these 3,000,000 pairs of boots was that, in five years' time, after the boots and shoes were delivered, the money might be paid. I do not believe that even the Under-Secretary of State would like to do business on those terms. Seriously, however, is it not a monstrous thing that members of the Government should go about spreading these statements when there is no justification for them; is it not a more monstrous thing still that ideas and suggestions of this kind should be held out so far as trade is concerned?
    I want the Under-Secretary of State to tell us to-night exactly what the position is so far as the Foreign Office is concerned. We want to know what it is that this machinery, which is supposed to be investigating these allegations of propaganda, has been doing. As a matter of fact, and I think this is pretty self-evident, it wants no committee of investigation to examine into these matters. The Government of India has issued an official communiqué as to what is happening there, and we know what is happening in most parts of the world. We know, so far as propaganda is concerned, the statements which are appearing in the official papers of the Russian Soviet Government. Why, then, has this machinery been set up? I do not think there is much doubt about it. It was set up to endeavour to save the face of the Government, which has entered into a foolish agreement of this kind, which it knows it cannot possibly sustain and which, at the present moment, is doing nothing but degrade this country and the Government in the eyes of the world.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): This discussion to-night on the Foreign Office Vote which is nearly at an end has been abbreviated by certain matters to which I need make no further reference now, and will be further truncated by the requirements of the Vote of Supply at 10 o'clock. I am sorry that this truncation has to take place, because I know that there are Members in all parts of the House who would have been glad and able to make valuable contributions to the discussion. Even so, however, the discussion has ranged over a wide field. The earlier part of the discussion, on Egypt, does not call for anything further from me. The Prime Minister, replying at an earlier stage of the Debate, made
    402
    very clear the policy of the Government in regard to Egypt and claimed, I think justifiably, that that policy had been successful in so far as the despatch of warships to Egyptian waters had had a calming effect on the ebullient spirits who might otherwise have caused trouble there. He claimed, moreover, that British troops had not been called on, and that there had been no need to call on them to take over the duty which properly belonged to the Egyptian army and the Egyptian police, a duty which that army and police had proved perfectly capable of fulfilling in an adequate and efficient manner. Nor need I spend further time in repeating the arguments already adduced by the Prime Minister in support of the communication addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Leaders of both the parties in the constitutional conflict now raging in Egypt. Nor need I say anything further on the subject of that electoral law which, far from being imposed, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), would have led an ill-informed House to believe, by His Majesty's present Government on a reluctant Egyptian people, has been the law of Egypt since 1924; was supported by the high authority of Lord Lloyd, in 1926, as being the most suitable for Egyptian conditions, and under which two general elections have already been held. There is, however, one minor point raised in connection with Egypt by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), on which I have consulted my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. That is the question of trooping movements in relation to the British garrison in Egypt. The hon. Member for Kidderminster inquired whether there was any intention to deplete the British contingents now in Egypt. My hon. Friend assures me that there is no such intention and that, whatever changes take place in the disposition of particular units, the total strength of the British forces in Egypt will remain for the present undiminished. The hon. Gentleman who put that question is not here now, but I hope I have reassured him on that point.
    May I pass from Egypt to consider the question of Russia, to which a number of hon. Members have addressed themselves? I must be somewhat careful, Mr. Young, in the light of the Ruling of your pre-

    403
    decessor in the Chair, as to the degree of detail upon which I embark in connection with the question of trade credits. Mr. Dunnico has ruled that that is a matter which we may touch only, as it were, in passing, and no too heavily, in the debate on the Foreign Office Vote. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) knows that we at the Foreign Office sympathise very strongly with his desire to see a stimulus given to British export trade with Russia; that we believe that large masses of unemployed men and machines, particularly in the engineering and other constructional industries, could be set at work provided that our export trade with the Russian market could be stimulated. He knows, I think, that that is our view. At the same time we do not yet live, unhappily perhaps, in a state of Socialism as regards finance, and it is therefore not possible for much to be done in this matter unless some degree of benevolence is created in private business circles. That leads me to two further points. In the first place, I am informed by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (Mr. Gillett), that the question of possible extensions of the credit facilities under the Export Credits Scheme is now—if I may use a catch phrase applicable at any rate, on this occasion—under active consideration. I am glad to hear from him that that is so. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln himself pointed out—and I hope that the echo of this may be transmitted to Moscow—it is quite evident that if, in the debt negotiations which are to begin in the autumn, the Soviet Government should show a disposition to make a common sense settlement—I will revert in a moment to the question of debt negotiations—those who are well acquainted with the psychology of the City of London assure me that that might have some effect on the conditions under which they would afford credit to Soviet Russia. For the moment, I do not think, without the risk of being called to order by you, Mr. Young, I can go into any further detail with regard to export credits.
    The question of Soviet propaganda however, gives more unquestioned latitude on a Vote for the Foreign Office. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a
    404
    deep and an expert interest in this matter and of the 500 or 600 questions put to us, perhaps 30 per cent. have been put by him. He has been of undoubted assistance to the Government in directing their attention to obscure paragraphs in newspapers printed in the Russian tongue which otherwise we should not have thought it worth while to seek out and translate. He has indeed provided much raw material upon which our machinery of inquiry can operate. He has, perhaps, done a little to prolong its useful days. But, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has on several occasions informed the House, we are, on the one hand, not satisfied that the Soviet Government have fully carried out the pledge which they gave us when we signed the Protocol for the resumption of relations. We are not satisfied. My right hon. Friend has never pretended that he is satisfied with the state of affairs as regards propaganda.
    On the other hand, we are not satisfied with a great deal of the evidence supplied to us from the benches opposite. A considerable amount of that evidence does not, I think, bear examination, but largely out of courtesy to the Opposition in this House we deemed it right to set up an expert committee to examine the evidence which they were so kindly furnishing to us in such great quantities that inquiry has been poceeding. It has not yet been completed, but I am authorised to say that it is nearing completion. I trust that at a comparatively early date my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be able to come to a decision, to use the words which he has already used in answering questions in the House, as to what action, if any, will be appropriate to be taken in the light of the results of that inquiry. My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will inform the House of any action which he may deem it desirable to take as a result of this inquiry. The Session is now approaching the end. The Recess will soon be upon us. But I should be somewhat surprised—though here I venture into the realm of prophecy—if the right hon. Gentleman were to put down a question to the Foreign Office for the first day of next Session, and if we could not then give him an answer.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he will then be in a position to answer it?
    Mr. DALTON: Yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman upon that point, so far as anything in this uncertain life is sure. I have endeavoured to answer the right hon. Gentleman frankly about Soviet propaganda. I have said that we are not satisfied either with all the conduct of the Communist International or with all the evidence furnished by the Conservative party, and in consequence we have felt it right to go into the matter in some detail, and we hope before long to report what action, if any, it is deemed necessary to take. We cannot commit ourselves to publish the report of such an inquiry. It would be quite impossible to carry on foreign affairs, as the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor will surely know, if we were compelled to publish all reports of inquiries of this character. But if the report should be such as would seem to require action by my right hon. Friend, that action will be reported to this House and may be made the subject of debate in the House.
    As far as Russia is concerned, it is perhaps as well, in a debate of this kind, for the representative of the Foreign Office to summarise what has been done and compare it with what was done in preceding years. The resumption of relations with Russia was a leading issue at the General Election. Everyone voting for me or for any of my hon. Friends knew that they were voting for the resumption of relations with Russia, with all the risks and with all the difficulties which that policy might entail. Those who voted for members of the Liberal party knew that that was intended on their part also. When the decision was taken by this House to resume relations, it was taken by a very substantial majority. Nor is there any evidence that that policy of resuming relations with Soviet Russia is now thought to be wrong by any except those who have always been opposed to it. No one who voted in favour of resuming relations with Soviet Russia has changed his mind in the light of recent experience.
    It was on 20th December of last year that the Soviet Ambassador presented his credentials and relations were for-
    406
    mally resumed, and since that time the value of these resumed relationships has been shown in more ways than one. To begin with, and perhaps the most obvious of all, we now have the advantage of an Ambassador in Moscow, a Commercial Councillor in Moscow, and of accurate and reliable information from Moscow in place of having to rely upon the Riga correspondent of the "Times" newspaper and other substitutes for exact knowledge. Members in all parts of the House will agree that there are great advantages in having a reliable staff of dispassionate observers, both of political and economic events, stationed in Moscow at the present time. Then there is the advantage which we possess here in having a Soviet Ambassador and staff who can come at short notice and discuss verbally in the Foreign Office any questions which may arise between the two countries.
    Those are what I may call the most obvious advantages of the resumption of the relations broken off by the Conservative Government in 1927. But over and above that, there has been signed, and there has come into force, a Temporary Commercial Agreement between the two countries which gives the requisite legal basis for the development of Anglo-Russian trade, as to which I will, in a moment, quote some statistics. Further, we have a Temporary Fisheries' Agreement which was signed on 22nd May, 1930, which has secured to British fishermen the right to fish in the disputed area between three and 12 miles from the north coast, an advantage which was not available to them under the previous administration. I have heard no complaints from any representative of a constituency which has fishing interests about that agreement; on the contrary, there has been considerable satisfaction in many quarters representing all sections of opinion that that agreement has been signed.
    Negotiations are also going on at the present time for the conclusion of an agreement regarding the application of previous treaties and conventions. That, perhaps, does not sound a very important matter, but I am assured by our expert advisers in the Foreign Office that if these negotiations can be brought to a conclusion it will be extremely useful and helpful in many ways to regularise

    407
    and to settle a number of doubtful points arising out of past treaties, many of which have fallen into decay or about which there is a doubt as to whether they still apply. Furthermore, we have succeeded in doing a thing which our predecessors never succeeded in doing, great as were their sympathies with the British bondholders in Russia. We are often spoken of as the enemies of capitalists, and particularly at election times as the enemies of small capitalists. Nevertheless, we have arranged, as a result of patient and persistent negotiations, for a joint committee to to be set up, with agreed terms of reference between ourselves and the Soviet Government, to discuss all questions of debts, claims and counter-claims, public and private, outstanding between the two countries. That committee is due to meet on the 2nd October next. Between now and then a considerable amount of useful preparatory work will be carried out which I hope will enable the committee, when it meets, to get on rapidly with the consideration of a rather difficult problem. If there be any gratitude among bondholders, I hope that they will take note of the fact that it was a Labour Government and not a Conservative Government which took them one step nearer to the goal of their desires.
    Sir K. WOOD: One step nearer!
    Mr. DALTON: One step nearer. The right hon. Gentleman's friends could not negotiate at all, or make any advance, because they were responsible for breaking off relationships with Soviet Russia, as a result of which the hopes of the bondholders fell to zero. Seriously, I do hope that these negotiations will have some fruitful result. As I said in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor), there is no doubt that, human nature being what it is, in the City of London and elsewhere, a satisfactory and common-sense settlement of this matter would have a very helpful repercussion on the volume of Anglo-Russian trade. I hope that the negotiations will be entered into without too much theological argument on either side. I trust that it will not be necessary to press a demand that the debts shall, as a matter of metaphysics, be admitted to exist and to be binding, nor, on
    408
    the other hand, that the Soviet Government shall feel any philosophical difficulty about agreeing to make payments. I hope and I believe that the matter will be treated as a practical business transaction and that successful attempts will be made to secure the adoption of some scheme which will give satisfaction to both parties. If such a scheme can be carried through, I am sure that the result will be beneficial all along the line.
    May I say a few words about the figures of trade with Russia? It is well known that orders are given before trade takes place. I only repeat that platitude in order to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there seems sometimes to be a divergence between various estimates of British trade with Russia. Orders are given but those orders do not, of course, issue in the form of exports or imports until some considerable time after they have been given, and after the work has begun. Some of the figures quoted in regard to orders are exceedingly encouraging, and suggest that already there is a distinct upward move in trade, which will certainly move upwards still faster if an agreement can be come to on the question of debts. Leaving the question of orders, and coming to the question of exports and imports, the figures are naturally smaller, but it is worth while noting that the British exports to the Soviet Union, excluding re-exports, have gone up very considerably. In the eight months ending the 30th June, 1929, the exports were of the value of £1,980,000, whereas in the corresponding period ending the 30th June, 1930, the figure was £3,260,000. Hon. Members who are always claiming, and they have my sympathy in so claiming, that the Soviet Union should spend more money in purchasing our goods will, I think, be satisfied that the rate of increase is substantial.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does it include arms and munitions?
    Mr. DALTON: It includes the exports of all produce and manufactures of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is, surely, quite neutral as between various British trading interests and would like to see them all expanding their trade pari passu. I have endeavoured to answer the questions that have been raised with regard to trade

    409
    and debts, I have dealt with the point in regard to propaganda, and I have given to the Committee some idea of the definite achievements which have been accomplished since relations with Soviet Russia were formally renewed as late as December last.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Member say anything about the order for 3,000,000 pairs of boots?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. I should be going far outside the Rules of Order as laid down by the Chair if I discussed in detail a purely commercial transaction which comes within the province of my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade. Several hon. Members have raised other questions and I will reply to some of the points which they put. The hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) spoke about disarmament, and thought that the Prime Minister, in a recent speech, had painted in too glowing colours the present state of the world. I am sure that the Prime Minister would entirely agree with the statement that I am about to make, that the recent Naval Conference, although it succeeded beyond the hopes of some pessimists, fell short of our hopes and aspirations in so far that it failed to bring into the main Treaty the French and Italian Governments. None the less, we did secure what our predecessors, With all their efforts, failed to secure at Geneva in 1927. We did secure a complete Three-Power Treaty, limiting precisely every type of warship in the three greatest and most powerful navies of the world. Therefore, some credit is due to His Majesty's present Government for what they have achieved in that respect. None the less, the Conference fell short of our hopes and our efforts.
    It has frequently been stated by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that we are most anxious to do anything that we can to help to bring the Franco-Italian discussions, now proceeding, to a satisfactory conclusion. After the hopeful gestures which have been made from both sides in regard to the laying down of no further warships in the next few months, up to the end of this year—gestures which we certainly welcome as being made in the true spirit of international friendship—and after the discussions that are now
    410
    proceeding, we shall be very disappointed if we do not succeed in bringing France and Italy within the sphere of complete agreement regarding naval limitation. In November next there is to be a meeting of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission at Geneva, and these naval matters, if not settled before then, as we hope they will be, will be able to be brought up there, where the whole matter can be surveyed so far as concerns the general framework within which the Disarmament Treaty must ultimately be made. I hope that we may at the November meeting of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission pave the way for the still more important Disarmament Conference which is to take place subsequently.
    The right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd), whom we always listen to with great interest and respect in view of his ripe experience in foreign affairs, put a question about the Optional Clause. In a sense that is water that has passed under the bridge, because our signature of the Optional Clause has now been ratified by His Majesty after debate in this House and ratified also by His Majesty in respect of most of the Dominions. But there is no doubt that in taking this important step we do submit, and I am proud to believe that we submit—and I believe that the general body of enlightened public opinion in this country would desire to submit—in the future to the same rules in the international field as we have submitted to for so long on the football field and the cricket field, where we are willing to accept the decision of the referee or the umpire on any point which may be in dispute.
    The whole principle of international arbitration is that we are willing, in a dispute with some other country, to accept the decision of an impartial third party. If you are going to preserve the right to put your own interpretation on domestic jurisdiction you may make complete nonsense of the whole principle of compulsory arbitration. You will be getting back, under another form to the pernicious old formula of "honour and vital interests" which was a serious blot on so many arbitration treaties in the pre-War period. His Majesty's Government believe that, subject to the various reservations which we have formulated, it is not only wise but right to accept

    411
    an impartial third party judgment in preference to the risk of an armed outbreak, in which millions of young men may meet a premature death. This is a risk of peace far less grave than those risks of war which those who are afraid of these developments prefer to face.
    May I pass to a final word suggested by the speech of the right hon. Member for Marylebone and by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leamington (Captain Eden). They warned us that there were still dangers of war. The right hon. Gentleman referred particulaly to Eastern Europe, and no intelligent student of the international field can be unaware of these things. They must give us cause for considerable hesitation as to the future of this and other countries. But that is why His Majesty's Government is all the more determined, having signed the Covenant of the League of Nations, having signed the Kellogg Pact, having signed the Optional Clause and having signed the London Naval Treaty, to go forward and make these things real bulwarks of a peace which shall endure. We do not under-estimate the difficulties or the dangers. We do not under-estimate the risks, but we believe, as I said just now, that this pacific policy of peaceful settlement, of arbitration, of international agreements in one form or another, carries risks of peace, which are as dust in the balance compared with those risks of war which have beset us in the years gone by.
    It being Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the
    Estimates for the Navy (including a Supplementary Estimate), Army, Air and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1930.

  CLASS I.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,309,171, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. House of Lords Offices

  24,841

  2. House of Commons

  237,162

  3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Act

  170,000

  4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  199,609

  5. Privy Council Office

  6,209

  6. Privy Seal Office

  14,784

  7. Charity Commission

  27,700

  8. Civil Service Commission

  20,630

  9. Exchequer and Audit Department

  97,550

  10. Friendly Societies' Deficiency

  5,645

  11. Government Actuary

  21,110

  12. Government Chemist

  46,508

  13. Government Hospitality

  18,000

  14. Mint, including Coinage

  100,000

  15. National Debt Office

  128

  16. National Savings Committee

  56,950

  17. Public Record Office

  26,322

  18. Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  19. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  46,000

  20. Royal Commissions, etc.

  31,610

  21. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £410

  845

  22. Secret Service

  100,000

  23. Scottish Office

  50,743

  24. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  6,823

  £1,309.171"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 160.

  Division No. 475.]

  AYES.

  [10.0 p.m.

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

  Barr, James.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Bellamy, Albert

  Bromfield, William

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Bromley, J.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

  Brooke, W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Benson, G.

  Brothers, M.

  Arnott, John

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

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

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Ayles, Walter

  Blindell, James

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Baker, John(Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Buchanan, G.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Cameron, A. G.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Pole, Major D. G.

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

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Potts, John S.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Price, M. P.

  Chater, Daniel

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Pybus, Percy John

  Church, Major A. G.

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

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Cluse, W. S.

  Knight, Holford

  Raynes, W. R.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lang, Gordon

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Compton, Joseph

  Lathan, G.

  Ritson, J.

  Cove, William G.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

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

  Cowan, D. M.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Daggar, George

  Lawrence, Susan

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Rowson, Guy

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Lawson, John James

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Day, Harry

  Leach, W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Dukes, C.

  Lees, J.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Scott, James

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Edge, Sir William

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Scurr, John

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Sexton, James

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Egan, W. H.

  Longden, F.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  England, Colonel A.

  Lowth, Thomas

  Shield, George William

  Foot, Isaac

  Lunn, William

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Shillaker, J. F.

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

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

  Shinwell, E.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  McElwee, A.

  Simmons, C. J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Sinkinson, George

  Gill, T. H.

  McKinlay, A.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Gillett, George M.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Glassey, A. E

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Gould, F.

  McShane, John James

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

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

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Granville, E.

  March, S.

  Snell, Harry

  Gray, Milner

  Marcus, M.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Marley, J.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Fred

  Sorensen, R.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Mathers, George

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Matters, L. W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Maxton, James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Melville, Sir James

  Strauss, G. R.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Messer, Fred

  Sullivan, J.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Middleton, G.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Millar, J. D.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Mills, J. E.

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Milner, Major J.

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Montague, Frederick

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Morley, Ralph

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Tillott, Ben

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Toole, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Mort, D. L.

  Tout, W. J.

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

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Townend, A. E.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Turner, B.

  Herriotts, J.

  Muff, G.

  Vaughan, D. J.

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

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Walkden, A. G.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Walker, J.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

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

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. Tudor

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

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

  Isaacs, George

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Palin, John Henry

  Wellock, Wilfred

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  welsh, James (Paisley)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Palmer, E. T.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Perry, S. F.

  West, F. R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Westwood, Joseph

  414

  415

  White, H. G.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Wise, E. F.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Charles Edwards.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Boyce, H. L.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Bracken, B.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

  Hacking, Rt. Hon.

  Douglas H. Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Buchan, John

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

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Butler, R. A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Salmon, Major I.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Savery, S. S.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Christie, J. A.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L,

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Tinne, J. A.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Train, J.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip

  Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

  Withers, Sir John James

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Sir George Penny.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,817,714, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  2. Diplomatic and Consular Services

  546,679

  3. League of Nations

  47,000

  4. Dominions Office (including a Supplementary sum of £7,450)

  46,610

  5. Dominion Services

  26,309

  6. Empire Marketing (including a Supplementary sum of £62,500)

  512,500

  £

  7. Oversea Settlement

  483,250

  8. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £4,000)

  102,306

  9. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

  818,565

  10. Colonial Development Fund, etc.

  512,200

  11. India Office (including a Supplementary sum of £35,000)

  170,000

  12. Imperial War Graves Commission

  552,295

  £3,817,714"

  Class III.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £7,920,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the

  417
  sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Home Office

  306,821

  2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  48,363

  3. Police, England and Wales

  5,205,308

  4. Prisons, England and Wales

  453,986

  5. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales

  106,361

  6. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

  90

  7. County Courts

  5

  8. Land Registry

  5

  9. Public Trustee

  5

  10. Law Charges

  108,996

  11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  8,786

  Scotland.

  £

  12. Police

  486,011

  13. Prisons Department for Scotland

  76,868

  14. Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  38,380

  15. Scottish Land Court

  5,718

  16. Law Charges and Courts of Law

  44,590

  17. Register House, Edinburgh Ireland.

  5

  18. Northern Ireland Services

  8,129

  19. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

  1,496

  20. Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

  1,020,277

  £7,920,200"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 173.

  Division No. 476.]

  AYES.

  [10.13 p.m.

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

  Compton, Joseph

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

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

  Cove, William G.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Cowan, D. M.

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

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Daggar, George

  Herriotts, J.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Herriotts, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Arnott, John

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Day, Harry

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Ayles, Walter

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Dukes, C.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Duncan, Charles

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Barr, James

  Edge, Sir William

  Isaacs, George

  Batey, Joseph

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bellamy, Albert

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Egan, W. H.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

  Benson, G.

  England, Colonel A.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Foot, Isaac

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Birkett, W. Norman

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

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Blindell, James

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Bowen, J. W.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gill, T. H.

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

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gillett, George M.

  Kinley, J.

  Bromfield, William

  Glassey, A. E.

  Knight, Holford

  Bromley, J.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Brooke, W.

  Gould, F.

  Lang, Gordon

  Brothers, M.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

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

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

  Lathan, G.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Granville, E.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Gray, Milner

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Buchanan, G.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lawson, John James

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

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

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Leach, W.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Nothern)

  Cape, Thomas

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Lees, J.

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

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Chater, Daniel

  Hardie, George D.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Church, Major A. G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Clarke, J. S.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Longden, F.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hayday, Arthur

  Lowth, Thomas

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Lunn, William

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Perry, S. F.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

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

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Sorensen, R.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  McElwee, A.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Stephen, Campbell

  McEntee, V. L.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Potts, John S.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  McKinlay, A.

  Price, M. P.

  Strauss, G. R.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Pybus, Percy John

  Sullivan, J.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  McShane, John James

  Rathbone,

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

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

  Rayner, W. R.

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

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Mansfield, W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  March, S.

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

  Tillett, Ben

  Marcus, M.

  Ritson, J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Markham, S. F.

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

  Toole, Joseph

  Marley, J.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Tout, W. J.

  Marshall, Fred

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Mathers, George

  Rowson, Guy

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Matters, L. W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Turner, B.

  Melville, Sir James

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Messer, Fred

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Viant, S. P.

  Middleton, G.

  Samuel. H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Millar, J. D.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Walker, J.

  Mills, J. E.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Milner, Major J.

  Scott, James

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

  Morley, Ralph

  Scurr, John

  Watkins, F. C.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Sexton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Mort, D. L.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Shield, George William

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

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

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  West, F. R.

  Muff, G.

  Shinwell, E.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  White, H. G.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Simmons, C. J.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sinkinson, George

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

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

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wise, E. F.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Palin, John Henry

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Snell, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Pating.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Cockerill, Brig, General Sir George

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

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverpl., W.)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Balniel, Lord

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

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

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Haslam, Henry C.

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

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Butler, R. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Fielden, E. B.

  Iveagh, Countess of

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Christle, J. A.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  420

  421

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Stewart, W. J.(Belfast, South)

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Train, J.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

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

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Womersley, W. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Muirhead, A. J.

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Nicholson O. (Westminster)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  George Penny.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £30,381,096, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Board of Education

  28,995,653,

  2. British Museum

  169,763

  3. Imperial War Museum

  8,760

  4. London Museum

  3,308

  5. National Gallery

  16,283

  6. National Portrait Gallery

  5,478

  7. Wallace Collection

  7,718

  8. Scientific Investigation, etc.

  137,303

  9. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  1,030,000

  Scotland.

  11. National Galleries

  5,979

  12. National Library

  851

  £30,381,096"

  CLASS V.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £61,216,759, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the Sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Ministry of Health

  12,724,200

  1a. Grant in respect of Employment Schemes in Necessitous Areas (England and Wales)

  440,000

  422

  £

  2. Board of Control

  117,087

  3. Registrar-General's Office

  68,938

  4. National Insurance, Audit Department

  116,160

  5. Friendly Societies Registry

  32,104

  6. Old Age Pensions

  23,536,000

  7. Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions

  6,000,000

  8. Ministry of Labour

  16,591,000

  9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

  1,500,000

  Scotland.

  11. General Board of Control

  20,006

  12. Registrar-General's Office

  11,264

  13. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes in Necessitous Areas (Scotland)

  60,000

  £61,216,759"

  CLASS VI.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £8,814,928, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  2. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  5

  3. Mercantile Marine Services

  243,030

  5. Export Credits

  63,662

  6. Mines Department of the Board of Trade

  87,332

  7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

  23,142

  8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

  1,332,320

  423

  £

  9. Beet Sugar, Subsidy, Great Britain

  5,300,000

  10. Surveys of Great Britain

  80,203

  11. Forestry Commission

  587,800

  12. Ministry of Transport

  123,974

  13. Development Fund

  375,000

  14. Development Grants

  125,000

  16. State Management Districts

  90

  Scotland.

  17. Department of Agriculture (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

  414,928

  18. Fishery Board

  58,442

  £8,814,928"

  CLASS VII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,177,442, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  2. Houses of Parliament Buildings

  63,610

  3. Housing Estates

  690

  5. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  76,710

  6. Osborne

  12,260

  10. Royal Palaces

  58,970

  11. Revenue Buildings

  750,350

  12. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  139,690

  13. Rates on Government Property

  1,067,781

  14. Stationery and Printing

  929,521

  15. Peterhead Harbour

  21,000

  16. Works and Buildings in Ireland

  56,860

  £3,177,442"

  CLASS VIII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £33,404,041, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

  227,692

  2. Ministry of Pensions

  32,103,500

  3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

  170,316

  4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  902,533

  £33,404,041"

  CLASS IX.
  "That a sum not exceeding £2,843, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), Shipping Liquidation, etc.

  1,776

  2. Australian Zinc Concentrates

  977

  3. Railway (War) Agreements Liquidation

  90

  £2,843"

  CLASS X.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £27,007,412, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class 10 of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  24,060,000

  2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

  2,747,362

  3. Grant to Rating Authorities, Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)

  200,050

  £27,007,412"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1930.
"That a sum, not exceeding £7,984,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

£

1. Customs and Excise

3,279,600

2. Inland Revenue

4,705,050

£7,984,650"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1930.
"That a sum, not exceeding £32,204,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

425

£

3. Medical Establishments and Services

403,200

4. Fleet Air Arm

1,267,000

5. Educational Services

231,200

6. Scientific Services

480,800

7. Royal Naval Reserves

392,000

8. Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel (including a Supplementary sum of £71,500)

6,280,500

Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Matériel (including a Supplementary sum of £40,900)

4,168,200

Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work (including a Supplementary sum of £79,800)

5,013,800

9. Naval Armaments (including a Supplementary sum of £16,000)

3,382,800

11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

706,850

12. Admiralty Office

1,208,500

13. Non - Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers

3,120,000

14. Non - Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men

4,567,200

15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Allowances, and Gratuities

982,200

£32,204,250"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1930.
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,160,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:

£

2. Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

5,480,000

3. Medical Services

1,004,000

4. Educational Establishments

899,000

5. Quartering and Movements

1,411,000

6. Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts

4,793,000

7. Clothing

1,233,000

8. General Stores

1,422,000

9. Warlike and Engineer Technical Stores

1,918,000

£18,160,000"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1930.
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,303,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

£

2. Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport

1,735,000

5. Medical Services

298,000

6. Educational Services

493,000

7. Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

591,000

9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

245,000

10. Air Ministry

675,000

11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

266,000

£4,303,000"

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, the sum of £284,877,761 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Greenwood.]
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be clearance area.)
Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 17, after the word "as," insert "suitable."
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

427
The majority of the Lords Amendments are purely drafting or consequential, and I do not think that the House need spend much time upon them. I will call the attention of the House to those particular Amendments which contain points of substance. There are four Amendments which I propose to ask the House to disagree with. The particular Amendment now before the House is consequential.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 10, line 30, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Validity and date of opera- tion of clearance orders and compul- sory purchase orders.)
Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 31, leave out from the word "made" to the word "that" in line 34, and insert:

"(i) may by interim order suspend the operation of the order either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant until the final determination of the proceedings; and

(ii) if satisfied upon the hearing of the application"

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment gives a little more elasticity to the Clause.

CLAUSE 12.—(Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compul- sorily.)
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 24, at the end, insert:
"Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act."
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege in that it increases the compensation payable by local authorities.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sir K. WOOD: I venture to ask the House to consider this matter a little further, and to see whether, in the circumstances, and having regard to the merits of the case, they cannot see their way to withdraw the plea of privilege in connection with this Amendment. I do not think it will be an undue waste of time if I ask the House to consider the position raised by this Amendment, because this will be the last opportunity for discussing a question which will undoubtedly give rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction and anxiety in certain quarters. The question is that of the necessity for compensation in regard to land and buildings which are purchased compulsorily. While I do not think that any Member of the House would desire to ask for compensation for the owner of bad slum property—the man who neglects his duty, or allows his property to get into what I would call a criminal state of disrepair—I think there is a case, and it has been acknowledged in all quarters of the House, if we can only find a remedy, for the owner of property who has done all that he can so far as repairs to his property are concerned, who has obeyed the requirements of the local authority, and who, through no fault of his own, finds his property condemned owing to the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets in which that property is.
I have read the proceedings of the Committee, and I know that in another place this particular and exceptional case was recognised and acknowledged by members, not only of this party, but of all parties in the House, because it is very unfair that in such circumstances the owner should not receive at any rate some reasonable compensation. I ask the House now to waive their privilege because this Amendment is an attempt at any rate to give some reasonable compensation in such cases as I have indicated. I desire to call particular attention to the words of the Amendment, because it has been devised to meet the criticisms which have been directed in certain quarters of the House to proposals which were made both on the Second Reading and in Committee. It was said by hon. Members, many of whom desire to meet reasonable cases of this kind, that, if you give compensation in such cases, you put money into the hands of people who have specu-

429
lated in this class of property, who have bought it with full knowledge of the law, and who, therefore, cannot complain and suffer no hardship if they buy property of this kind knowing that there is no compensation, and have no right to come to the House of Commons and complain of the compensation that will be payable to them.
I would ask the House to look at the conditions which this Amendment applies. Compensation is confined to the owners of the land before the 31st July, 1919, and this provision was inserted in another place at the suggestion of the spokesman of the Liberal party, who himself said that on the merits of the case some alteration ought to be made so as to avoid compensating people who had speculated in property of this kind. I think I am in order in saying that that suggestion came from so universally respected an authority as Lord Buckmaster. Therefore this date has been included in order that there shall be no question of compensating anyone who has speculated in property of this kind. Secondly, the Amendment confines the compensation to those cases where the land is included owning to the narrowness of bad arrangement of the streets. There is no question of giving money to a man who has criminally neglected his property or has speculated in property of this kind. The principle of compensation is recognised in the Scottish Bill while it is refused in the English Bill. There is a distinction to be drawn in these cases and I hope the House will waive its privilege in order to give consideration to what I think is a reasonable Amendment, which is only doing justice to those who have not broken the law in any way or failed to fulfil their obligations as proper and decent landlords.
Mr. HARRIS: I hope the House will not be beguiled by the honeyed words of the right hon. Gentleman. This is an attempt to do in another way what he failed to do in earlier stages of the Bill. All reasonable criticism has been met by the very generous terms provided in Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman wants to give compensation to owners of property which is unfit for human occupation and which they happen to have had in 1919. I do not think I ever heard a more preposterous suggestion put for-
430
ward. As a matter of fact, it would not be practicable to carry it out, because it would be differentiating between two kinds of property equally bad, simply because one was bought at one date and one at another, and because one is occupied for one purpose and one for another. I am assured by my friends on the London County Council, a Conservative body, who have had many years of experience, that it would be quite impossible to make this differentiation. If we waive our rights of privilege I hope the right hon. Gentleman will fight on better ground. It is not a good issue to fight as the champion of slum landlords. This is a long delayed Bill and I hope the Clause as originally framed will be adhered to and that the House will stick to its privileges.
Mr. HOFFMAN: I sincerely hope the Minister will continue to press Privilege in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman rested his argument on the first part of the Clause. I should like to draw attention to the second portion:
"or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business."
What is to prevent a person, a week before the order is made, occupying one of those houses or a business, and receiving increased compensation in consequence of the order being made? Whatever may be said upon the first part of this Amendment—and there is very little—it is perfectly unjust and unfair to insist on the second part of it. I sincerely hope that Privilege will be urged on this occasion.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am surprised that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) made such a statement as that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is here defending the slum land-land. [Interruption.] If some hon. Members who cheer so heartily had been on the Committee upstairs, they would have known that nothing of the kind entered into my right hon. Friend's mind. Members of the Committee were anxious to do the fair thing all round. The question whether compensation should be given to those persons who have done their duty by their property in areas scheduled as slum areas has been one of contention for several years. It was very prominent at the last election. I do not know of any candidate at that election,

431
to whatever party he belonged, who was prepared to say that he would vote for a Measure which would mean that no compensation whatever should be paid to the owner of property who had done his duty and carried out the regulations and by-laws of the district in which he lived. It is not a question of compensating slum landlords at all. So far as I can understand, the majority of the people who have done their duty by their property are the small owners of property, who have either occupied the property themselves or which property has been their only means of support. They have invested their little money in it. I know, and many local authorities realise, that the reason why slum clearance schemes have been held up is that many of those who sit on the local authorities could not, in justice, dispossess people of their property without some reasonable compensation, and that as the law stood they had no chance to do so.
In my opinion, this Amendment has great merits, but it does not by any means satisfy the Property Owners' Association; they do not care about it at all, and do not want it. Nor does it satisfy those people who believe that no compensation should be paid to anybody. The Amendment gives compensation where it is absolutely deserved, namely, to those people who, at any rate, owned this property before 1919. It cannot be said that this has been a question of speculation as far as they are concerned, and it has to be proved that the house has been kept in a proper state of repair. I would ask the House carefully to consider the question. I know there is a feeling that anyone, whoever he may be, who happens to be unfortunate enough to own property in a slum area is of necessity doing something wrong in owning that property. That is not so. I could take hon. Members to certain streets, which might be described as slum streets, where they would see two or three houses which might be quite rightly described as slum houses; but I could also take them into houses in the same street which are fit and proper for any person to live in. Those people who occupy those houses have taken a pride in keeping them clean and in a proper state of repair. In many cases the people who own small property have done so
432
because they want to live in a house which is fit to live in. The system which we shall have if this Bill becomes law, whereby these people will receive no compensation beyond the site value, will be unfair. It ought to be altered, and this Amendment meets the position in the fairest possible way.
On the other hand, it gives nothing to those persons who have not done their duty by their tenants, nor to the speculator. It only compensates those who have spent their money in keeping their houses in proper repair and who can prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that they are only asking for reasonable and fair compensation. I hope that the House will reconsider the matter. Do not let us be led away by sentiment—I mean the type of sentiment that condemns everything as wrong because it does not just fit in with one's point of view. We must recognise the fact that we are not in a position at the moment to re-house the whole of the people who ought to be dispossessed of certain premises, and we must not do anything which will discourage those who are willing and ready to do their duty and to spend their money to keep their houses in a proper state of repair. If the Bill becomes law with these provisions in it, there will be no encouragement whatever to any owner of property which is fairly old property and in a working-class district to spend money in keeping the property in decent repair. We have to take the long view rather than say that somebody is going to profit. Further, I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that unless he does something in this direction, we are going to be far worse off than the people in Scotland will be in respect of their Bill. At any rate, they do get something, but we get nothing. I hope that the Minister will withdraw his Motion that we disagree with the Lords in their Amendment.
Captain GUNSTON: I wish to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman). I think that he is a little suspicious. In Sheffield, as in my part of the country, there must be many people who had to buy their residences after 1919, and many small shopkeepers, who constitute a considerable proportion of the population of this country, who bought their businesses after 1919. He suggests that in view of this proposed Amendment people might

433
buy a small business in order to benefit under the proposal. I think the hon. Member is very suspicious. There are many people who bought small businesses or small shops legitimately since 1919, and therefore they are entitled to compensation for other than site value.
Sir BASIL PETO: I rise only for one purpose, and that is to voice a protest against the argument in the speech of the bon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who said that the Lords Amendment which the House is considering and the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) were to the effect that it did not matter how in-sanitary or unfit for human habitation property might be, it was to be given compensation provided it was acquired before 31st July, 1919. I venture to say that an argument put forward on that basis does not deserve the consideration of the House. The Lords Amendment we are considering is specifically limited to a building which is injurious or dangerous to health only by reason of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the street and which was acquired by the owner before 31st July, 1919.
That is an entirely different thing. The whole basis of the argument of my right
hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich when he assumes, and the Lords Amendment assumes, that a house is not unfit for human habitation, has been kept in a reasonable state of repair and is only undesirable owing to the narrowness or bad arrangement of the street, is that it is only on that ground that they should receive compensation, Therefore, it is something altogether outside the scope and power of the owner of property which makes the house detrimental, and there is a clear case for compensation being given to those people who purchase houses and have kept them in a decent state of repair. The whole argument of the Amendment we are considering is the exact opposite from the case put forward by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green. I felt bound to raise my protest on that point, because it is possible that hon. Members, not having a copy of the Amendment in print before them, may be misled by the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 152.

Division No. 477.]

AYES.

[11.1 p.m.

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

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

Buchanan, G.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Burgess, F. G.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Gibson, H. M. (Lance, Mossley)

Alpass, J. H.

Caine, Derwent Hall.

Gill, T. H.

Ammon, Charles George

Cameron, A. G.

Gillett, George M.

Arnott, John

Cape, Thomas

Glassey, A. E.

Aske, Sir Robert

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

Gossling, A. G.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Charleton, H. C.

Gould, F.

Ayles, Walter

Chater, Daniel

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Clarke, J. S.

Granville, E.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Cluse, W. S.

Gray, Milner

Barnes, Alfred John

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Barr, James.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Batey, Joseph

Compton, Joseph

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Daggar, George

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Bellamy, Albert

Dalton, Hugh

Groves, Thomas E.

Bann, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Benson, G.

Day, Harry

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hardie, George D.

Birkett, W. Norman

Dukes, C.

Harris, Percy A.

Blindell, James

Duncan, Charles

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Ede, James Chuter

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Bowen, J. W.

Edge, Sir William

Haycock, A. W.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Edmunds, J. E.

Hayday, Arthur

Bromfield, William

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Hayes, John Henry

Bromley, J.

Egan, W. H.

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

Brooke, W.

Elmley, Viscount

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Brothers, M.

Foot, Isaac

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

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

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Herriotts, J.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

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

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Matters, L. W.

Shield, George William

Hoffman, P. C.

Maxton, James

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Hopkin, Daniel

Melville, Sir James

Shillaker, J. F.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Messer, Fred

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Horrabin, J. F.

Middleton, G.

Simmons, C. J.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Millar, J. D.

Sinkinson, George

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Mills, J. E.

Sitch, Charles H.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Milner, Major J.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Montague, Frederick

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Johnston, Thomas

Morley, Ralph

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Mort, D. L.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Moses, J. J. H.

Sorensen, R.

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

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

Stamford, Thomas W.

Kelly, W. T.

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Stephen, Campbell

Kennedy, Thomas

Muff, G.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Kinley, J.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Murnin, Hugh

Strauss, G. R.

Lang, Gordon

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sullivan, J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Naylor, T. E.

Sutton, J. E.

Lathan, G.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

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

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Oldfield, J. R.

Thurtle, Ernest

Lawrence, Susan

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Tillett, Ben

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybrldge)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Tinker, John Joseph

Lawson, John James

Palin, John Henry

Toole, Joseph

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Paling, Wilfrid

Tout, W. J.

Leach, W.

Palmer, E. T.

Townend, A. E.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Turner, B.

Lees, J.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Vaughan, D. J.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Viant, S. P.

Lindley, Fred W.

Pole, Major D. G.

Walkden, A. G.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Potts, John S.

Walker, J.

Logan, David Gilbert

Price, M. P.

Wallace, H. W.

Longbottom, A. W.

Pybus, Percy John

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Longden, F.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Watkins, F. C.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Lowth, Thomas

Rathbone, Eleanor

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

Lunn, William

Raynes, W. R.

Wellock, Wilfred

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Welsh, James (Paisley)

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

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

West, F. R.

McElwee, A.

Ritson, J.

Westwood, Joseph

McEntee, V. L.

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

White, H. G.

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Romeril, H. G.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

McKinlay, A.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

MacLaren, Andrew

Rowson, Guy

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

McShane, John James

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Sanders, W. S.

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

Mansfield, W.

Sawyer. G. F.

Wise E. F.

March, S.

Scott, James

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Marcus, M.

Scurr, John

Markham, S. F.

Sexton, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Marley, J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charles

Marshall, Fred

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Edwards.

Mathers, George

Sherwood, G. H.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Butt, Sir Alfred

Dawson, Sir Philip

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Carver, Major W. H.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

Atholl, Duchess of

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Chapman, Sir S.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

Christie, J. A.

England, Colonel A.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Everard, W. Lindsay

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Colman, N. C. D

Fermoy, Lord

Bird, Ernest Roy

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Fielden, E. B.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Boyce, H. L.

Croom-Jahnson, R. P.

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

Brass, Captain Sir William

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Briscoe, Richard George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Butler, R. A.

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

436

437

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Marjoribanka, E. C.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Savery, S. S.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Mond, Hon. Henry

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

Somerville, A. A. 0(Windsor)

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

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Haslam, Henry C.

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

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Spender-Clay, Colonel .

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O (W'morland)

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Muirhead, A. J.

Tinne, J. A.

Hurd, Percy A.

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

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Train, J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

O'Connor, T. J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

King, Commodore Rt. Hon, Henry D.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Knox, Sir Alfred

O'Neill, Sir H.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wells, Sydney R.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Ramsbotham, H.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Locker-Lampson, Corn. O.(Handsw`th)

Remer, John R.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Womersley, W. J.

Lymington, Viscount

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sir George Penny and Captain

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Salmon, Major I.

Wallace.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 30, line 31, agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Duty of County Council in respect of housing conditions in rural districts.)
Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 38, leave out "Part of this Act" and insert "section."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I beg to move, "That this "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We are now beginning the insertion of Amendments dealing with the provision of houses in rural districts. Will the Minister say whether there is anything of great substance in these Amendments or whether they are merely drafting?
Miss LAWRENCE: This Amendment is purely drafting. As soon as we come to an Amendment of any substance we shall indicate it to the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 34, line 22, agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Standard of rehousing accommodation.)
Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 3, leave out "shall."
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and two which follow give effect to a undertaking which I gave to the House on the Report stage. I promised that while retaining the elasticity for the provision of smaller or larger houses than can be provided under the law of subsidy at present, the new houses when erected under the Bill should comply with the requirements as to size now contained in the Act of 1923.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 37, line 38, agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Amendment of s. 64 of prin- cipal Act.)
Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 17, after the word "if" insert "for."
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Later on, I intend to move, as an alternative Amendment to the Lords Amendment, "In page 43, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (2)." This Subsection has given rise to a good deal more discussion than its importance merits. It was not in the first draft of the Bill and was introduced to meet a difficulty which had

439
been experienced occasionally by the London County Council. As far as I am aware, no complaint had been made by other local authorities, and it was with the desire to meet the particular and special problem of the London area that this Sub-section was inserted. During the passage of the Bill through another place, Amendments were made in the Sub-section including the Lords Amendment now under discussion and also the Lords Amendment standing next on the Paper introducing the word "easement." The purport of these Amendments is not quite clear because as a matter of fact the whole subject of purchasing land and the subject of easements is dealt with in the land Clauses, and provision is made in respect of compensation for easements which are extinguished. This matter has been under consideration by the advisers of the London County Council and ourselves, and the London County Council feel that they would rather have the Subsection out of the Bill altogether than accept the Amendments on the Paper.
Mr. HARRIS: I am sorry that the Minister has climbed down on this very small concession which was intended to expedite the purchase of land so that public authorities should not be handicapped by being forced to buy more land than is necessary in order to carry out an improvement. If ever there was a conservative authority, that authority is the London County Council. It has been dominated for the last 20 years by the Conservative spirit, and such an authority is not likely to show any Socialistic or revolutionary symptoms. The London County Council is animated by a desire to carry out the duties entrusted to it by Parliament, and in doing so this Sub-section would be of great assistance. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the Sub-section was inserted on the initiative of the London County Council, and it seems a pity that their friends in another place should have let them down so badly. I think it would have been wiser on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to have stuck to his guns, and to have relieved the London County Council of any excuse for not carrying out their responsibilities.
Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 18, leave out from the second word "or" to the end of the Sub-section and insert
"is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house' there were substituted the words 'is required for the easement the amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden, or pleasure ground'."
Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Greenwood.]
Amendment made in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 43, line 16, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Greenwood.]
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 47 agreed to.

CLAUSE 60.—(Definition of "agricultural parish" for purposes of housing subsidies.)
Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 6, leave out "October," and insert "April."
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. SPEAKER: This and the next five Amendments raise a question of privilege.
Question put, and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER: An entry will be made in the Journals of the House.
Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 9, leave out "and," and insert "or."
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. BUTLER: There is every reason why we should object to the attitude of the Minister on this vital point, which is most important for housing in the rural areas, for which the Minister has expressed such concern. We are grateful for the fact that the Government have accepted the previous Amendment to insert "April" instead of "October," because that makes the position easier for certain agricultural parishes. We are grateful for that, but there are still agricultural parishes which will not get the housing subsidy if the definition is left as it is. At present the definition is that the net

441
annual value of the land must be 25 per cent. of the total value, and that the population must be of a certain amount. This Amendment would substitute the word "or" for "and," so that the subsidy would be payable either on a population basis or on a basis of percentage of net annual value. We are frankly surprised at the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman. In the Committee stage when we raised this point, the Minister agreed that there was an anomaly. He said that there was something to put right, and, although he has made us a slight concession on the point of date, that does not solve the difficulty. In another place, Lord Strachie declared that about 30 per cent. of the agricultural parishes in England would be cut out from having the subsidy if the Bill stands without this Amendment. If one-third of the agricultural parishes are to be cut out through faulty drafting it is right that we should consider whether we ought not to waive privilege on this occasion. The second reason why we regard this as important, and are surprised at the Minister's point of view, is that the Leader of the other House, Lord Parmoor, said:
"My Lords, there is no"—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot quote from a speech made in the other House.
Mr. BUTLER: I am very sorry if, through lack of knowledge, I have erred, and I apologise. wished to refer to the fact that in another place a Noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, acknowledged that there was substance in this Amendment, and was willing, I believe, to meet the points raised by other Noble Lords. All who are interested in rural housing know that it is a point of substance. If this is left on the basis of 25 per cent. of the net annual value it will be found that there are many parishes in which the net annual value tips over the scale against them, and prevents them from being regarded as agricultural parishes, merely because some railway line goes through a parish or it contains some industrial hereditament. I know that to be the case in Essex and in other parts of the country, and the Rural District Councils Association says that this Amendment will affect 30 per cent. of the agricultural parishes in the country.
Mr. HURD: May I express the hope that the Minister will view this proposal on its merits? He is anxious that the fullest possible use should be made of the Bill in order to obtain houses where they are badly needed, in the rural areas, and if we are left with the double qualification unquestionably many rural parishes will be struck out, and among agricultural labourers and colliers living in adjacent parishes some will be precluded from enjoying advantages which we wish them to have. If we retain the alternative method it will still be in the power of the Minister under Subsection (3) to decide whether both the definitions or one only must be fulfilled. If the Minister will look at the question without regard to the immediate question of privilege but solely from the point of view of making the Bill effective in the rural areas I am sure he will take the line that the Amendment may be accepted.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I am only too anxious to do what I can, but I want the House to understand the effect of the Amendment. It will not help the rural areas but it will bring in well-to-do suburban areas and industrial areas, which, after all, was not the precise object of the differentiation made in the Act of 1924. In the 1924 Act we instituted a double condition—that of the percentage of the net value of the agricultural land to the total net annual value of the population per hundred acres. The only reason why we are dealing with the matter at all in this Bill is not in order to alter the law, but as the Local Government Act abolished the rating of agricultural land the old definition no longer applies, and we have therefore, instead of using the term "the value of the land at the beginning of the financial year in which the housing proposals were approved," to bring in the last valuation that there was. We could not help ourselves. All we have done is to try to maintain the law as it was before. I contend the present definition is a very generous one indeed. Hon. Members who were here when the 1924 Act was under discussion will remember that as a result of pressure from all sides of the House—the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) was very active—we had to alter our original proposal, which was that the valuation of the agricultural land in the parish must exceed 33⅓ per

443
cent. of the total rateable value and that the population should be less than 35 per 100 acres. We diminish the annual value from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., and we increase the population basis from 35 to 50 per 100 acres. To go any further would open the door still wider to the danger which we are trying to avoid. What hon. Members are now asking for at the very last gasp is to have either test in the Bill but not both, and that would not be convenient for rural areas. Every rural area comes inside this provision. The effect of this Amendment would not be to assist rural areas, but to assist rich counties like Surrey, for which purpose this Measure is not intended. The Amendment would bring in those who have no right to preferential treatment.
Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The Minister of Health does not seem to have fully appreciated the effect of this Amendment and the intention of my hon. Friends in raising this question. I am quite convinced that there is not a single wealthy suburban area that would be let into the Bill by the acceptance of this Amendment. You cannot find wealthy suburban areas where the agricultural land amounts to more than 25 per cent. of the annual value nor similar areas where the population is less than 50 per 100 acres. This Measure applies to areas where agriculture is the sole industry. There are a great many parishes where nothing but agriculture gives employment to the people, and those parishes are to be deprived of the privileges conferred by this Bill because one or two large houses, or a railway junction, happen to be in those areas. Those are the very cases where the rural housing problem is the hardest because the fact that there are a few large houses or a railway company employing a certain number of men makes an additional demand for houses, and a great many of the cottages intended as part of the equipment of the farmer have been taken for the occupation of railway servants, private gardeners, or chauffeurs, and they have greatly aggravated the housing I have referred.
I happen to live in a purely agricultural area. There is no parish in the rural district in which I live that will not be excluded from
444
these privileges if the Bill stands as it is, because the existence of a certain number of residential houses occupied by people who go up to London to work five days a week has so increased the annual value of these parishes that they are ruled out under this Clause as it stands, though they would come in if the Amendment were accepted. I do ask the Minister, even at this late hour, to reconsider this problem, and to take it from some of us who live in and know the country and its problems that this problem does exist, and that we are making this appeal on behalf of the agricultural industry, and not on behalf of the wealthy suburbs.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: There is no doubt that the Government are distinctly letting down the agricultural industry by their action in this matter. If it be true, and there seems to be no reason to dispute it, that one-third of the agricultural land of the country will be denied the privilege that is mentioned in this Bill, what becomes of the promise of the Government to provide houses in order to do away with the tied cottage system? The Government are introducing this Measure in order to provide sufficient houses in cases where the farmers cannot put them up for their agricultural labourers. This Amendment suggests a means for providing more such houses. What answer are the Government going to give to the agricultural labourer when he asks where those houses are? We remember at the last Election how glib the Socialist orators were as to what they were going to do for housing in rural areas. As one who sees a great deal of the agricultural districts, I say that the Government are definitely letting down the agricultural labourer in this matter.
Mr. GOULD: If the homes that we desire, and the destruction of the houses that we desire to abolish, are going to aid the weakest and poorest classes of the community in this country, it is vital that this Bill should have the widest application that is possible. Even assuming that Surrey comes in, and that the agricultural workers living in Surrey under slum conditions will have the chance to enjoy the benefits of the higher subsidy immediately this Bill becomes an Act, that is the worst that can be said

445
on the subject. I see no reason why a worker in Surrey should not have the advantage of the higher subsidy, even though he lives in a rich residential district of that county. You will not find people of the middle class living in the slums, and, therefore, this provision will not aid people who can afford to pay higher rents. The fact of a main line of railway running through a purely agricultural district will disqualify huge tracts of agricultural England, and we suggest that the accident of living in such an area ought not to penalise an agricultural worker or any other worker of like economic standing. I know adjoining parishes where on one side of the road, because of the accident of a coal mine, it is an industrial area and there is a lesser subsidy, and on the other side of the road there is an agricultural worker with a higher subsidy. They come to me and ask me to explain it and I find it very difficult. I can in law, but they do not want a legal argument. There's is an economic condition. We ought to effect a remedy that will abolish slumdom for the agricultural workers and give them a higher subsidy. I wish the Minister would in the last resort give them a or b, either population or rateable value or, if he feels there is hardship to the Treasury where such areas come in, let him have the option to use both a and b. If we could select a or b, at the discretion of the Minister it would be a good thing for the rural parts, where the worst slum conditions exist, and it would be a godsend to many a home.
Viscount LYMINGTON: I support the Amendment in order to supplement the point made by my learned Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). Not only is it a question of suburban dwellers coming into the countryside and taking up available farm workers' cottages for their servants, but it is also a grievance where industrial hereditaments cause the same thing. I know several cases where industrial workers in small factories would absolutely preclude an agricultural parish from getting the advantage of the subsidy. It is there, where the industrial worker can pay a higher rent and dispossess the agricultural worker, that the need is far the greatest. Subsection (3) gives the Minister absolute discretion to see that he is not defrauded. With the dis-
446
cretion allowed in Sub-section (3), the Minister's case falls to the ground completely.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: There is a further point that ought to be raised. The hon. Member opposite defined the position very clearly. We are asking that the agricultural worker should have a chance under both heads, a and b. The Minister's position is entirely guarded under Sub-section (3), and if he has any of these wealthy urban districts he is able to deal with them straight away.
Mr. GREENWOOD Mr. GREENWOOD indicated dissent.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Then he has not made the Bill watertight. That is the answer to that shake of the head. Another point is that there are a large number of parishes that are on the border line, so that they do not get the subsidy on the basis of population, and the population is very often of a type which is for practical purposes on the same basis as agricultural workers. There are a vast number of parishes in the West country, particularly around the coast, which, because they have small groups of, say, fishermen, or for some other reason—this point has not been raised before—will not come in under the Bill. I ask anyone who lives in this particular type of countryside, and also some hon. Members opposite, to join with us on this particular occasion in trying to enforce our opinion on the Government, so that we can do everything possible to help these poorer and smaller people.
Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I only want to add just one word to what has been said on this side of the House. I think that the Minister's speech would have carried more support—perhaps it might even have carried conviction—if he had been good enough to give us some statistics showing what the effect of this Amendment will really be in the various parishes throughout the countryside. I would also like to emphasise a point already made on this side of the House, namely, the hardship which arises in the case of railways which have to pass through certain rural parishes. It is not only railways that affect rateable values, but roads, with the ribbon development which inevitably follows the making of a first-class road through a

447
rural parish. Then, again, there is the question of the spread of electricity which makes it possible to erect factories in out-of-the-way parishes which affects the situation. A great many factors have to be taken into account before a decision is made. I think we are amply justified on this side of the
House in pressing for something to be done to aid the dwellers in the rural areas.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 127.

Division No. 478]

AYES.

[11.53 p.m.

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

Moses, J. J. H.

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

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

Haycock, A. W.

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Hayday, Arthur

Muff, G.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

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

Murnin, Hugh

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Arnott, John

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

Naylor, T. E.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Herriotts, J.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Barnes, Alfred John

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

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Barr, James.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Oldfield, J. R.

Batey, Joseph

Hoffman, P. C.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Bellamy, Albert

Hopkin, Daniel

Palin, John Henry

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Paling, Wilfrid

Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Benson, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Johnston, Thomas

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Birkett, W. Norman

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Potts, John S.

Bowen, J. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Price, M. P.

Bromfield, William

Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Bromley, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Brooke, W.

Kennedy, Thomas

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Brothers, M.

Kinley, J.

Ritson, J.

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

Lang, Gordon

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Romeril, H. G.

Buchanan, G.

Lathan, G.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Burgess, F. G.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Rowson, Guy

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Lawrence, Susan

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Cameron, A. G.

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Sanders, W. S.

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

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sawyer, G. F.

Charleton, H. C.

Leach, W.

Scott, James

Chater, Daniel

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Scurr, John

Clarke, J. S.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Cluse, W. S.

Lees, J.

Sherwood, G. H.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shield, George William

Compton, Joseph

Lindley, Fred W.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Daggar, George

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Shillaker, J.

Dalton, Hugh

Logan, David Gilbert

Simmons, C. J.

Day, Harry

Longbottom, A. W.

Sinkinson, George

Denman. Hon. R. D.

Longden, F.

Sitch, Charles H.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Dukes, C.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Duncan, Charles

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

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Ede, James Chuter

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Edmunds, J. E.

McElwee, A.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

McEntee, V. L.

Sorensen, R.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Stephen, Campbell

Egan, W. H.

McKinlay, A.

Strauss, G. R.

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

MacLaren, Andrew

Sullivan, J.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Sutton, J. E.

Gill, T. H.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Gillett, George M.

McShane, John James

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

Glassey, A. E.

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

Thurtle, Ernest

Gossling, A. G.

Mansfield, W.

Tillett, Ben

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Marcus, M.

Tinker, John Joseph

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Markham, S. F.

Toole, Joseph

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Marley, J.

Tout, W. J.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Marshall, Fred

Turner, B.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Matters, George

Vaughan, D. J.

Groves, Thomas E.

Matters, L. W.

Viant, S. P.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Walker, J.

Hall, G. H.(Merthyr Tydvil)

Middleton, G.

Wallace, H. W.

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mills, J. E.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Milner, Major J.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Hardie, George D.

Morley, Ralph

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

Harris, Percy A.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Wellock, Wilfred

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Morrison, Robert C, (Tottenham, N)

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Mort, D. L.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Westwood, Joseph

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

White, H. G.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr.

Wise, E. F.

Hayes.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fielden, E. B.

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

Aske, Sir Robert

Foot, Isaac

Muirhead, A. J.

Atholl, Duchess of

Forgan, Dr. Robert

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

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

O'Neill, Sir H.

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

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Bird, Ernest Roy

Gould, F.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Blindell, James

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Pybus, Percy John

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Granville, E.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Gray, Milner

Ramsbotham, H.

Boyce, H. L.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bracken, B.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Remer, John R.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Ross, Major Ronald D.

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

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Butler, R. A.

Haslam, Henry C.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Carver, Major W. H.

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Christie, J. A.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Horrabin, J. F.

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

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Colman, N. C. D.

Hurd, Percy A.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Iveagh, Countess of

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Train, J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Darkeith, Earl of

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Warrender, Sir Victor

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Lymington, Viscount

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Wells, Sydney R.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

Dawson, Sir Philip

Messer, Fred

Womersley, W. J.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Millar, J. D.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Duckworth. G. A. V.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Elliot, Major Waiter E.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Elmley, Viscount

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Sir George Penny and Captain

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Euan Wallace.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 19, leave out from the first word "land" to the word "has" in line 21.
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I ask the House to consent to waive the question of Privilege.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 49, line 26, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 26, after the word "being" insert:
"in the case of agricultural land fifty per cent. of the net annual value of the hereditament and in any other case."
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment also raises a question of Privilege.
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 49, line 43, agreed to.

CLAUSE 61.—(Interpretation.)
Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 43, after the word "includes" insert "such."
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In place of the Lords Amendment, and the two following Amendments, I shall move, in page 49, line 43, to leave out from the word "includes" to the word "and" in page 50, line 4, and to insert instead thereof the words:
"any deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls."
There is not any serious difference between us and the Legislature in another place with regard to this matter. Under the Amendment which comes from another place you have to prove default on the part of the landlord instead of having to prove default on the part of the tenant. That makes it much easier for the landlord, and with that we do not propose to interfere. Unless the guilt can be fixed definitely on the landlord this liability will not fall upon him. Let me read the Clause as it would run with the Lords Amendments:
"The expression 'disrepair' includes such deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants."
In this Clause we are only dealing with houses unfit for human habitation. The proposal of another place would have this effect, that where a house is judged unfit for human habitation by reason of the default of the landlord, you would have to prove separately that these matters of painting and papering were injurious to health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am sorry to be so long. We agree with another place that default must be proved on the part of the landlord, and we ask the House to accept our proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
Sir K. WOOD: Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly read the Government Amendment again?
Miss LAWRENCE: It is in page 49, line 43, to leave out the words:
"deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls ex-
452
cept in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house and is not likely to injure or endanger their health;"
and to insert instead the words:
"any deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls."
Sir K. WOOD: This is an important matter, and it is quite right that the House should give some attention to it. It is no fault of this side of the House that we have to discuss this matter at this hour of the night. This is a somewhat abstruse and legal matter, and it is difficult to understand the implications of the Government proposal. Apart altogether from any matter arising from any default of the landlord, would the Clause as amended by the Government Amendment in no way make it obligatory upon the owner to carry out purely decorative repairs? If I can be assured upon that point I will not trouble the House further.
Mr. GREENWOOD Mr. GREENWOOD indicated assent.
Sir K. WOOD: In that case I think we may assent to the Government's proposal.
Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 43, after "deficiency" insert "arising from default on the part of the landlord."
Disagreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 1, leave out from the word "walls" to the word "and," in line 4, and insert "as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants."
Disagreed to.
Amendment made, in lieu of the Lords last three Amendments disagreed to: In page 49, line 43, leave out from the word "includes" to the word "and" in page 50, line 4, and insert instead thereof the words:
"any deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls."—[Miss Lawrence.]
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 51, line 33, agreed to.

CLAUSE 64.—(Short title, construction and extent.)
Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 38, at the end, insert as a new Sub-section:
"(4) This Act shall come into operation at the expiration of fourteen days from the date of its passing."
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May we have an explanation from the Minister as to why the particular number of fourteen days is put in?
Miss LAWRENCE: There have been a good many alterations made in the Bill, and it will take some time to print, and we give fourteen days for that purpose.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory Purchase Orders.)
Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 41, leave out "or for laying out as an open space."
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege. It is increasing the charge to the local authority.
Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 39, leave out "or the laying out of open spaces."
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
During the passage of the Scottish Housing Bill through this House Amendments were made, which were not made in the English Bill on this particular point. The Amendment now before the House is to bring the English and Scottish Bills into line. I have to point out that the House of Lords omitted to take out the words "or the laying out of open spaces." Therefore, I wish to move the consequential alteration which I have outlined.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 56, line 31, agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Modifications to be made in subsection (1) of section forty-six of the principal Act for the purposes of its application to the assessment of compensation under this Act in the case of lands comprised in a clearance area. Part II: Rules as to assessment of compensation applicable in the case of land purchased under Part I of this Act, not being land comprised in a clearance area.)

FIFTH SCHEDULE.
  TEMPORARY RYLES OF PROCEDURE.

    PART I.
    Applications to the High Court.
    1. An application under section eleven of this Act shall be made by an originating notice of motion to a judge of the High Court selected for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor.
    2. The evidence upon the hearing of the application shall be by affidavit except in so far as the Court at the hearing may direct oral evidence to be given.
    3. The notice of motion shall state the grounds for the application, and the date

    455
    mentioned in the notice for the hearing of the application shall be not less than fourteen days after the service of the notice.
    4. The notice of motion shall be served before the expiration of six weeks after the publication of the notice of confirmation of the order to which the application relates on the local authority by whom the order was made and on the Minister, and shall be entered at the Crown Office within the same period.
    5. The ordinary practice and rules of the King's Bench Division shall apply so far as they are applicable, and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or of these temporary rules.

    PART II.
    Appeals to a County Court.
    1.—(1) An appeal to a county court under section twenty-two of this Act shall be commenced by the entry of a plaint and shall be called an action.
    (2) The appellant shall be the plaintiff and the local authority shall be the defendant.
    2.—(1) The judge may inspect the premises to which the action relates in any case in which he thinks that such inspection is desirable.
    (2) The expenses of the inspection shall be paid in the first instance by the party on whose application it is made, or if inspection is made without an application, by the plaintiff.
    (3) The court shall have power to direct by whom the expenses shall be ultimately borne and in default of any such direction they shall be costs in the action.
    3. In default of any particular direction, the costs of the action shall be taxed upon the scale prescribed for claims between £20 and £50.
    4. The County Court Rules for the time being in force shall apply so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or of these temporary rules.

    PART III.
    Applications to a County Court for Determination of a Lease.
    1.—(1) An application to a county court for the determination of a lease under section forty of this Act shall be commenced by the entry of a plaint and shall be called an action.
    (2) The applicant shall be the plaintiff and the other party to the lease shall be the defendant.
    2. Where the applicant is the lessee of any premises he shall join as plaintiff any person to whom he sublets, or has mortgaged, the premises and who consents in writing to be so joined, and as defendant any person to whom he sublets, or has mortgaged, the premises and who does not so consent.
    3. It shall be the duty of the judge to be satisfied that all persons interested whose presence is necessary to enable him effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the action are before the court, and if necessary to adjourn the hearing to enable any such persons who are not already parties to the action to be joined as defendants.
    4. In default of any particular direction the costs of the action shall be taxed upon the scale prescribed for claims between £20 and £50.
    5. The County Court Rules for the time being in force shall apply so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or of these temporary rules."
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords with the said Amendment."
    This Schedule is rendered necessary by the fact that it will not now be possible for the rules dealing with High Court procedure under Clause 1 and County Court procedure under Clauses 22 and 40 to be made by the time the Bill comes into operation. These rules are made by the rules committee of the High Court and by the County Court, and it will not now be possible to have the permanent rules completed in time. Therefore this temporary set of rules has been framed.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for
    disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of Captain Bourne, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Compton, Mr. Greenwood, and Mr. Benjamin Smith.
    Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Greenwood.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

LAND VALUATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Darlington, in the county of Durham, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1930, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Standish with Langtree and Upholland, and part of the rural district of Wigan, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1930, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Newent, in the county of Gloucester, which was presented on the 8th day of July, 1930, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under
458
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Alton and Petersfield, in the county of Southampton, parts of the rural districts of Guildford and Hambledon, in the county of Surrey, and the rural district of Petworth and parts of the rural districts of Horsham, Midhurst, Thakeham, and Westhampnett, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1930, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Steyning, West Horsham, and Thakeham, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 8th day of July, 1930, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-Four Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECIAL ALLOWANCES.
  SPECIAL ALLOWANCES.
  DISABILITY (CYRIL WASTALL).
  DISABILITY (CYRIL WASTALL).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS, GLASGOW.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS, GLASGOW.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CHURCH ASSEMBLY MEASURES (COPIES, SUPPLY).
  CHURCH ASSEMBLY MEASURES (COPIES, SUPPLY).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICES (OVERTIME).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICES (OVERTIME).
POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONE CALLS, AUSTRALIA.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONE CALLS, AUSTRALIA.
  TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TELEGRAPH POLES.
  TELEGRAPH POLES.
  LETTER BOXES (CLEARING).
  LETTER BOXES (CLEARING).
  FACILITIES, LEYTON.
  FACILITIES, LEYTON.
  STAFF (DOWNGRADING).
  STAFF (DOWNGRADING).
  UNDERGROUND CABELS
  UNDERGROUND CABELS
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BOYS AND GIRLS, WOOLWICH.
  BOYS AND GIRLS, WOOLWICH.
  UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
  PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
  BRITISH-MADE MATERIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  BRITISH-MADE MATERIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY, CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY, CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  TARIFFS, PALESTINE.
  TARIFFS, PALESTINE.
  AMMONIUM SULPHATE (OUTPUT).
  AMMONIUM SULPHATE (OUTPUT).
  STRAW PACKING (REGULATIONS).
  STRAW PACKING (REGULATIONS).
  NEW ZEALAND TARIFF.
  NEW ZEALAND TARIFF.
  FOOD COUNCIL.
  FOOD COUNCIL.
  EMIGRATION.
  EMIGRATION.
  TOURIST TRAFFIC.
  TOURIST TRAFFIC.
ROYAL NAVY.
  SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
  SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  CHINA (PIRACY).
  CHINA (PIRACY).
  COLONIAL SERVICES (LEAVE).
  COLONIAL SERVICES (LEAVE).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR COACHES, LONDON.
  MOTOR COACHES, LONDON.
  TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS.
  TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS.
  OMNIBUSES, LONDON.
  OMNIBUSES, LONDON.
  EGYPT (BRITISH TROOPS).
  EGYPT (BRITISH TROOPS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  POISON GAS (EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS).
  POISON GAS (EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (REGULAR UNITS, ANNUAL EXERCISES).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (REGULAR UNITS, ANNUAL EXERCISES).
HOUSING.
  RENTS, SWANSCOMBE.
  RENTS, SWANSCOMBE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES.
  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES.
  AGED PERSONS.
  AGED PERSONS.
  OVERCROWDING.
  OVERCROWDING.
  RURAL WORKERS, SCOTLAND.
  RURAL WORKERS, SCOTLAND.
POOR LAW.
  CASUALS (PROSECUTIONS, KINGSTON-ON- THAMES).
  CASUALS (PROSECUTIONS, KINGSTON-ON- THAMES).
  OUT-RELIEF (RENT).
  OUT-RELIEF (RENT).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MENTAL ILLNESS (TREATMENT).
  MENTAL ILLNESS (TREATMENT).
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT.
  POLICE (HOME SECRETARY'S CIRCULAR).
  POLICE (HOME SECRETARY'S CIRCULAR).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).

Preamble
The Earl of Coventry—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR ON the Woolsack.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
CHURCHES AND UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LAND DRAINAGE BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with certain Amendments to which the Lords disagreed not insisted on, the Amendments made by the Lords to Commons Amendments agreed to and one Amendment disagreed to by the Lords insisted on, for which insistence they assigned a Reason.

INDIA: ROUND-TABLE CONFERENCE.
THE MARQUHSS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for India, if he has a communication to make to your Lordships.
THE UNDER-SEORETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, a statement is being made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister to-day, and I think your Lordships might wish to hear it. It is to this effect:—
"The House will remember that the suggestion of a Conference was first made in the letter addressed to me by
970
the Chairman of the Indian Statutory Commission on the 16th October. He suggested 'that in this Conference His Majesty's Government would meet both representatives of British India and representatives of the States.' His Majesty's Government have been considering how, without changing the character of the Conference as indicated in this letter, it can be used so as to give an opportunity to the representatives of India and this Parliament for exchanging and discussing views on the problems with which they are dealing and for understanding each other; and His Majesty's Government are impressed by the advantages that would result from the presence in the Conference of representatives of the other Parties in Parliament. Thus we believe that difficulties and differences will be removed and that the legislation to be undertaken hereafter will be facilitated.
"For this reason His Majesty's Government propose to invite the Leaders of the other two Parties to nominate representatives to attend the Conference from both Houses. But I must make it clear that His Majesty's Government cannot throw off their constitutional responsibility and must retain complete freedom in regard to the proposals which they will subsequently lay before Parliament as the outcome of the Conference to advance the purpose announced by the Viceroy after consultation with His Majesty's Government."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in view of the circumstances of the case, perhaps your Lordships would permit me, on behalf of my friends, to make a statement of policy, so far as we are concerned, on the present occasion. It is perhaps desirable that I should say something of the views which we on this Bench and those with whom we have the honour to act hold with regard to the Conference to which delegates from India are being invited in October next. We are as anxious as are His Majesty's Government to see an amicable settlement of the difficulties which have arisen in India, and no one will be more glad than we shall be should the Conference prove to be the means by which such a settlement is reached. But we hold very

971
strongly that, if any settlement that is reached is to possess the element of durability, it must be the outcome, not of a Party, but of a national, agreement. And it follows that we are prepared to accept the invitation which thas been extended to us by the Government to participate in the coming Conference.
Then as to the spirit in which we are prepared to enter the Conference. It has been stated by the Viceroy, speaking more particularly on behalf of the Indian representatives, that it is to be a Free Conference at which those who take part in it will be entitled to submit for consideration alternative schemes for the future government of India. We should naturally claim for ourselves the same measure of freedom as is to be accorded to others. We do not pretend to have any cut and dried scheme of our own. We should certainly require that full and careful consideration be given to the scheme contained in the Report of the Simon Commission. Indeed we recognise in the proposals set forth in Volume II of the Report the greatest constructive contribution which has yet been made towards the carrying out of the policy laid down and agreed to by all Parties in this country in August, 1917.
It sometimes seems to be forgotten that the Report is the outcome of an exhaustive inquiry by representatives of all three Parties in this country, who not only brought to bear upon the problems which they were called upon to investigate fresh and wholly unprejudiced minds, but who sought and received the collaboration of Indian Committees representative of the Indian Legislatures, both in the Provinces and at the centre. No one who has made a careful study of the Report can fail to have been impressed by the fact that the proposals put forward in Volume II have been made, not in disregard of, but, on the contrary, with a very clear recognition of, the special difficulties which have to be overcome. And while we should be prepared to examine with care and with sympathy any alternative proposals which might be submitted to us, we should certainly require that they should be subjected to the test to which the Commission have voluntarily subjected their own proposals —namely, the test of their practical applicability in the special circumstances which prevail in India and which have
972
been set forth, with undeniable fairness and with admirable lucidity, in Volume I of their Report.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, perhaps you will permit me to make a very few observations upon the statement that has been made by the noble Earl. May I, at the outset, express my complete concurrence with everything that has fallen from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition? The Party with which I am associated will of course accept the invitation of the Government. It will be ready to serve by its representatives and to do the utmost in its power to reach a settlement of this difficult and anxious problem. May I say, also, that nothing will give us greater satisfaction than to find, at the end of the deliberations of this Conference, that a settlement has been reached which will have the assent of Indians and of all Parties in this country? It is eminently to be desired that such an agreement should be reached. As the noble Marquess has said, nothing else can really be durable in the way of a settlement.
It is inevitable that at this Conference, free and open as it has been declared to be, there should be much and very important discussion and deliberation in regard to the Report of the Statutory Commission. It may be well to recall, for one moment only, what has happened. The Commission was appointed by the unanimous voice and vote of Parliament to perform duties under the Act of 1919. It proceeded to India and, as your Lordships know, laboured incessantly for a period of close upon three years, and in the end a unanimous Report has been presented to Parliament. That Report must necessarily be one of great authority and influence. It must be considered with the greatest care. At the same time, let me not be misunderstood. The recommendations made in that Report are not sacrosanct. They will be discussed at the Conference. They may be criticised at the Conference. I think the Chairman of the Commission himself has said that they were meant to advise and not to decide. It is a constructive scheme presented by them, reached after much anxious deliberation. It bears on the face of it the evidence of most careful thought and investigation. It is impossible for the Conference to sit without

973
having this Report before it and giving it a great part of its attention.
To my mind the hand of friendship that was extended to India by the invitation to the Conference was wisely extended. It offered to Indians the opportunity of coming to this country, of formulating their proposals and presenting their views to the Conference, and of taking part in all the deliberations and discussions of the Conference. Equally, it is open, as I think the noble Marquess has said, to delegates from the three political Parties here, if they so choose, to make their own proposals; but I think what is essential to be remembered is that all who attend the Conference should attend it with a free and open mind, prepared to consider all that may be said. We have some advantage no doubt in the Report that is already before us. No one can deny that. I think that those who took part in that Commission, who at great personal inconvenience devoted themselves for this period of nearly three years to the work which Parliament had entrusted to them, are deserving of the gratitude of the people of this country and especially of Parliament. I doubt very much whether there can be found a State document which bears the testimony of more careful thought and work than the Report which has been presented.
For this reason I confess that I much regret that His Majesty's Government have not seen fit to indicate any intention—indeed, I rather gather that they have expressed an intention to the contrary—of appointing a representative or representatives of this Commission to sit at the Conference. I think it is an unfortunate decision. No one who attends that Conference can present with equal authority and influence the views of the Commission, after their long study of the problems of India, as well as those who were members of that Commission, and I regret that we shall, according to what I understand from the Government, not have the opportunity of representation of that Commission at the deliberations of the Conference, for again it has been said that no one would be better pleased than the Commission if some better plan could be presented than that which they recommend. On the whole, while expressing satisfaction that the Government have seen fit to continue the course which has hitherto been pursued in Parliament, of
974
associating the three Parties in the work which is being done in connection with India, I regret that they have nevertheless omitted what I think would be a roost desirable step—namely, that of appointing a representative of the Commission.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, gave Notice yesterday of a Motion to advance the consideration of the Second Reading of the London Naval Treaty Bill from to-morrow to this day. That is for the sake of the convenience of the Ministers concerned and the order in which our business is sent down to the other House. I should propose, if this leave is given me, to move at once the Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Motion for the Second Beading of the Bill from to-morrow to this day.(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I now rise to move the Second Reading of the London Naval Treaty Bill. I do not apprehend that it can lead to much discussion, and certainly not to any difference of opinion, although I know one of your Lordships on the Front Bench opposite is going to help us in the passing of the Bill. The Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, provided that no person shall, without a licence from the Admiralty, build or despatch vessels of war which do not comply with the restrictions as to size and armament prescribed in the Washington Naval Treaties. The London Naval Treaty now prescribes restrictions as to the displacement and armament of submarines and

975
aircraft carriers, and we have been advised that, before ratifying the Treaty, legislation is required extending the restrictions on the building of war vessels in the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, to cover certain vessels—namely, submarines and aircraft carriers, included in the Schedule to this Bill. I think there can be no doubt about that proposition. I am not, of course, discussing the London Naval Treaty to-day, but we are bringing the provisions of the Act of 1922 up to date, so that we can comply with the undertaking which we have come under as regards the more recent Naval Treaty.
Clause 2 repeals Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, in which power was taken to implement the Washington Treaty very commonly known as the Root Treaty, to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war in so far as power was then taken to try and punish for an act of piracy any person in the service of any Power who violated the rules which were set out in Article I of the Root Treaty. That Treaty, as a matter of fact, never came into force, and it is generally recognised that it is not desirable that this clause, which would affect the officers both of this country and of other countries, should be left unrepealed, particularly as it may create misunderstanding between the areas of international and municipal law. Those are the two clauses in the Bill, and I move that the Bill be now read 2ª.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I venture to think the noble and learned Lord was perhaps a little rash in thinking I was going to assist him in the passage of this Bill. I admit that I do not propose to oppose the passage of the Bill, but I think there are certain criticisms and perhaps additions that ought to be made to the statement made by the noble and learned Lord. This Bill only consists of two clauses, and they are very simple, but they are not quite so simple as he told the House. Clause 1 extends the prohibition in regard to the building of ships which already existed after the Washington Naval Agreement, and it extends that prohibition to aircraft carriers of 10,000 tons and under and to submarines of over 2,000 tons. Parts 1
976
and 2 of the London Naval Treaty only enforce that prohibition on the five Powers that signed it, and therefore any other Power in the world is at liberty to build any kind of ship it pleases, with the one exception of Germany. Germany is forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to build any submarines at all, but she will be permitted, in spite of the Bill which is being considered by your Lordships, and in spite of the London Naval Treaty, to build aircraft carriers of any size she pleases; and of course any other Power which has facilities for building warships will be able to build submarines and other ships as well. Therefore, it means that this country and the four other signatories of the Treaty will alone be prohibited from building those ships.
Clause 2 is a much more serious clause. It is quite true that the Washington Naval Agreement was not ratified by all the Powers which attended that Conference, and therefore I understand that legally it was not binding on any of those Powers. As regards this Treaty, I am not sure—and the discussion in another place did not make it very clear either—whether this Treaty would be binding on all the Powers, supposing that one Power refused to ratify it. I think that is a point of some importance, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to make it clear.
The real point I want to bring before the House is this. This really is a step backward, and not a step forward. The Government tried, as previous Governments have tried, to abolish the use of submarines altogether. I think they were very rash in taking the line that a submarine was necessarily an offensive, and not a defensive weapon. I think the facts of the last Great War showed quite clearly that that was a position that one could not really sustain. However that may be, the point is that under the Washington Agreement Articles were signed by which the Powers agreed that certain rules of war should apply to both surface ships and to submarines. Now, when we turn to the London Naval Treaty we find that surface ships are omitted altogether, and we find that the rules in regard to submarines are somewhat modified. If your Lordships will turn to Article 22 you will find it reads in part as follows:
"In their action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules

977
of International Law to which surface vessels are subject."
I wonder if the noble and learned Lord will tell us what the rules of International Law in regard to surface ships are? My impression is that there is nobody at this moment who could tell us what the rules of International Law in regard to sea war are. The whole of the rules of International Law at sea were set aside completely by one of the Powers engaged in the Great War, and nobody, I believe, knows at this moment whether those rules, which everybody thought would be put into operation at the time of the Great War, are in operation or not. This Treaty says nothing about that, and that is a very serious omission. What is perhaps an even more serious omission is this. We have here an agreement to which five Powers have set their names. They agree that submarines shall not sink ships until they have put their passengers and crews into what they consider a "place of safety" —a rather indefinite phrase, but I admit hat it is very difficult to phrase anything which will really cover every conceivable case.
In the Treaty of Washington there was a penalty clause, by which anybody who broke the rules set down in the Schedules to that Treaty was liable to be tried as a pirate by a Court of Law. In this Treaty that penalty clause is omitted, and therefore it appears that if the subjects, even of the Powers who have signed this Treaty, violated the clause, they are not in the least bound to take any action against those individuals. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us why that clause has been omitted, because I cannot understand that any great nation agreeing to Article 22 in the London Naval. Treaty could possibly object to having a penalty imposed on its nationals who broke those rules.
There is one point further. Here, again, as in Clause 1, this Article 22 only applies to the five Powers who signed the Treaty. We all know that many other Powers have now got submarines, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will take every possible chance they can of seeing that every nation which is a member of the League of Nations will agree to a similar provision, and I hope at the same time they will press very strongly for a penalty clause being added
978
to the agreement which has been signed by the Five Powers in this Treaty. I venture to bring these matters before your Lordships only because I feel that this is really a step in the wrong, and not in the right, direction. Everybody agrees that submarine warfare has to be very carefully regulated indeed to prevent atrocities such as we were accustomed to fifteen years ago. Therefore, I think we are unwise, to put it mildly, in not having a penalty clause to see that the rules agreed to by the five Powers are enforced on their nationals and on anybody else where possible.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I will certainly endeavour to answer the questions put to me in a perfectly courteous and straight manner by the noble Earl opposite. I agree with him that they are very important questions. The first question he asked me was as to the countries—I think he took the illustration of Germany—who were not parties in any way to the London Naval Treaty. They are left exactly as they were, undoubtedly outside the Treaty. It would be impossible in a Bill such as we are now considering, which has to be passed in reference to a Treaty, to attempt to bring in all the other nations of the world, including Germany, who are not parties to the Treaty at all. I think the noble Earl will realise that, whatever our desires may be.
Secondly, the noble Earl asked me a question about International Law in reference to sea matters. I think I should be obliged to agree with him that at the present time there is great indefiniteness as to what the true law is between countries upon points with regard to what is sometimes called the freedom of the seas and with regard to the powers of belligerent countries against a neutral country. There are considerable difficulties in the matter. If he wants to define very accurately what the powers are he would have to have agreement, and that, of course, would be going quite outside the clauses of this Bill, which has reference only to the Agreement to which the five Powers are parties. It would be impossible to attempt to deal with a wider question of that kind in a limited Bill of this character. I think the noble Earl realises that you would want much wider agreement. I hope that such wider agreement may be attained in order that there

979
may be a common International Law upon those matters to which all Powers have agreed to be subject.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I only brought the matter up because the phrase is used in the Bill and, therefore, I really asked for a definition.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, I am afraid I cannot do more. If I did I should probably get into trouble and I think the noble Earl would be the first to criticise me.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I want to be quite courteous in my answer. With regard to a matter which was really in connection with the Washington Treaty, I think it is advisable that a particular regulation, if I might so call it, of this kind should be out of the way if a wider international agreement is wanted between the Powers. Undoubtedly it is a difficult matter, prima facie at any rate, to allow the officers of one country to be treated as pirates by the Court of another country which might have a different view of questions of this kind. It is a very difficult subject matter. Personally, I would only say that I think it is a wise course to repeal this section if we want, as I do and as the noble Earl has said he wants, a wider definition including International Law generally, including regulations to which all countries will be or ought to be subject in future. I hope I have answered the questions which the noble Earl asked.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), House in Committee: Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3ª, and passed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 12:
Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily and of sanitary premises required to be demolished.
(2) The compensation to be paid for land, including dwelling-houses or other premises thereon which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as unfit for human habita-
980
tion or injurious or dangerous to health shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section thirty-seven of the principal Act subject, as regards the first mentioned of those subsections, to the modifications contained in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of this Act which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the proviso in subsection (2) and to insert:—
"Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is dangerous or injurious to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the nineteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have to ask leave to make a small alteration at the beginning of my Amendment. It should read "Provided further that in any case" and so on, as printed. This Amendment is limited, as in the English Bill, to property acquired before the Scottish Housing Act of 1919 was passed, or to property actually occupied by the owner for his residence or business. It is designed to bring the Bill into line with the English Bill as amended in your Lordships' House. We are agreed as to compensation for badly kept insanitary property being limited to the site value. On the other hand, the evils that would follow from inadequate compensation when the house itself is not insanitary are, first, that the local authority might not put the Act in force. A town council representing a great number of small property owners, if they were going to be unjustly treated, would simply not put the Act in force. I can vouch for that by experience. Again, the owner would not seek to improve his property; and, thirdly, the owner might suffer by the fault of the regulations or the omissions of the local authority itself.
It has been justly observed by my noble friend Lord Jessel that the Government speakers seem to assume that every owner is either very rich and incom-

981
petent or else that he is a greedy speculator. That is really the reverse of the fact. It is not entirely the reverse of the fact, but it is substantially the reverse of the fact. These poor properties as often as not belong to poor men who have saved something and invested it in house property as a security which remains under their own eye. Therefore, I commend this Amendment to your favourable consideration as a needed provision to guard against injustice and hardship.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 20 and insert:
("Provided further that in any case where it is proved that a building which is dangerous or injurious to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the nineteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.")—(Viscount Novar.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government on this matter was very fully explained yesterday and I do not know that there is a great deal to add. We feel that if a house is internally dangerous to health it should be treated in a certain way and we do not see why a house which is externally dangerous to health, by reason of its position or by reason of having light and air kept from it, should not be treated in the same way. Why then should it be treated in this special way? The passing of this Amendment will mean that local authorities will have greater expense in their efforts at slum clearance. We feel that passing this Amendment would mean an obstacle in the way of slum clearance. The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment said some local authorities would not put the Act into force if they thought it was unjust, but I think they are very much more likely to be affected by the added expense. That is what we fear, and that is why the Government resist the Amendment. I want to say that we do not consider that all owners of houses which are considered slum houses are either rich or greedy speculators. We know some are, and we know some are not. We do not
982
come to the rescue of investors who have invested money in speculative companies and lost their money, and I do not see why we should come to the rescue of people who invest, in the highly risky investment of slum property; and particularly I do not see why we should do so at the expense of the effort that the Government are attempting to make to help to clear away these bad slum areas. In these circumstances, while I would like to hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn, if it is not I must resist it on behalf of the Government.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, there is an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who has asked me to move it, he being unable to be present, but I think Lord Novar's Amendment very nearly meets the point, except that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl wishes to delete the words "erected after the passing of this Act." His reason is this. The houses are being condemned on account of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. The landlord or owner is in no way responsible for this. Most of the houses in villages in Scotland, and especially those in narrow streets, have been built over a hundred years, and often very well built, and well kept up with perfect sanitation. It is rather ridiculous that the owners of these houses should not be compensated in the same way as is the owner who has built a house after the passing of this Rift The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that one reason was additional expense, but why should the additional expense fall upon the small owners probably? Surely, they are the least likely to be able to afford the loss which would be caused by the property being taken away from them in that way, and they only given its site value? The superior landlord is protected because he receives his feus, but the owner is in a very different position, and it seems to me grossly unfair that he should not be compensated in the manner which is suggested, at any rate by Lord Novar's Amendment, which does not go quite so far as the Amendment which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has upon the Paper, though I am prepared to accept Lord Novar's Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I hope that the Government will give way upon this

983
Amendment. As the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government said, this point was rather fully discussed yesterday. He knows as well as I do that in every case in the blue area compensation is allowed. As far as I can make out from the first clause of this Bill, narrowness of the streets is one of the reasons why you cannot give any compensation. I fail to see why, under those circumstances, something cannot be done by way of compensation for the man who, through no fault of his own, has a good house in a street that is narrow, and which it is thought a part of the duty of the local authorities to get rid of. I quite agree that it costs more money to the local authorities, but I think the House was of opinion the other day, when Lord Buckmaster was eloquently arguing on this question, that it is no argument for getting a thing cheaply that you are committing an injustice. I am glad to think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has admitted that a great many landlords are neither rich nor scoundrels, and it is a well known fact that many of the working class in this country invest their money in small property. It is one of the things they regard as safe, and I think you will perpetrate a very grave hardship on a deserving class of the community if you do not accept this Amendment. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, will persist, and, if he goes to a Division, I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Adjustment of rents]:
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Amendment down in my name upon this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out ("thy last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed, to.
Clause 28:
Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, &c.
28. A local authority, in preparing any proposals for the provision of houses or in taking any action under this or the principal Act, shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and
984
shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Department.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("natural") and insert ("beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power of sheriff to determine lease where premises demolished]:
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Amendment upon the Paper in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 38, after ("lease") insert ("and the action taken under the order has not had the effect of determining the lease").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35:
Amendment of s. 51 of principal Act.
(2) The proviso to Section fifty-one of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words "forms part of any park garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house" there were substituted the words "forms part of any park garden or pleasure ground occupied together with and required for the amenity or convenience of any house."
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "occupied together with and" and insert "and is." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is not quite drafting, but is almost so. It secures that land cannot be taken for housing purposes if it forms part of a park, garden or pleasure ground and is required for the amenity or convenience of the house. It is really interpretative. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("occupied together with and") and insert ("and is").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49:
Interpretation.
49.—(i) For the purposes of this Act and of the principal Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
the expression "disrepair" includes such deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is likely to injure or endanger the health of the occupants of the house, except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the default or neglect of the said occupants; and
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in the definition of "disrepair," after "deficiency," to insert "arising from default on the part of the landlord." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment brings this clause in the Scottish Bill into line with the Housing (No. 2) Bill for England, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will insert this addition to the definition—"arising from default on the part of the landlord."
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 19, after ("deficiency") insert ("arising from default on the part of the landlord ").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the definition in the Bill contains an exception where the deficiency is due to default or neglect of the tenant, and this exception is virtually the same as the exception proposed by the noble Lord. It has the same effect whether the deficiency is due to the default or neglect of the tenant or arises from default on the part of the landlord. It seems to me there is very little difference, and I hope the noble Lord will see that and not press his Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, we did not think this altered the meaning, but we were advised that the drafting would be a little better if we had these words in. I do not suppose it makes a very great difference.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I do not object particularly to this Amendment, provided that the House would then leave out the other words, because you cannot have them both in. We would then have to leave out the words after "house," but it seems to me that it is virtually the same thing, and I thought perhaps the noble Lord would see that.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Would you allow us to put it in now and consider it before the next stage?
LORD PARMOOR: We are taking the Bill right through to-day.
LORD MARLEY: We should have to take the other words out. We could not leave both in.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: If the noble Lord will give an assurance that the wording of the Bill has substantially the same effect as that proposed by my noble friend, I am inclined to think that he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MARLEY: I can quite definitely give your Lordships' House an assurance that it is merely another way of putting it.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: We will accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MARLEY: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 34, leave out ("Part I of").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I do not know how much you wish to hear about the Finance Bill. It is probably by this time very familiar to you from various channels. Perhaps I ought to draw attention to the fact that last year closed with a deficit of £15,000,000 in very round figures and that when the Estimates and adjustments for the present year were made that deficit was increased to £26,000,000. Of course both those figures cover a number of in and out transactions, but the net result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide for a deficit of £26,000,000 odd. He has provided, as your Lordships will be aware, for that deficit by an increase of taxation, partly upon beer to the extent of £3,000,000, and partly upon direct taxation—the Income Tax, the Surtax and the Estate Duties

987
against which there are some reductions —to the extent of £31,000,000 leaving a probable surplus of £3,000,000 odd.
Your Lordships may have differing opinions about that, but I would at any rate like to call attention to one thing —that it is a very straightforward Budget, that an attempt is made to pay our way as we go, and that there is some attempt made to maintain the Sinking Fund. That has been criticised from two points of view. Some people think it is partly nullified by hidden borrowing in another direction, and that it is, generally speaking, not adequate. On the other hand, the opinion is expressed that we need not provide so much. Between the two possibly a safe course has been adopted.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Estimates of Revenue, prepared, as your Lordships will be aware, by very experienced officers whose Estimates have been on the whole remarkably accurate, show that the Income Tax without taking into account any alterations—the Income Tax taken on the old basis—is expected to yield nearly £2,000,000 more than it did last year, and that Customs and Excise, also on the old basis, are expected to yield another £2,000,000 or more. I do not draw attention to that for any other reason than to point out that it ought to give a little encouragement to those who are apt to believe that this country is not making any profits. In spite of all our stages of depression and our incorrigible habit of self-depreciation, it does seem as if in the aggregate the income of the country is being maintained, and we are entitled to believe that it is even slightly increasing. The other feature of the Budget is, as I say, that an attempt is made plainly and simply to pay our way as we go. Opinions will differ as to whether the wisest taxes have been chosen for that purpose, but I venture to think that on the whole it is better that we should take up the position of placing the burden in proportion to the ability to pay. Certainly, Whether that is accepted or not, that has been the principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proceeded.
I want to say one word about another feature of this Finance Bill. Finance Bills inevitably are long and extremely complicated, but I think your Lordships may pass over all the other clauses if
988
you will allow me to refer for a moment to a set of clauses designed to prevent, I will not say the evasion of taxes, but the avoidance of taxes which has been up till now, in certain directions, law. It is part of the right of a British subject so to arrange his private affairs that he can avoid within the law any of the taxes which would fall upon him. It is also part of the right, and I should say the duty, of the Government when they discover such avoidance on any considerable scale to come to Parliament to get the law altered so as to prevent that avoidance in any way which is contrary to the spirit at any rate of the enactment of the tax. Care has to be taken, of course—care ought to be taken—in such a matter not to interfere, first of all, with the course of business, and secondly not to interfere with the quite legitimate arrangements of individuals which are not intended to avoid the taxes. I think the discussion which has taken place in another place and also consideration of the drafting of the clauses have shown that very great care has been taken to avoid both these things.
The clauses as they now stand may be taken to represent the best that can be done by those expert in the subject to counteract and to prevent that avoidance of taxation which has grown up—there are several forms of it which are dealt with in this Bill, as your Lordships will know—and, at the same time, care has been taken that these new provisions should not either improperly interfere with the proper course of business or injuriously affect individuals who are not engaged in the endeavour to avoid taxation. I think, perhaps, I shall consult the convenience of your Lordships if I do not say anything more on the subject, and I will therefore move now that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Passfield.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships can view with any great satisfaction the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book. I do not wish to quarrel with the clauses to which the noble Lord who has just spoken chiefly confined his attention—those dealing with the evasion of various taxes. The one merit of the Bill seems to me that it is an honest and straightforward attempt to pay for the extravagance of our Government during the last

989
few years. All this extravagance was not that of the present Government. Some of the provisions in this Bill mean that they will have to pay some of the debts incurred by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the present Government are not entirely guiltless of having added to the expenditure of the country. The last Chancellor of the Exchequer for five years played with a number of items of a capital nature. He raided reserves to meet current account until no reserves were left. Then, when there were no reserves, Mr. Churchill himself was not in office. The reserves disappeared and the Chancellor of the Exchequer disappeared at the same time. Now we find that Mr. Snowden's first duty has been to pay the debts which were incurred by other people, and in that he has the sympathy of everybody. We do not have much sympathy for people who have to pay their own debts, but, when they have to pay other people's debts, we feel it is rather hard on them to be obliged to do so.
None the less we must point out that he has added much to the expenditure of the country and to our debts. In twelve months there has been an increased Expenditure on a very large scale indeed towards the payment of people who are out of work. Last week there was a Bill passed, which reached your Lordships' House only this afternoon, called the Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill. The sting of the Bill lies in the tail of the Title. It is the fourth time in one single Session of Parliament that His Majesty's Government have been obliged to come to the Houses of Parliament in order that they may raise the money necessary to pay for the unemployed in this country. No wonder that, in these circumstances, His Majesty's Government find themselves obliged to add 6d. to the Income Tax, but that 6d. will help to cripple industry and to put off that revival in trade for which we hope. Increased taxation must always have an ill effect upon the business of this country and my complaint is that there is nothing in this Finance Bill which will prevent more taxation being necessary when the time comes next year.
It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised he would put on no more taxes next year, but I cannot help wondering whether, in view of the
990
large increase in the unemployment figures, he has not already regretted the promise he made when he introduced the Finance Bill. Unemployment has gone up no less than 800,000 in numbers since His Majesty's Government took office. Not only that, but the Minister of Labour said in another place the other day that she thought by the end of the year the numbers might be as great as 2,300,000. These figures are appalling and it is perfectly obvious and perfectly simple that the amount of money needed for these unemployed must be at least double what it was when the numbers were half the present figure. It is obvious there is no hope for a reduction in our Expenditure and an increase is inevitable and more taxation next year seems to me necessary. His Majesty's Government do not seem to be doing anything to avoid that increased unemployment in the course of the winter.
I am not sure that we are not all of us a little bit to blame in this matter. We are all too much used to seeing the figures of unemployment week by week in the newspapers. We are deadened to the appalling calamity involved by the fact that there are so many unemployed in the country. Last week £10,000,000 was voted in another place unanimously and all Parties agreed that it was necessary that it should be raised and spent. I wonder very much, ii there would have been the same unanimity if the House of Commons had been asked to vote a similar sum of money or even a larger sum for a Development Fund that would have given a large amount of money to a people out of work. Your Lordships will remember that a large Development Loan was part of the policy put before the people of this country at the time of the last General Election. £70,000,000 was all that we suggested should be spent in the first year. We were attacked as if it was almost an indecent suggestion to make. Yet, on the other hand, the interest would have been secured, it would have meant no increase in the taxation of this country, it would have been covered by the existing duties without levying another penny of taxation, while the interest payable has been swallowed up over ten times already in the amount of money that His Majesty's Government have raised in Unemployment Insurance Acts since they came into office.

991
It would have been far better to have raised that loan in order to keep a large number of people at work instead of paying them as we do under our present system. It was attacked as a quack remedy. There are circumstances where a quack remedy that is efficient is better than no remedy at all. Although the charge was made that some of the money might have been wasted, we are getting no return at all from the money now being spent in unemployment insurance and all that money is, from the remunerative point of view and from the point of view of adding to the capital of this country, entirely wasted at the present time. For my own part, I look upon this Budget as a necessary evil and I only regret that we cannot have from His Majesty's Government some statement that they hope to diminish Expenditure during the coming year, since the alternative must be a substantial and disastrous increase in the taxation of this country.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Earl, who is the leader of the Liberal Party, has made such profound remarks upon the Second Reading of this Bill. We have often passed this Bill in silence in your Lordships' House. There has never been a Bill in modern times which has called for so much comment as the present Finance Bill. I am not going to follow the noble Earl in his remarks about the expenditure of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, because that is past history and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is well able to defend himself, as he has done in another place. I would like to refer to what the noble Earl has said about the increased Expenditure in this Budget. A great deal of that Expenditure is, of course, due to the amount required for unemployment. One of the reasons for the increased unemployment which occurs in this country is the increased taxation. The increased taxation and the general lack of confidence in affairs and in this Government have no doubt got something to do with it.
I am not going to be unfair to the Government, because we all know that there is world-wide depression in practically every country, but, when the noble Lord refers, as he has done so eloquently, to the question of unemployment and to the amount of money that we have to
992
pay to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, I would remind him that we on this side of the House did all we could to tighten up the rules and regulations affecting the administration of what is known outside this House as the "dole." Nothing astounds foreigners and foreign countries more than the fact of the "dole" here. They do not understand it. When you explain that originally it was a three-party bargain between the employer, the workman and the State for purposes of insurance, they reply that they understand that but do not understand what it is now—a gigantic form of outdoor relief. I am glad that the Government have at last awakened to the fact and are appointing a Committee to enquire in that direction. We got very little help in this House from the noble Lord and his friends when we tried to tighten up the administration in the Act which passed through this House in the earlier part of this Session dealing with unemployment.
There is one question on which I would like a reply from the Government Benches. Why is it that this Bill has not been certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons as a Money Bill? It is rather unusual for a Finance Bill to come to this House which is not certified by the Speaker. I know the reason perfectly well. It is because there are a lot of clauses dealing with valuations and alterations in valuations of property, especially in the Metropolis. It does seem to me a principle that we ought to object to, the tacking on to a Finance Bill of extraneous matters. That was one of the great arguments against the Finance Bill of 1909. I hope that, when the noble Lord replies for the Government, he will tell us why there have been tacked on to this Bill matters that are not essential to a Finance Bill. I think that is a matter of constitutional moment, and I hope that, if possible, an adequate answer will be given from the Government Bench.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking on this Bill, and I do so only because the noble Lord in charge of it devoted most of his speech to the provisions for outlawing the land companies from the ordinary Companies Acts. He has led your Lordships to imagine that these companies were

993
formed to evade taxation. That is not a fair representation—in fact, it is a very unfair one. The companies were formed because of the unfair incidence of certain forms of taxation (especially one form) upon the agricultural industry as compared with any other industry. They were formed so that the Super-Tax on agriculture might be levied on the same basis as that on which it is levied on other industries.
Let me give your Lordships an example. Take an estate of £100,000 in land and an estate of 100,000 in Stock Exchange securities. Taking the two forms of investment over the last ten years, you world find that a large agricultural estate—I have such a case in mind—returned a revenue of less than nothing, while the revenue from the £100,000 in Stock Exchange securities came to about £4,000 a year. That was largely due to the Super-Tax unjustly charged on the agricultural industry. It was for that reason that these companies were formed and, if there is any shame connected with the matter, it rests upon the Governments that have raised an undue proportion of taxation from the agricultural industry, as compared with any other industry.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, except in courtesy to the noble Lords who have spoken, I do not think that I have any need to trouble your Lordships again, but I will venture to answer very briefly the remarks that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, was apprehensive of further Expenditure. All Governments are in the position of having to resist pressure for further Expenditure, as any rate in another place, and even in this House I apprehend that tomorrow, when we come to the subject of sugar, some pressure will be put upon us to incur further Expenditure from Government sources.
EARL PEEL: From your own side, I think.
LORD PASSFIELD: I only hope that the desire for no further increase in Expenditure will be remembered when this is done. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I would only say that, whatever lack of confidence in the Government there may be, it is a very significant thing that the estimated receipts from Income
994
Tax during the current year are actually more than they were last year and, I believe, more than they have ever been.
LORD JESSEL: Because the tax is higher.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am taking it on the same basis as last year, and of course I am not including the extra 6d. The figure is £239,000,000, as compared with £237,000,000. The fact is that, though there are parts of the country that are suffering very severely, in the aggregate the country is not making a lower income than it has been making. I am very glad that it should be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, asked why the Bill was not certified. The business of certification is carried out by the Speaker in another place, and the Government have no communication with him on the subject, but I should like to point out that, of all the Finance Bills that have come up to your Lordships since the Parliament Act, just about half have been certified and half have not been certified. I do not know on what grounds the Speaker has proceeded, but it is not an unusual thing for the Finance Bill not to be certified. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, made his own suggestion. He thought that it was because there were clauses in the Bill relating to valuation. That may possibly have been the case. It is often found convenient to put matters of that kind, which are exactly germane, for instance, to Income Tax, into the Finance Bill, and that practice has been repeatedly followed by Chancellors of the Exchequer of all Parties.
The noble Viscount, Lord Novar, reproached me, I think, for practically endorsing the outlawing of land companies. I did not mention land companies, and I did not have them in my mind at all, but the noble Viscount has, I think, given himself away, because he has explained very candidly that these companies were formed in order to avoid the unfair incidence of certain forms of taxation which were unjustly charged upon agriculture. I would only remind your Lordships that this was not done exclusively or mainly by those with whom I am generally associated. That wicked action was common to the Chancellors of the Exchequer on both sides. Of course those who seek to avoid taxation

995
always assume that the taxation is unfair and unjust. Whilst it is the right of every individual to seek to avoid taxation, so far as he lawfully can, it is equally the right of the Government to put it to the House of Commons that their intentions should be carried out and enforced. The noble Viscount's remedy is really against the Government which introduced and carried through such unjust charges and unfair incidence. I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government will consider favourably a recommendation submitted by the Government of Malta, that plans and estimates for breakwaters at Marsa Scirocco Bay, Malta, prepared by the chief engineer of that Administration, may be checked and revised as proposed by experts selected by the Admiralty as a step towards—what was described by the Minister for Air last year—making Malta the Clapham Junction of the Air; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a debate last year my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air recorded the happy phrase that Malta was destined by nature to become the Clapham Junction of the Air, and he hoped that this consummation would some day be realised. It may interest your Lordships to hear what has happened in the interval to bring that consummation more within the range of practical politics. The estimate of £25,000,000 for converting Marsa Scirocco Bay into a suitable landing place for flying boats, which was probably prepared by a facetious bureaucrat to adorn as it did the pages of Punch, has been checked most carefully by the chief engineer and the staff of the Malta Public Works Department on data ascertained in the building of a breakwater on the neighbouring Island of Gozo, and it is now established that the correct estimate is not £25,000,000 but £3,012,000, after allowing for contingencies, machinery, roads, quarries, and so forth.
Another factor in bringing this work more within the range of the works necessary for Imperial Defence is the so-called Naval Agreement, conspicuous for the disagreement which it has brought into prominence between two great Mediterranean Powers. If that disagreement, which centres upon the natural wealth of Tunisia as a desirable place for the over-flow of European populations, leads up to a crisis through the pacific penetration of the rapidly breeding flow of emigrants from Southern Italy overwhelming the non-multiplication of French colonists, we may have the making of a war and when that danger comes we shall either have to become belligerents or neutrals. If belligerents, we shall find that Malta is, hopelessly unprepared. If we are neutral we shall find that Malta can only be approached through the air by flying-boats; because other craft heavier than air will be unable to cross France or Italy.
Flying boats have now reached the stage of development when they can carry as many as a hundred passengers, and there is one on Lake Constance, built by the Germans, with 12 engines. On the other hand, other aircraft have to alight on three points, which must also be resilient, and experiments have shown that fifteen tons is the maximum weight that can be put upon the three points. Flying-boats can land on four-fifths of the area of the world. Other aircraft have to land on selected and specially prepared places, and therefore it is evident that, if Great Britain is to hold in the air any position comparable to her place as the greatest maritime Power, then we must be alive in preparing for the landing of flying-boats at strategic centres, and above all in one principal place of arms outside England. It takes time to prepare and adapt these suitable alighting places. It will take ten years to build the breakwaters at Marsa Scirocco Bay.
Another point of interest in the consideration of this question is the decision to go on working on the naval base at Singapore, or rather to go on spending a little money from time to time by way of not dropping this scheme. If the Singapore base can as facing the Pacific be compared to Southampton in reference to the Atlantic and if Malta is to be compared to Clapham Junction in reference to Singapore, it is of little use

997
spending money on Singapore when Malta, as the Clapham Junction of air-communication, is bereft of protected alighting areas and overcrowded with shipping. The Naval Agreement has not diminished the overcrowding of the harbours of Malta. The Naval Agreement or Treaty, or whatever else it may or may not be, has shifted the principal centre of naval strategy, and Air Force strategy goes with it, back again to Malta. The harbour of Malta is as crowded now as it has ever been, and so we hope it will continue for some time. The pressure is so great for mooring space that, with the best of goodwill, waters hitherto set aside by cherished agreements for use for commercial purposes are constantly and inevitably encroached upon by naval craft. The building of the breakwater at Marsa Scirocco Bay would put an end to that really serious and otherwise burning grievance, and would provide an anchorage for destroyers and other craft now crowded together in the harbours at Valetta.
There is a twin necessity in this matter. There is a naval necessity as well as an Air Force necessity. It is perfectly true that to ask for money from either Navy or Air Force Votes to the tune of £3,000,000, or £300,000 a year for ten years, is not a proposition likely to obtain a favourable response today from my noble friends on the Treasury Bench, and to-day I shall be satisfied if the scheme is not excommunicated. It is too good to be damned, and it should be remembered that there are certain features in the communications between the nations that are based on the configuration of the earth. The preeminence of certain centres is ordained by nature, and depends upon the law of the survival of the fittest. There was 3,000 years of talk before the Suez Canal was constructed. A Pharaoh of Egypt had to give up digging because the sand absorbed the water, and "to save his face" he bargained with a Phoenician admiral to bring his Red Sea ships round into the Nile. Heredotus says of the Admiral who asserted that, when going round the Cape, the sun was on his right-hand side, that if others believed the lie ho did not. It would be equally incredible to-day if the present Government were to show too much sympathy, and much less produce the money for the
998
immediate construction of this breakwater, but it is one of those things, ordained by nature, which is to be.
Great Britain will have either to go on with naval and military defence on an established and adequate basis, with a reasonable appreciation of modern inventions, or we must give it up; and whether we continue to be a naval and military Power, or whether we lapse into the position which satisfied Portugal 150 years ago, or Holland achieved a little later, the expenditure on making Malta the Clapham Junction of the air would not be wasted. The £3,000,000 spent on making Malta the principal Mediterranean centre of air traffic will produce prosperity and reward the outlay of capital. It will add to the glory of England to the end of time. The cost will be less than the cast of a cruiser, which twelve years hence, when this breakwater is finished, would have to be scrapped.
In conclusion, I have only one point to repeat and emphasise, which is that the future development of long distance air traffic must be by flying boat. We have neglected that branch of aircraft construction, but that branch of aircraft construction when it receives due attention will be useless, unless we provide places where alighting is easy and safe. We have neglected all these things in comparison to other nations, closing our eyes to expenditure which is inevitable. A few days ago I flew from England to Tunis. There I observed most businesslike flying boats subsidised by the French and Italian Governments—only 210 miles from Malta but without any air line. We can fly to Marseilles at no greater cost than travelling by the P. & O. express, and the ticket to Tunis by air is less than £20. And so far on account of diarchical difficulties in Malta we have done nothing, nothing, nothing. There is a naval school of thought which holds that Malta is indefensible in wartime against air attacks, except by counterattack by air. Where are our preparations for that sort of defence? They are very inadequate. We have few flying boats, none of which is able to fly to Tunis. If Malta becomes the Clapham Junction of the Air there will be on the spot much of the material for a rapid development on the outbreak of war. But

999
the policy of our Governments has of late been never to prepare for war, to wait till the eve of wax, to accumulate perhaps credit and sinking funds in time of peace, and to be able to tax and to squander money like water in hasty preparation when war comes. I hope that, as far as the flying boat base in Malta is concerned, there will be foresight and imagination and that the support for that project will year by year increase as its necessity is better understood.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, the request of the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, may, I think, be divided under two headings—the Clapham Junction aspect, and the Imperial and strategical aspect. I will deal with the Clapham Junction aspect first. It is perfectly true that I said to the noble Lord on one occasion, and I think in this House, that Malta might well one day be the Clapham Junction of the Air, but if that happy state of affairs should eventuate the principal beneficiary will be Malta itself and the inhabitants of Malta, who should therefore be prepared to contribute handsomely to so desirable a consummation. I notice in the communications put up from Malta through the noble Lord that there is no reference to Maltese participation in paying for this Clapham Junction of the Air. On the contrary, whereas I was wrong in stating that this breakwater would cost £12,000,000, I find that an Admiralty figure puts it at £3,000,000, and I find that the Maltese surveyor puts it at £3,012,451 10 s. 10 d. While that figure is set down with such meticulous care, I find that the Maltese contribution to that large sum is only £100—a fee to the surveyor. I am most desirous of assisting the development of aviation throughout the Mediterranean, and I am one of the first to recognise the important part that Malta might play in that development; but I think it would be more becoming on the part of the inhabitants of Malta if, while expressing this passionate desire to improve themselves, they were also prepared to put their hands in their pockets to a somewhat larger extent than £100 out of £3,012,451 10 s. 10 d.
Now for the strategical and Imperial aspect of the question. That, if I may say so with all respect to the noble Lord, has been somewhat misrepresented. It
1000
is perfectly true that Malta possesses very great intrinsic value from the strategical point of view, and the matter is being investigated. But the noble Lord himself has brought up this question already once, and on that occasion he stressed the economic side rather more than the strategic side. Whether it would be worth while to spend this large sum of money merely to have a seaplane base—an additional seaplane base, I should point out—in Malta is a matter for very mature consideration. You cannot plunge into expenditure of that kind merely as a luxury: the necessity has to be proved. And, though it would be highly convenient for visitors to Malta to be able to land by seaplane, I do not know that that should really influence His Majesty's Government in reaching a decision.
I can say this. Admittedly there is congestion in Malta. There are not sufficient aerodromes, and it would be very convenient to have an extra seaplane base. But from expressing that opinion to being able to assure the noble Lord that the money would be spent at the rate of £300,000 a year for ten years is a very great way. And, though I cannot promise him that he will get an answer to his question in the immediate future, I can assure him that he will get it before 3,000 years are past in any case, and that the matter is now being considered from its strategic and Imperial aspects. The noble Lord has asked for Papers. I really do not know what Papers I can lay which would satisfy him. He has had access, I have no doubt, in the past to most of the Papers in this connection. If there is any further information I can give him I should be delighted to do so, provided it is in the public interest.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, the Papers that I hoped would be selected for publication are the plans and estimates for converting Marsa Scirocco Bay into the Clapham Junction of the Air. I do not mind if in the Estimate the 10 s. 10 d. is left out. The argument of the noble Lord is, may I say, of a somewhat captious character. We are told that Malta offers to contribute towards this great scheme nothing but £100. The £100 may be compared to a sprat to catch a whale.
LORD THOMSON: Hear, hear.
LORD STRICKLAND: £100 is offered by the Government of Malta to obtain through the Admiralty a critical and, were it possible, a destructive report upon the plans and estimates prepared by the chief engineer of the Government of Malta. When the breakwater at Valetta was about to be built the same procedure was followed. The Admiralty accepted the offer of £100 and obtained the advice of Messrs. Goode, Sons and Mathews, then famed as breakwater specialists of high repute, and upon that report the interest of members of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament was awakened to the necessity of building the Valetta breakwater, which was invaluable during the Great War. It is a step on the hard road we have to tread to get rid of the difficulties—or, may be, the obstructions—on the road to achievement. But if the Maltese are told that they are contributing nothing but the plans and £100 the popular reply would be: "We are contributing the magnificent site known as Marsa Scirocco Bay." It is true Malta belongs to the Empire as much as it belongs to all or any of His Majesty's subjects, but nevertheless the fact that nature has endowed that Island with an invaluable site is held by the sons of the soil to be a gift which is most uncommon and unique in the whole Mediterranean, for the facilities it offers for being transformed into the Clapham Junction of the Air. Such a contribution is, in the opinion of the exponents of popular thought in Malta, a contribution of inestimable value. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA: STATUTORY COMMISSION'S REPORT.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM VISCOUNT BURNHAM had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether, having regard to Lord Irwin's statement at Simla on the 9th July, the Report of the Indian Statutory Commission will form the main subject of consideration and discussion at the Round-Table Conference which is to assemble here in November next; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, earlier in the afternoon we had an important if somewhat belated declaration from His Majesty's Government as to how the so-called Round-Table Conference was to be made up. But it was so limited that I regret to say it has not relieved me of the necessity of putting the Question that stands in my name. I may, however, be allowed to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the fact that they have not yielded to the threats of the Indian Nationalists as to putting representatives of the other Parties on the Conference. I read in the Indian News that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad had telegraphed to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Liberal Association in India slating that "if all Parties" were included "in the British representation" he and his friends might have to abstain. I am bound to say that this struck me as a very extraordinary thing, for the British representation surely is wholly and solely a matter for this Parliament to determine. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition for his reply to the Government and, both in regard to him and my noble friend Lord Reading, I shall await with interest what the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State has to say in reply and as to how far he accepts all the implications of their arguments.
It is almost unnecessary for me to tell you that I speak for myself alone and in no sense on behalf of the Statutory Commission of which I was a member. I have only tried, however rightly or wrongly, to do my duty as a Member of Parliament, speaking in a House which is still able to exercise freedom of debate without being fettered by the Executive. A week ago in another place the Prime Minister characterised this Question as "lacking in helpfulness." With all respect, I confess that I am unable to understand what he meant. The Prime Minister is a strong and an almost fanatical believer in the virtues of Parliamentary government. I am bound to say that it seems to me to be almost inconceivable that in other and more spacious days of Parliamentary annals a Conference fraught with such grave issues, not only to the peoples of India but to the British Empire, should be held without it having been the subject of inquiry and debate in both Houses

1003
of Parliament. If I am told that this has to be because the Prime Minister is afraid of the ebullience of a certain number of his own followers in another place, I say that is a matter for the House of Commons with which I have no concern. But it certainly ought not to affect the action of your Lordships' House which, surely, may be trusted to discuss Indian affairs with reticence and moderation.
In face of all these facts, I only wish to have a plain answer to the plain Question which I have set down upon the Paper. I want to rescue Indian affairs from a mystification which, in the long run, is bound to be as injurious to India as to British interests. That this mystification exists I have not the shadow of a doubt. I have here a whole sheaf of cuttings and interviews from the Indian Press with which I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships, but which I shall be very glad to show to any noble Lord who wishes to see them. It is not really with them a question of the Report of the Statutory Commission being condemned. It is a question of its being ignored altogether. As a matter of fact, it has been the subject of long and acrimonious debate in the Indian Legislative Assembly and inside and outside the leaders of the various political groups have been denouncing the Report of the Commission as reactionary and retrogressive and an insult to India, or, to use a favourite phrase of their own in India, it is as obscene, they say, as Miss Katherine Mayo's book. The Acting President of the Indian National Congress said that they were not going to pay the slightest attention to what the Commission recommended or did not recommend.
Your Lordships will realise that the Congress Party is the only organised party in India, and the conciliation of these Congress leaders is exactly the aim and purpose which is now being pursued by His Majesty's Government. Then Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, as an ambassador of peace who has been sent to carry on negotiations between the Government of India and Mr. Ghandi, expressed himself immediately in these terms. He said that the Report of the Commission was
"a piece of unparalleled political humbug and chicanery."
All these things show a confusion of mind and understanding which I hope very
1004
much will not be allowed to continue to the bitter end. It is not all on one side. I do not wish to bring the name of the Viceroy into this debate, but I am bound to say it is very difficult for any plain man to understand what he said on July 9 in the Address of which I have a report, and particularly the sentence in which he said:—
"From such a definition of the scope of the Conference it is clear that His Majesty's Government conceive of it not as a mere meeting for discussion and debate, but as a joint discussion of representatives of both countries on whose agreement precise proposals to Parliament may be founded."
How does that tally with the free and open Conference which, whatever it is, would not have a power of decision? I say that these things make it very difficult for the plain man here or in India to understand what we are about.
It has often been said that this Tripartite Conference was suggested in the beginning to the Prime Minister by the Statutory Commission. Your Lordships will have read in the first volume of our Report the correspondence that passed between Sir John Simon and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State know full well that this was not the proposal as it was originally made by the Commission, although I do not feel myself justified in going into details and telling your Lordships what the proposal actually was. As a matter of fact, I fully accept the letter of Sir John Simon as expressing the final views of the Commission. If your Lordships turn to it, I would ask you to note that Sir John Simon's letter was exclusively confined to adjusting the relations between British India and the Indian States, and that the further enlargement of the references to include the domestic affairs of British India and the political arrangements which might be necessary, only appears in the Prime Minister's reply of October 25 last year and not in the original letter. I say this because Sir John Simon, no doubt, fully interpreted the ultimate opinion of the Commission.
There has been a good deal of talk inside and outside, particularly outside, as to the expediency of the Round-Table Conference being free and unfettered in its methods and procedure. That is all very well but the Round-Table Conference, like all other conferences, must have an agenda paper for its proceedings,

1005
and for that agenda paper His Majesty's Government will be responsible. The agenda cannot spring, in all its bearings, by some process of mass incubation from the spontaneous energies of the seventy or eighty Indian gentlemen who are coming over here for the purpose. The Government itself must draw it up, and it is obvious that they must ask the Conference not to lay down general propositions, but to formulate concrete and practical proposals for renovating the constitutional arrangements of India. Generalisations, however high-minded and high-sounding, will not serve, and catchwords have been tried too often in India and have failed. It has been very truly said that catchwords not only catch but also imprison their victims, and that is a maxim which I should like the Government to ponder over. That is the reason why I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the Conference should found its discussions upon the Report of the Statutory Commission set up by Parliament and responsible to Parliament.
I have seen some mention of this Conference being engaged in treaty-making, but there is no question of treaty-making. The Indian Delegations of course are to be drawn from the various Indian groups and Parties, and a desperate effort has been made to bring them on to a common platform. That effort may be more successful than some of my noble friends think, and I am not one of those who believe that they are immediately going to break up into fragments. On the contrary. I think there will be sufficient agreement to scheme out some phrase or other and then to refer to the reports of the Nehru Committee and of the Indian Central Committee as embodying the principle and policy.
The first Question which I put to His Majesty's Government if they will answer it, but anyhow to suggest it to them, is, what sort of proportion is the British Delegation going to bear to the rest of the Conference? We know that they are coming over to the number of 60 or 80, and I have seen it suggested—of course I have no authority for this—that the British Delegation should be confined to two of the Government and one each for the Opposition Parties.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No; the Prime Minister said to-day in the other House three or four of each Party.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My noble friend corrects me, but that I hold to be in itself neither adequate nor complete. I venture to suggest that in no circumstances should the number of the British Delegation be less than twelve. It is quite true there would be no counting of heads. Possibly, in spite of what I have read out, no decisions will be arrived at, but there may he provisional decisions which will be brought up as an agreed solution of the Indian problem, and we always have to provide for the unforeseen. You have these huge Delegations coming from India, and surely Great Britain ought to have such a proportion of the representation as will enable us to meet the Indian representatives on a footing of equality, if not of numbers at least of dignity? I wonder what His Majesty's Government think the Conference would be like in order to cover all the diversities of Indian opinion; but at any rate it would be so large that a few more will make little difference either as to its nature or as to its proceedings. What is of the first importance is that we ought to be able to hold our own in the sight of the world. Out of the goodness of his heart the Viceroy is always expecting miracles to happen. But they never do happen. I am very sorry it should be so. I do not think they are going to happen now.
Finally—and then I shall simply put the Question as it stands—I may be allowed to say that there is only one line of policy in dealing with the affairs of the Indian Empire, and that I believe is the straight line. My only purpose in asking my Question is to clarify a situation that has become dangerously opaque and complicated. There is nothing that we should avoid so much in our Indian policy as the use of what Ruskin calls "masked words," words that have one meaning in one place and a different meaning in another; and it is just what we are doing now, and we shall suffer for it. I beg to put the Question that stands in my name.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I under stood that some of your Lordships were going to join in this discussion and thought I had better reply when I had heard what had been said. The noble Viscount has said a good many things not all of them connected with his Ques-

1007
tion on the Paper, and I am bound to say not all of them helpful. He stated early in his observations that he took the view that a Conference of this sort should not take place without a very full debate in both Houses of Parliament. I am happy to say that that view of his is not, I think, very widely shared, and the proper time, it would seem to me, for a debate in Parliament would be after the Conference has considered matters and come to such conclusions as it may come to, and when Parliament will have again fully to consider them and come to a final determination.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: When it is too late.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very much interested to hear the noble Viscount say "when it is too late," but I am not aware that the results of this Conference will bind Parliament any more than Parliament is bound by the conclusions of the Simon Report. It will be for Parliament to decide what is done after the Conference is over. Surely that is perfectly clear. The noble Viscount then made several suggestions. One of them was as to the number of persons who should be delegates in the Conference, and the proportion which they should bear to the Indian representatives. I am bound to say he did not give me any notice of the Question, and, for myself, it does not seem to me a very important one. Matters are not going to be decided, as he said, by the counting of heads or the counting of votes, but I take note of the fact that he thinks twelve is a proper number. His Majesty's Government will be very grateful to him for his advice, and will consider it in arriving at the numbers that they think proper, but I cannot say more about that because, first of all, as he very well knows, the matter is not settled, and, secondly, he gave me no notice of it.
Then he spoke about the British representation and the statement which I made earlier in the afternoon. That statement was a very carefully considered statement in very carefully considered words, and, I have nothing to add to it and nothing with which to qualify it. The statement must speak for itself. I cannot undertake to explain it any further. It seems to me to be perfectly
1008
clear. The noble Viscount went on to speak about the confusion of mind of many people, and the obscurity of the situation and of things that happened. I do not think that lie has helped to clarify the situation, as he suggested just now, himself. He spoke in what seemed to me a most extraordinary phrase of an ambassador of peace who had been "sent" to Mr. Ghandi. Sent to Mr. Ghandi: did the noble Viscount not read the letters which have passed between the Viceroy and the emissaries, and is it not perfectely clear they were in no sense of the word sent to Mr. Ghandi? I think the noble Viscount ought to be rather careful in these matters, and not misrepresent the action of the Viceroy.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: They were authorised to see Mr. Ghandi—specially authorised.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly. They could not see him without an authorisation, as he was in prison. That was the only authority required, but they were in no sense sent to Mr. Ghandi. They merely asked if they could see him, and whether they could try and ease the situation in India, a situation which, I think the noble Viscount would agree, would be all the better for being made as easy as possible. Then he made a reference, which was obscure to me, to a letter between Sir John Simon and the Prime Minister in the Report which, I understood him to suggest, did not represent the correct facts, or did not represent the letter that was really sent, or was first sent. I did not understand that reference.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I will explain. I do not wish the noble Earl to be under a misapprehension. I say it did not embody the original proposal of the Statutory Commission. It was an amended proposal.
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid the letter as printed in the Statutory Commission must speak for itself. The noble Viscount may have sources of private information.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I was there.
EARL RUSSELL: But I think the letter must speak for itself as it stands in the Report of the Statutory Commission. He then went on to ask about the agenda paper of the Conference. Well, I really do not quite know what the noble Vis-

1009
count is afraid of. It is perfectly obvious that the Conference must settle down to the discussion of something. As he says, you cannot have a body of sixty or eighty or a hundred people meeting just to discuss things in the air. There must be subjects, there must be questions before them. As a matter of fact we are, and we shall be until the time comes, engaged in settling the agenda paper and the form in which matters shall be discussed. If the noble Viscount wishes to render any assistance to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State on this matter, I have no doubt he will be glad ref any suggestion for the agenda paper or the shape it should take. But, unfortunately, I cannot give the noble Viscount the agenda paper to-day. It does not exist.
The other Question asked was the one on the Paper. It is—
"whether, having regard to Lord Irwin's statement ….the Report of the Indian Statutory Commission will Form the main subject of consideration and discussion at the Round-Table Conference."
Well, my Lords, how can I tell? Naturally, that Report, as was said earlier this afternoon by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, is a Report of very great authority and of an authority so much the greater that it is unanimous. It is the result of very careful inquiry. It obviously is entitled to the greatest possible respect. To suggest, as the noble Viscount seemed at one stage to suggest, or as was suggested I think earlier this afternoon, that anybody was anxious—no, I think he himself used the words that the Report was being ignored —to suggest that anybody would ignore—
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: In India.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes. The noble Viscount referred to a great many remarkable statements from people who have no connection with the Government, and extracts from the Press, and he appeared to think that those statements must necessarily be adopted by the Government. Why, I could not tell. I should imagine hundreds of statements could be obtained from the Indian or even the English Press in connection with this matter, but the Government have no responsibility for them. We could not ignore the Report, and it has never as far as I know been suggested
1010
that the Simon Commission Report could possibly be ignored. It is obviously a document of the first importance. The noble Viscount went on to ask whether it will be the main subject of discussion. Really, I scarcely understand what he means by that. It is obvious that none of the subjects in the Simon Commission's Report—and it deals, I think, practically with all possible subjects—could be discussed by anybody in the Conference without reference to and consideration of all that appears with regard to them in the Simon Report. If he means will the Delegates devote the principal part of their time to criticising and amending the Simon Report, or will they devote he principal part of their time to making some other suggestions of their own, neither I nor any other person can tell. The Conference will settle that for itself. We cannot be responsible for what the Delegates to the Conference are likely to say or what line they are likely to take.
As has been said, this is a Free Conference; that is to say, neither the Government Delegates nor any other Delegates to this Conference know what this Conference may do. They will be free. I understand that is the spirit in which the members of the Opposition Parties will join in the Conference. They will be anxious to hear what is said and then they will make up their minds at the end of the day when these things have been said. But if the noble Viscount means by these words—they are not quite the same, I think, as in the original form of the Question; the Question I think originally was "form the basis of discussion"
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Exactly the same.
EARL RUSSELL: It does not seem quite the same to me. If the noble Viscount means must the discussion be on the Simon Commission Report and nothing else, quite obviously the answer is in the negative. On the other hand, if it means is the Report to be put aside and never looked at, again the answer is in the negative, and I should have thought the question hardly requires answering. But I do not really understand the Question. Obviously the Conference must consider a Report which carries great weight. But the Report

1011
cannot bind the Conference and it is no more intended to bind the Conference than it is intended to bind Parliament. It is a Report which will be given proper weight at the proper time and the Conference will be entirely free to accept it or to reject it or to modify it. That surely is the only possible meaning of a Free Conference. I do not know what else the noble Viscount means and I think that these suggestions which have been made that the Simon Report is going to be ignored, or, on the other hand, that it should be treated as the Tables of Stone, are both very harmful suggestions quite inconsistent with the idea of an entirely Free Conference.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, a number of points have been raised this afternoon both by my noble friend Viscount, Burnham and by the noble Earl. Some of those points I think I really need not discuss because they have been covered by the statement made earlier this afternoon by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I only wish to mention very briefly two points. I entirely agree with my noble friend behind me, Viscount Burnham, that the representation of the different Parties—of course I am speaking now of the Opposition Parties—should be substantial. I am very glad indeed that the Government have decided—and I think, if I may say so, very wisely decided—that the different Parties should be represented. Otherwise, it would surely have been a very truncated and imperfect Conference, and very unrepresentative of the whole of British opinion. But I understand from the noble Earl that the Government have not yet arrived at a decision as to numbers and their minds on that point are to a certain extent open.
I would like to call the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that very severe labours and very heavy duties and responsibilities will be cast upon those members who represent the different Parties. This Conference is likely to take a very considerable time. To deal with these difficult constitutional matters, probably committees will be set up to deal with different aspects of the question, and it will be throwing I think an intolerable burden on the representatives of the different Parties unless you have such a substantial number that they may he able to relieve each other and dis-
1012
charge these special duties in s satisfactory way. I hope the Government will give full weight to what has been said on that point as to substantial representation. The Government, I understand, still have this question under consideration, and may I add that I hope the noble Earl will be able to make a statement on this subject before Parliament rises? We know how very unsatisfactory it is if these ragged ends are left and questions are left undecided, and we have not the opportunity of questioning him. I hope, therefore, we shall have a definite answer given to us on these matters while we are still able to discuss and debate them. Otherwise the matter will go over until October when Parliament meets again. Possibly there will be newspaper controversy and so on, and I think the noble Earl will realise that it is much better if we can have an answer before that date.
The only other point I wish to mention is that I am very anxious to reinforce, as strongly as I can, the suggestion already pressed upon the noble Earl to which, I think, he was not able to give an answer at the moment—that is the question of inviting the Chairman of the Royal Commission to take part in the Conference. It seems to me that it will be of immense value that you should have a representative on the Conference of the Royal Commission who is able—and nobody could do it better—to expound all the different points and all the constitutional aspects of every question, to explain to this large number of men assembled in the Conference why certain decisions were taken, or, what is perhaps more important in many cases, to say why certain decisions were not taken and why a certain course was adopted. I have seen—I am bound to say rather to my surprise—some of these criticisms and objections raised to the admission of Sir John Simon by eminent Liberal politicians and others in India. My noble friend mentioned Sir Chimanlal Setalvad. I do not understand what their objection is. Do they think that the forensic talents of Sir John Simon are so great that it will be impossible for any Indian politician to cope with them? A great many Indian lawyers will be coming over from India very well versed in all these matters and very capable of taking part in these debates.

1013
I should have thought it would be a great pleasure to them to meet with a man of Sir John Simon's calibre in these deliberations, and to have the pleasure of discussing these things with him.
What can be the objection to it? I can see none. After all, we want to get to the bottom of these problems. Surely, it seems absurd, when you have sent out a Commission which has reported unanimously, when you have appointed as Chairman of it a great lawyer, Sir John Simon, who spent two years over the business, that those people, the most competent to speak on the subject, are to be excluded from the Conference themselves. I hope that before Saturday the noble Earl and his colleagues will give consideration to this point. We all want the Conference to be as successful as it is possible to be, and nothing would contribute more to the careful elucidation of all these points than the presence, at the invitation of the Government, of Sir John Simon as Chairman of the Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): Does the noble Viscount press his Motion for Papers?
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: No, my Lords, I do not press it. I have had my answer such as it is.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TOWN PLANNING.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE asked His Majesty's Government when they propose to introduce legislation to amend the Town Planning Act, 1925. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to try to initiate a detailed discussion as to how the Town Planning Act might or might not be amended, but I heard it rumoured that the Government had a Bill in preparation and I would suggest that, if that were so, it might be for the convenience of those now engaged in preparing town planning schemes if the Government could inform them as far as possible or what their intentions are. I understand there are over five million acres of country now under some kind of town planning control. Most of these schemes are of fairly recent origin and it is obvious that a good deal has been learned
1014
about town planning since the last Act in 1925. From the experience I have had of a joint scheme in Sussex, we have learned that, if you have a large number of local authorities trying to operate a big joint scheme under the present Act, there is a tendency for the machinery to become very complicated indeed, and the complication seems to be rather unnecessary in view of the alterations in local government made last year. I cannot help feeling that this procedure could be simplified fairly easily and would result in greater expedition of these schemes on which we are engaged. That can be done by a comparatively small Amendment.
There is one other matter, the question of the name of the Bill. It has always seemed to me rather anomalous that, if you want to do something to preserve the countryside, you should have to try to raise popular enthusiasm for an Act apparently designed on the face of it to plan towns, in another place a Bill was introduced some time ago by a private member called fie Rural Amenities Bill and, though there may he some doubt in high judicial circles as to the precise meaning of the word "amenity," it conveys a meaning to a large number of people who want to do something to prevent the destruction of the countryside but who are at present absolutely unaware that any action can be taken at all under an Act of Parliament. There are, of course, many other things that could be said into which it is unnecessary to enter at present. Everybody has the utmost confidence in the Department and all I am asking is when they are going to have an opportunity to introduce an amending Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I gratefully thank the noble Lord for speaking on this subject and also for the suggestion he has made. Everyone knows that he, as a large landowner, has been definitely helping in the regional scheme to which he has referred and which, in fact, includes a large portion of his own property. So far as the Government are concerned, they are entirely in sympathy with the noble Viscount and thank him for bringing this matter forward and for what he has already done in regard to this regional scheme. One word upon a special topic. With regard to what, he said about the word "amenities," we dis-

1015
cussed it a good deal the other day and I find that, in both the French and English dictionaries, it is regarded as the largest possible word including all that is desired to be included in a scheme of this kind. It is curious that in both the definition is the same, "agreeableness," a word meaning everything that can be included with advantage and everything the noble Viscount would desire to include in laying out a rural amenities scheme.
The Government quite realise that the existing statutory provisions are inadequate for present requirements. It is recognised that there is a general demand for an extension of planning powers, not only of built areas of towns in order to secure that re-development, as and when it takes place, shall be carried out on a settled plan, but also in rural areas so that development may be brought under proper control and the amenities—I use that word again—of the countryside preserved and respected. Steps have already been taken to obtain the views of members of local authorities and of important organisations who are interested upon the difficult and complicated questions which, as the noble Lord knows, do arise and the Government will take the question of legislation on this subject into careful consideration when framing their programme for next Session.
I only wish to add two words to that. First of all we are grateful for any suggestion which in any form the noble
1016
Viscount himself will be prepared to convey to them, and, secondly, as he has indicated himself, as one of the questions involved is the position of some of the local authorities in amendments in order to make the scheme work more easily, we shall be glad to hear any suggestion he makes himself on those points. Of course, he would not expect me to give a pledge for next Session, but we hope and desire, in accordance with the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount, that this subject may be brought within our programme and that we may be able to deal with it effectively. It is perhaps a Bill that we might adequately consider in this House in the first instance. We ought to make every possible use of this House for technical legislation of this character, which is not political and which stands outside the ordinary atmosphere of politics. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the answer that I am able to make.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until to-morrow at half-past three o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.

DARTFORD AND PURFLEET (THAMES) TUNNEL BILL.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.

    KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL.
    ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
REDCROSS STREET BURIAL GROUND (BRISTOL) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Sixth Report by the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered to-morrow.