Sitting of 30 July 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Argyll Trust Estate Bill [Lords],
Ordered,
"That, in the case of the Argyll Trust Estate Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order
Confirmation (Essex) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Macclesfield and Willesden) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    GAS PROTOCOL.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any States that have failed to ratify
    460
    the gas protocol; and whether any information has been given to the Secretary-General of the League as to the reason why these signatories have refused to ratify?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Twenty-six of the signatories to tale Protocol have now ratified it, but the following nineteen signatories have not yet done so: Abyssinia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Greece, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Salvador, Siam, Switzerland, United States of America, and Uruguay. I understand that the Netherlands are taking steps to ratify the Protocol shortly. So far as I am aware, none of the above States has informed the Secretary-General of the League of its reasons for not ratifying the Protocol.
    Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those States which have ratified have done so without reservation?
    Mr. DALTON: I should like to have notice of that question. The conditions of ratification vary in different cases.

    EUROPEAN FEDERATION (FRENCH MEMORANDUM).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received to his suggestion to the French Government that Monsieur Briand's proposals for a United States of Europe should be placed on the agenda for discussion at the Assembly of the League of Nations in September; and whether he will, in any event, himself take action in the matter?
    Mr. DALTON: Monsieur Briand has not yet replied to the observations offered by the various Governments on his memorandum. He will, no doubt, consider the course to be pursued in the light of these observations. No further action by His Majesty's Government seems to be called for at present.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind at a later stage the importance of bringing this matter forward in some manner, for discussion at the Assembly this year?
    Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and the Government, in their reply to Monsieur Briand, made it clear that they thought that it would be very helpful if a discussion could take place at the Assembly.

  RUSSIA.

    DEBTS AND CLAIMS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to make any statement before the end of the Session as to the progress of the negotiations with the representatives of the Soviet government on the question of debt claims?
    Mr. DALTON: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement yesterday in the course of the debate on the Foreign Office Vote.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Have the Soviet Government shown any disposition to recognise these claims?
    Mr. DALTON: They have shown a disposition to do what was never done under the previous Administration, namely, to come into a joint committee with us and discuss the matter.

    RELIGIOUS SITUATION.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further reports from His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on the subject of religious persecution; whether he has any information as to whether any of the laws relating to religion have been repealed or amended; and whether, before the end of the Session, he proposes to make a statement as to the position and the policy of the Government?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to his reply of 2nd July, except that he hopes shortly to issue a collection of the Soviet Laws relating to religion in the form of a White Paper.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be desirable to answer the last part of the question and state whether it is proposed to make a statement on the present
    462
    position and policy of the Government, inasmuch as no such statement has been made for twelve months?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is it safe yet for British ministers of religion to go to Russia and practise their vocation and what punishment—[Interruption.]
    Mr. FOOT: Will this White Paper be circulated during the Parliamentary Recess; or is there any likelihood that it will be available before the House rises?
    Mr. DALTON: We are trying to get out the White Paper as soon as we can. I hope it will be available to Members during the Recess.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS (VISAS).
    Captain EDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with regard to the complaints he has received from British subjects that the Soviet Government has refused their visas to visit Russia, giving no explanation except that they were personæ non gratæ he will have inquiries made as to the reasons for the Soviet Government's action?
    Mr. DALTON: The admission of foreigners into the Soviet Union is, of course, a matter within the sole discretion of the Soviet Government. As compared with last year there appears to be a large increase in the number of British visitors to the Soviet Union. His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow is, however, making unofficial inquiries into two cases, in which visas have been refused to British tourists.
    Captain EDEN: Has the hon. Gentleman had many complaints?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. We have had remarkably few.

    BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the First Commissioner of Works what is the length of the lease for which the house rented for His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow has been taken; what will be the annual rent; and to whom will it be paid?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The lease is for 20 years at a rent of £4,500 per

    463
    annum. The rent will be paid to the Central Bureau for Assistance to Foreigners.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Was there no additional payment for improving and rebuilding the house, and can the right hon. Gentleman say the terms of the Ambassador in this country?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I know nothing about the terms of the Russian Ambassador in this country. If the hon. Baronet will put down a question, I shall be glad to answer the earlier part of his supplementary question, but I think I gave an answer to that some time ago.
    Sir A. KNOX: As this £4,500 has been paid to foreigners, could the right hon. Gentleman see that some of it is given to the original and rightful owners of the house, two ladies who are now penniless?

    EGYPT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any communications have passed between the British and Egyptian Governments on the subject of the Egyptian constitution and electoral law?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir, except in so far as reference was made to these questions in the Prime Minister's statement of 17th July, a copy of which was communicated to the Egyptian Government by the High Commissioner.
    Mr. MANDER: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate, as a result of yesterday's debate, that there is no majority in this House for any policy except one of complete neutrality in all respects?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are there any negotiations in progress between the Government and Nahas Pasha on this question?

    SIMON BOLIVAR CENTENARY.
    Mr. MATTERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken to participate officially in the proposed celebration in London on 17th December of the centenary of the death of Simon Bolivar, the South American liberator?
    Mr. DALTON: The question whether there should be any official participation by His Majesty's Government in the proposed celebration is now receiving careful consideration.
    Mr. MATTERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the European Governments are participating in this historic anniversary, and that British participation would be very welcome in the South American States?
    Mr. DALTON: I am very glad to know that. We are looking into the matter carefully to see what form, if any, the participation will take.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RATINGS (TRAINING SYLLABUS).
    Mr. T. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider giving selected naval ratings before they are commissioned a similar syllabus of training to that for special entry cadets, and thus obviate their being hampered if, during the period immediately following selection, they were not distinguished from the ex-cadet sub-lieutenants, whose preliminary qualifications would be quite different?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The suggestion will be brought to the notice of the proposed committee, which as stated on 23rd July in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain Hall) (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 2127), will consider all aspects of the problem.

    BUILDING PROGRAMMES (REDUCTIONS).
    Miss PICTON - TURBERVILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what financial economies have been effected by the cutting down or annulment of naval building programme since the Government came into office, and the estimated net saving calculated on the building programme under the London Naval Treaty up to 1936?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The reductions effected by the present Government on the building programmes of 1928 and 1929 are estimated at £12,000,000. As regards the second part of the question, the building programmes for the respective years up to 1936 have never been

    465
    decided upon, and the conditions do not admit of any more definite statement than that contained in Command Paper No. 3547 dated 15th April, 1930.
    Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any hope that great further economies can be made between now and 1936, since, of course, the present Government will still be in office then?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That appears to be an extremely hypothetical question.

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. MOSESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been made regarding leave with pay for chargemen, recorders, yard craftsmen, etc., in His Majesty's dockyards and other naval establishments, as apart from the general holidays?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Orders have been issued providing for an increase of three days in the allowance of annual leave with pay for the following grades of employés in Admiralty Civil Establishments at home:
    Chargemen of trades of titular grades and of skilled labourers;
    Recorders of work;
    Leading men in works department; and
    Storehousemen and laboratory men.
    No increase of leave with pay has been given to yard craftsmen.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider establishing a Royal Dockyard Benevolent Trust to perform for dockyardmen and their surviving dependants the same services as are performed for naval men and their surviving dependants by the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The establishment of a Dockyard Benevolent Trust on the lines of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust is not regarded as practicable.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything through such a trust for those who suffer distress in this service?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Gentleman must have regard to the general conditions operating in the Admiralty
    466
    service as compared with the conditions operating outside that service. He will probably know that there is no comparison in starting such a fund as he proposes as that of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust which commenced with the aid of a large sum of money already in existence at the time.

    TUBERCULOSIS (PENSIONS).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there has been any increase in recent months in the percentage of cases of tuberculosis which have been granted pensions on account of attributability to the conditions of service?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: During the past six months 70 per cent. of those invalided for tuberculosis have been granted attributable pensions. This compares with 68 per cent. in the case of those invalided during the year 1929.
    Dr. DAVIES: is that an indication on the part of the Admiralty that they are exercising a little more leniency?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: We are doing our best to see that no man really suffers from any undue restrictions. Every case is properly considered and wherever there is real ground for deciding that there is attributability, the pension is awarded.

    WHITLEY COUNCIL (REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the National Union of Government Ship Joiners, Furnishers, and Allied Trades has the great majority of the membership of those engaged in this particular craft, and yet is not represented on the Whitley Council, whereas the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, which only has seven members in Devonport dockyard, seven in Portsmouth dockyard, and none in Chatham dockyard, is represented in all three ports on the Whitley Council: and whether he can see his way to give the National Union of Government Ship Joiners, Furnishers, and Allied Trades representation on the body that decides matters affecting the workers concerned?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: With reference to the first part of the question, details of the membership of these organisations are not within the knowledge of the Ad-

    467
    miralty. The constitution of the Whitley Council provides for representation thereon of Trades Unions recognised by the Trades Unions Congress, and no other Unions. The National Union of Government Ship Joiners, Furnishers and Allied Trades is not a Union recognised in this way.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this union represents practically all the men engaged in this particular craft, and that they are not entitled to representation because the Trade Union Congress will not recognise them? Is not the whole purpose of the Whitley Council to give representation to the men in accordance with their own desires?
    Mr. MOSES: Would not this be a departure from the old principle upon which the Whitley Council has been based?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That is so. This particular union is only one of many small unions which were not included in the constitution of the original Whitley Council, and in view of the fact that the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal may tend to disturb the present successful working of the Council, I am not prepared to consider it.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a small union, but contains practically everybody engaged in the trade, and that an injustice is done to them by causing them to be represented by those who do not belong to the trade at all?
    Mr. MCKINLAY: Is it not a fact that this organisation is composed of men who left and blacklegged the Amalgamated Society?

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ADMIRALTY).
    Mr. T. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons for the increase of personnel at the Admiralty from 2,062 ti 1924 to 2,932 in 1929-30, seeing that the personnel and tonnage of the Navy have considerably decreased during the same period?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I presume that the date 1924 mentioned in the question is an error for 1914. The reasons why the
    468
    Admiralty require a larger staff to-day than in 1914 have been explained in great detail on various occasions, and it has also been explained that the aggregate number of naval personnel borne and the aggregate tonnage of the Fleet have only a remote bearing on the work at headquarters, and consequently on the staff needed for its performance. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a brief summary of some of the main reasons for increase, and if he desires a fuller explanation of the matter, I would refer him to the statement in Appendix 3 to the Second Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, 1928.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Considering the large reduction in tonnage, should there not be a corresponding reduction in personnel?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It all depends on the functions to be performed. As explained on many occasions by my predecessor, the First Lord in the Conservative administration, the duties to be performed now are very much more complicated than they were before the War. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would look at the Paper to which I refer in my answer and satisfy himself as to the real situation.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is no overlapping of duties at the Admiralty; and can he say whether an incorporation of Departments might not be made?
    Following is the summary:
    Some of the main reasons for the larger Admiralty staff are the following:

    (1) Largely increased duties, due partly to legislation and Government decisions since 1914, partly to the greater difficulty and complexity of nearly all business since the War, and partly to such post-War developments as the League of Nations, International Conferences, and more frequent Imperial Conferences.

    (2) The revolution in naval material, due to the necessity for providing both for and against air, submarine and mine warfare; great developments in naval guns, projectiles, torpedoes, radio-telefiraphy, electrical and other machinery; the substitution of oil fuel for coal.

    (3) Owing to the greater complication in the equipment of modern ships, the

    469
    personnel of the Fleet is more specialised and subdivided, thus rendering the work of administering it more difficult and laborious.

    (4) Much new work has resulted from numerous changes making for the greater contentment and welfare of the men, and all questions affecting the lower deck and industrial staffs are more closely and sympathetically studied.

    (5) The naval staff, of which only a bare nucleus existed in 1914, is now more adequately organised.

    (6) A scientific staff has been added, whose function is to bring scientific research and experiment to bear upon naval problems.

    (7) Much work formerly done by contractors is now done in Admiralty establishments, e.g., the manufacture of naval cordite and torpedoes, and the production of Admiralty charts.

    (8) There is a closer scrutiny of proposals for new expenditure, and of all items of cost of existing services, in view of the great need for economy; and up-to-date business methods of checking costs, involving the employment of professional accountants and technical costs officers have been introduced.

    (9) The serious under-staffing existing in almost all Admiralty Departments in 1914 has been to a large extent remedied.

    THOMSON ISLAND (LEASE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state on what terms the licence was granted for a lease of Thomson Island to the firm of Johan Rasmussen and Company?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): A full statement on this matter was made at the time when the arrangements referred to in the question were completed, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy which will, I trust, give him the information which he desires.
    Mr. DAY: Has any option been given to this company to continue their tenancy after 10 years?
    Dr. SHIELS: No, not so far as I am aware.

    PUBLIC WORKS (TIMBER).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken by his Department to bring to the notice of Government Departments, local authorities and public companies the desirability of making use of timber of Empire origin in connection with their works?
    Dr. SHIELS: The attention of the Colonial Governments concerned has been called by my Noble Friend to the tenth report of the Imperial Economic Committee on the marketing of timber and steps have been taken by the Empire Marketing Board for some time past to bring to the notice of Government Departments, local authorities, railways, port and harbour authorities and public companies the desirability of using Empire timbers. Work in this direction is also done by the Imperial Institute and the Forest Products Research Laboratory. I would add that the Colonial Office maintains close touch with the activities of these bodies.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the requirements of the Government can be supplied by the Dominions?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, I am aware of that, and I shall be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman a statement showing how much is done to bring to the notice of Government Departments, as well as to private firms, the resources of the Empire.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: That being so, why is any purchase made outside the Empire?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the hon. Gentleman brought this to the notice of the First Commissioner of Works?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will give details as to any timber purchased from Russia used by his Department during the last 12 months?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The bulk of the timber used in connection with the work of the Department, which must comply with the specification referred to in my reply to the question asked on the 28th instant by the hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne, is purchased direct by contractors, and no records are kept

    471
    in my Department as to the source of supply. The value of the timber of Russian origin purchased direct by the Department during the last 12 months was £2,228.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Having regard to the answer of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Empire could supply all our needs in timber, will not the right hon. Gentleman have the patriotism to inquire—
    Mr. SPEAKER: No. 63.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member makes imputations in his supplementary question, he cannot expect to be allowed to proceed.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the First Commissioner of Works what quantity and value of timber of Empire origin and of Russian origin, respectively, has been purchased by his Department in the last 12 months?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The total value of timbers purchased direct by the Department during the last 12 months was approximately £14,200. Of this amount £5,665 was paid for timber of Empire origin and £2,228 for timber of Russian origin.
    Captain MACDONALD: In view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade the other day as to the conditions under which timber was produced, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no Russian timber is imported into this country?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all the timber he buys is good timber, cheap, and suitable for the purpose?
    Mr. LANSBURY: As I informed the House the other day, the instructions of the Department are quite definite, that, wherever suitable wood can be purchased in this country or in any of the Dominions or Colonies, it must be so purchased, but timber that cannot be purchased within the Empire must be purchased wherever it can be obtained.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the American Government has prohibited the importation of Russian timber because
    472
    it is produced by convict labour, and will the British Government take similar action?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The Office of Works has a great many duties, various in their character, but it is not its duty to inspect imports of any kind into this country.
    Several HON. MEMBERS—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a debate.

    KENYA (FINANCIAL STATEMENTS).
    Mr. CHARLES BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of requiring the Government in Kenya Colony to issue its financial statements year by year in such form that it will be possible to ascertain the amounts spent directly for the benefit of natives and non-natives, respectively, under the following, among other, heads: administration, education, medical services, defence force, agricultural and veterinary service, forests, railway and road construction and maintenance?
    Dr. SHIELS: As will be seen from paragraph 14 of the memorandum on native policy in East Africa recently issued by His Majesty's Government, the Government of Kenya, as well as the other East African Governments, is required to furnish annually a detailed statement relating to native taxation and expenditure on native services. This statement, together with the ordinary financial statements, would appear to be sufficient for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view; and, in the circumstances, my Noble Friend does not consider it necessary to give any further instructions in the matter. A copy of my hon. Friend's question and this reply will, however, be communicated to the Governor of Kenya and to the Governors of the other East African territories.

    CYPRUS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any change in the constitution of Cyprus, which has existed for the last 50 years, is under consideration?
    Dr. SHIELS: The working of the present constitution has been recently under review, but no immediate changes are contemplated.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling on the subject among certain sections of public opinion in the island?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, I am aware of the state of public opinion in Cyprus on this and other matters.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not that feeling largely confined to the lawyer class and a few of the priests?

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

    COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been reached and, if so, what, as to how unofficial representatives of the economic interests of the Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories will be associated with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the economic side of the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend proposes to invite a certain number of unofficials with special knowledge and experience of the economic interests of the Colonies to serve on a panel, members of which will hold themselves available for consultation on economic questions as and when required.

    AGENDA.
    Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the agenda for the Imperial Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Imperial Conference will afford an opportunity for a general review and discussion of all matters, both in the political and economic spheres, of common interest to the members of the British Commonwealth under the following heads:

    (1) Inter-Imperial relations.

    (2) Foreign policy and defence.

    (3) Economic questions.

    As regards inter-Imperial relations particular questions for consideration
    474
    will be the recommendations of the recent Conference on the Operation of Dominions Legislation, including certain matters expressly mentioned in the Report of that Conference as requiring further examination, namely, nationality and the suggested tribunal for the determination of inter-Imperial disputes; also other matters of a constitutional character cognate to and arising from those discussed in the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Conference of 1926. Under the head of nationality the special question of the position of married women will be included.
    As regards foreign policy and defence the agenda will cover the further development of a peace and arbitration policy. This heading will include the question of the reduction and limitation of armaments, together with any specific subjects connected with foreign policy which may require examination and various aspects of defence.
    On the economic side the following will be the main headings:

    (a) General question of the trade of the Empire, including capital investments and establishment of branch industries, the effect of successive tariff changes and the extent and effect of inter-Imperial tariff preferences, and also of other factors such as cartels, etc.;

    (b) bulk purchase and price stabilisation;

    (c) development of inter-Imperial trade by trade commissioner services, exhibition and general publicity;

    (d) oversea settlement;

    (e) the past and future work of the Imperial Economic Committee, the Empire Marketing Board and the Imperial Institute;

    (f) questions of co-operation in agricultural research (including cotton growing), forestry and minerals;

    (g) special meetings of experts on industrial research and standardisation;

    (h) transport and communications, including review of the work of the Imperial Shipping Committee and the Oversea Mechanical Transport Council, survey of steamship services, development of civil aviation, cable, radio,

    475
    broadcasting, postal and news services. Under this heading would come also the question of the proposed agreements relating to merchant shipping legislation recommended in the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation.

    Mr. WISE: Will the heading of bulk purchase include the consideration of schemes for the reciprocal development of British exports to the Dominions as part of the general scheme of purchase?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Everything which is raised germane to the subject will be considered.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes that the imperial Conference can deal with questions of reciprocal preference as long as we in this country have banged, bolted and barred the door against the Dominions?

    EAST AFRICA (JOINT COMMITTEE).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the procedure to be adopted in receiving evidence from East Africa regarding the Government's proposals for closer union; and whether unofficial communities interested are being informed through the Governors of the territories how they will be permitted to make their representations?
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the intention of the Government to appoint a Joint Committee on East Africa in the Autumn Session, be will seek an early opportunity of indicating when it will sit so that those in East Africa wishing to attend may be able to make their plans well in advance; and whether he will consider the desirability of instructing the Governors of Kenya, Uganda, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, and Tanganyika to ascertain during the Recess the views of all representative bodies on the statement of Government policy for subsequent submission to the Joint Committee?
    Dr. SHIELS: As I informed the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on the 25th of June, the question of the method of procedure of the proposed Joint Committee in primarily one for the consideration of the Chairman and Members of that Committee, when it is appointed. So is the question whether it will hear oral as well as written evidence; but it is the hope of my Noble Friend that it will decide to do so. In the meantime it is not possible for any authoritative statement to be made on the subject. For the same reason, it is not yet possible to ask the Governors of the territories concerned to invite representative bodies in those territories to prepare evidence for the Committee, but it is understood that such bodies are fully aware of the position, and in a position to make all necessary preparations. My Noble Friend would, of course, take the earliest opportunity of informing the East African Governments of the date on which the proposed Joint Committee would begin its sittings, but this cannot be decided until the Committee is actually set up.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Could the hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of people in East Africa who wish to come to this country to give evidence, give some indication as to whether he proposes that the committee should be set up when the House meets again, or whether there is likely to be delay until after Christmas?
    Dr. SHIELS: The present understanding is that the Motion to set up this committee will be made as soon as possible after the House resumes.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May we take it that, if the East African deputation arrives in this country some time in November, that will probably be the most convenient time?
    Dr. SHIELS: I would not like to commit myself any further than the statement which I have made. The present intention is to set up the committee as soon as possible after the House meets again.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this committee include a representation of the natives to give evidence?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have no knowledge of what representations are to be made.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will there be any facilities, in the way of subsidised passages, given for native representations to come over here?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There should be a further question on that.

    WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what further measure of assistance the Government are prepared to grant to Mauritius and those West Indian colonies which are seriously affected as a result of the present crisis in the cane sugar industry?
    Dr. SHIELS: There is a debate this afternoon in another place in the course of which my Noble Friend will necessarily make a statement, and, in the circumstances, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will prefer to await that statement, which will be fuller than I could give in answer to a question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPERIAL PRIIFERENCE.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what colonies give a tariff preference on imports from the United Kingdom and from other parts of the Empire; and what is the extent of such preferences, if any?
    Dr. SHIELS: As regards the first part of this question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 9th instant. As regards the second part of the question I would refer him to the President of the Board of Trade's reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green North East (Major Nathan) on the 11th of February last. It would be impossible within the limits of a Parliamentary reply to give a full statement of the figures.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman give a list of names?
    Dr. SHIELS: I gave a list of names, as I have said—not every one, but nearly every one.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the answer he gave
    478
    to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle was not a full statement in regard to Colonies which give preference?
    Dr. SHIELS: It was as full a statement as was possible within the conditions. As the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, it is hardly possible without a considerable amount of labour to get the details which would be necessary to give a wholly complete answer.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Dr. DAVIESasked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement about any proposed action with reference to the cotton report.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, I believe that there is general recognition in Lancashire of the need for urgent action on the cotton report. Following upon the meeting at Manchester on 4th July, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the representatives of the industry, copies of the report and of his speech have been circulated to each section in the industry. Since that date the various sections have been holding meetings and actively considering the report in its application to their particular problems. A further meeting of the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations was held at Manchester yesterday. The decisions taken at this meeting will definitely further the application of those recommendations in the report which particularly affect the joint committee. I would add that my right hon. Friend is, and will continue to be, in close touch with the industry regarding these and any other developments arising out of the report.
    Dr. DAVIES: May I take it that the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government is simply one of sympathetic observation, and letting Lancashire get on with this matter itself?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, my hon. Friend must not stop there. This observation is undoubtedly a sort of pressure.

    PENANG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
    Miss PICTON-TURBERVILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for

    479
    the Colonies whether any steps have been taken towards the abolition of the muitsai system in Penang?
    Dr. SHIELS: I invite my hon. Friend's attention to the Governor's recent report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
    Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Does that report deal with Penang or Hong-Kong?
    Dr. SHIELS: It is an account of the conditions in the Straits Settlements, of which Penang is one. I would point out that there is nothing remaining now of the mui-tsai system in the Straits Settlements except the name.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the mui-tsai are not merely legally free, but that there is a system of registration similar to that in Hong-Kong?
    Dr. SHIELS: No, there is no registration, hut there is a mui-tsai ordinance which provides for these girls complete legal freedom.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But does not the hon. Gentleman know that in Hong-Kong they had legislation which was not acted on until registration was introduced?
    Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to study some documents which I wish to show him which seem to contradict the reply he has given?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, if the hon. Lady will likewise undertake to study the document to which I have referred.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    BOMBING RANGES.
    Major GLYNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry, when making inquiries for land to use as bombing areas or for other purposes, consult the War Office or other Government Departments in order to find out if other land owned by the taxpayer could be taken over rather than spend money in the purchase of land whose owner is an unwilling seller?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Yes, Sir; the War Office is invariably consulted whenever it appears that War Department land could be utilised, and in one or two cases land has been made available for bombing ranges in this way. Other Government Departments would similarly be consulted if they happened to have suitable land within the required radius.
    Major GLYN: In the particular case in North Berkshire were the War Office consulted about suitable sites at Chisledon and elsewhere?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have other questions on the subject of Berkshire.
    Major GLYNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will be willing to arrange for a conference on the ground, tentatively selected, on the Downs of North Berkshire as a practice bombing area in order that officers of the Royal Air Force and officials of the Air Ministry may meet representatives of the trainers and owners of race horses and other persons engaged in the care and provision of forage for these race horses whose training quarters will have to be moved from the district if this project is persisted in, thus causing unemployment and disturbing what is a prosperous local industry?
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether sanction has been given to the proposal to utilise for bombing practice a stretch of the downs near Lambourn of great beauty, bearing in its midst and on its margin historical monuments of exceptional interest; and, in view of the protests made by county councils and other authoritative local bodies, will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. EDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the public protests by the Berkshire Joint Regional Planning Committee against the proposed formation of a bombing practice ground at Lambourn, it is intended to proceed with the scheme?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes, Sir; my Noble Friend is prepared to send representatives to a meeting as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. I would like to point out, however, in view of the

    481
    widespread misconception which seems to prevail, that all that has happened to date is that a preliminary and provisional reconnaissance has been made of this, as of other areas, and that in any event the proposal is one for the use, not of live, but of practice bombs, which merely make a puff of smoke and can be heard only a very short distance. The small effect of these practice bombs, which would do no damage to a person standing five yards from where they fall, and only make an indentation in the ground some three inches in diameter, could be demonstrated at this meeting.
    Major GLYN: Arising from that very interesting reply, does the hon. Gentleman really think that the dropping of these bombs from a height of 7,000 feet would not disturb race horses which use the ground at the present time?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not know that I am called on to express an opinion on that point, but I would insist on the fact that the whole plan is dependent on future consideration; there is nothing definite about it at all.
    Major GLYN: Will the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that the Government will not use compulsory powers to acquire the land, against the wishes of everybody in the district, until Parliament again meets?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I can give the hon. and gallant Member that assurance quite definitely.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that there will be no final decision between now and the next Session?
    HON. MEMBERS: The Minister has said so!
    Major GLYNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many areas there are in Great Britain reserved for the use of the Royal Air Force for practice in bomb dropping with live bombs of all kinds; what is the danger zone of these targets; whether they are used throughout the year; if not so used, in what months is the training of pilots in bomb dropping usually carried out; and whether it is necessary to find land removed from the ordinary military training areas?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first part of the question, there are in Great Britain five bombing ranges, where high explosive bombs are dropped. Practice bombs, that is, bombs which only emit smoke, are dropped also at these ranges, and there are, in addition, four ranges at which only practice bombs are dropped. As regards the second part, the danger area varies with the height at which practice is carried out and the type of bomb used. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, most of the ranges are used throughout the year, but practice is mainly carried out during the summer months. No bombing takes place at week-ends or on public holidays. As regards the last part of the question, land in military training areas would be used if it were suitable and available within the area in which a bombing range is required.
    Major GLYN: If it is so inoffensive, why are there restrictions on certain days such as public holidays?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think the terms "offensive" and "inoffensive" are largely relative.
    Mr. THURTLE: Are the aeroplanes which are carrying out this bombing home defence aeroplanes?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: It is a question of home defence, certainly. This question has nothing to do with Berkshire.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Has the Minister taken into consideration the suitability of shim areas after evacuation as bombing centres?
    Mr. EDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that five public rights of way in frequent use cross the area proposed to be used as a bombing practice ground at Lam-bourn; and what steps he proposes to take to obviate danger and inconvenience to the users of these rights of way?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The whole question of establishing a bombing range in this area is still under consideration. If it is decided to establish the range, my hon. Friend may rest assured that the existence of any public rights of way and the measures to be taken to obviate danger and inconvenience to persons using them will be among the matters to be fully and carefully considered.
    Mr. EDE: May we take it that there will be no question of closing public rights of way if this land is acquired?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think my answer covers that point. Every matter will be taken into full consideration, legal questions as well as others.
    Mr. EDE: Does that mean that there will be no application made to Quarter Sessions, or that a Bill will be proposed to this House to close those public rights of way across one of the most bracing parts of the Berkshire Downs, which is one of the best resorts of holiday makers?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question down on that point.
    Major GLYN: Will the Government take compulsory powers, seeing that the owner of the property will certainly refuse to sell unless compulsory powers are taken?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already said that the question of compulsory powers will not be taken up until the House meets again. In the meantime, the whole question is being considered really as a possibility and not as a certainty.

    OVERHEAD CABLES.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the increasing danger to occupants of aircraft from the high-power overhead cable system now being erected throughout the country, he will consider the setting up of a committee with representatives of the Air Ministry, Electricity Commission, and Guild of Air Pilots to inquire into the best methods of minimising this danger?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Administrative arrangements already exist whereby all proposals for the erection of high-power overhead cables are referred by the Electricity Commission to the Air Ministry for consideration from the point of view of their effect upon the safety of aircraft. These arrangements work satisfactorily and my Noble Friend does not think that any further advantage would be secured by the appointment of a committee such as the hon. and gallant. Member suggests.
    Captain BALFOUR: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his reply refers
    484
    to the placing of cables around aerodromes? If so, will he answer my question, which deals with cables across country and not just round aerodromes?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer refers to all such considerations, because obviously the more of these cables there are the fewer emergency landing places there will probably be. The same remark applies to buildings.
    Captain BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few months there have nearly been several fatal accidents owing to this danger, and that there are possible schemes for putting lights on the top of the grids and so making the whole line of grids visible, although the cable will not be visible?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Those points are worthy of consideration, but I think my answer covers the point raised.
    Mr. MANDER: Is there not great need for better co-ordination between the Departments corncerned, and will not the Minister consider the matter further?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am quite prepared to ask my Noble Friend to consider the matter further, but so far I am not aware of any difficulty in regard to co-operation.

    AVIATION (ACCIDENT, MEOPHAM).
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether a public court of inquiry is to be held to inquire into the cause of the recent accident to an air liner at Meopham?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: My Noble Friend will not be in a position to decide whether a formal investigation by a court should be held until the preliminary investigation by the Inspector of Accidents has been completed.
    Captain BALFOUR: If a public court of inquiry is held, will the findings be published?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: That is another question.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether there is any immediate prospect of the introduction of uniformity of prices of electricity in the London area; can he say when this matter

    485
    was last considered by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority; and can he give particulars?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am afraid that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that an investigation of the position in the London area has been made by the Joint Authority, but that before coming to conclusions, the authority has been awaiting the issue of the report of the Committee appointed by the Electricity Commissioners to consider the general question of uniformity of electricity charges and tariffs. The report has just been put on sale by the Stationery Office and the Joint Authority will no doubt proceed to complete their investigations.
    Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any hope of reaching finality on this subject?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, I am afraid 1 cannot, because it is bound up with the history of London electricity, and existing legislative considerations.
    Mr. HARDIE: Was not the Act of 1926, which was brought in for the purpose of standardisation, adopted with the object of having a uniform price for London?
    Mr. MORRISON: I do not think it is reasonable to put the bulk of the blame on the Act of 1926. The difficulties go back much further than that.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the Bill became necessary because of complaints made in London?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am very anxious to oblige my hon. Friend about the Act of 1926, but I really cannot put all the sins of the electrical world on that Act.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister of Transport aware that I am not referring to the sins of 1926, but I am pointing out that the 1926 Act was proposed in order that there might be no sins?
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that in London the various authorities are opposed to this innovation?
    Mr. MORRISON: Quite so. It is perfectly true to say that the organisation of the electricity supply in London is relatively chaotic, and it can only be put right by fundamental legislation.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport whether any application has been made by any local authority for powers to supply electricity to the areas of Crayford, Barnehurst, and Swanscombe?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: No such application has been made to the Electricity Commissioners in respect of Cray-ford and Barnehurst. These places are in the area of the West Kent Electric Company, Limited, and are being supplied by that company. With regard to Swanscombe, which is in the authorised area of the Kent Power Company, this was included in an application made to the Commissioners by the Corporation of Gravesend in May, 1925. I understand that at a local inquiry into the application, the Power Company gave evidence that they had already carried out extensive works and laid distributing mains in Swanscombe and that the Commissioners eventually refused the application of the Corporation.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the Minister of Transport take into consideration the grave dissatisfaction of all the users of electricity who are at the mercy of this retail company, which does not manufacture electricity at all, but merely retails it from the London Power Supply Company?
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give comparative figures showing the development which has taken place in the undertaking of the Chiswick Electricity Supply Company during the last five years, and the development in similar undertakings under municipal control, together with the prices charged in each case.
    Mr. MORRISON: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    Following is the answer:
    It is not possible to find an undertaking which is exactly similar in all points to that of the Chiswick Company, but I have caused a comparison to be made with the area under the control of the Beckenham Urban District Council, which affords a reasonably close comparison; the results are as follow:

    Comparative figures for Undertakings supplying two residential areas bordering on the Administrative County of London.

    —

    Chiswick Undertaking.

    Beckenham Undertaking.

    Approximate population of area

    41,000

    33,000

    Units sold.

    1921–22

    1,632,000

    1,511,000

    1928–29

    3,165,000

    5,181,000

    Increase in 7 years

    1,533,000

    3,670,000

    Per cent. increase on 1921–22

    94%(or about 13% per annum.)

    242%(or about 34% per annum.)

    Average revenue. Per unit sold.

    1921–22

    5·14d.

    5·73d.

    1928–29

    4·57d.

    2·63d.

    Decrease in 7 years

    0·57d.

    3·10d.

    Lighting and domestic supplies only; Units sold and average revenue.

    1921–22

    785,000 (7·69d.)

    703,000 (9·14d.)

    1928–29

    1,987,000 (6·01d.)

    3,977,000 (3·01d.)

    Increase (or decrease) in 7 years

    +1,202,000 (-1·68d.)

    +3,274,000(-6·13d.)

  TRANSPORT.

    AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Transport in what centres of the Metropolitan area automatic traffic signals are now in operation; whether there is any intention of extending the system; and, if so, at what points?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: No automatic traffic signals have so far been erected in the Metropolitan area, but there are manually controlled installations in Piccadilly and Ludgate Circus. It is proposed, subject to the concurrence of the local authorities, to make an experiment with an automatic installation in Oxford Street. The question of erecting such signals in other parts of London is under consideration.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the Minister of Transport satisfied that, so far as his experience has gone, they have been successful, and does he think it is desirable to continue them?
    Mr. MORRISON: Within their limits and for their purpose, they have been successful, but neither of the experiments so far come up to the modern standard of the Ministry of Transport.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: What is the modern standard of the Ministry of Transport?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is a very high standard.

    DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to advise local and county authorities as to the lay out and width of approach roads to the proposed Dartford-Purfleet tunnel?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The consulting engineers are engaged in the preparation of detailed plans, etc., and I hope that it may shortly be possible to reach definite decisions upon the points mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    ROAD SCHEMES, SOMERSET.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Transport whether the road schemes known as the Bromley-Stanton Drew and the Lower Clutton, which were sent by the Clutton Rural District Council to the Somerset County Council, have been received and considered by his Department?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Application was made to my Department for a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of the road schemes to which my hon. Friend refers. The schemes were not considered to be suitable for a grant from the Road Fund, and it was suggested to the rural district council that

    489
    they should make application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for financial assistance.
    Mr. GOULD: Can my hon. Friend say whether the county council has agreed with that suggestion, arid whether such application has been made?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have not, so far, been able to ascertain whether an application has been made.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Transport whether certain road schemes in the Coleford district proposed by the Frome Rural District Council, which have been submitted to the Somerset County Council, have been received and considered by his Department?
    Mr. MORRISON: No road schemes in the Coleford district have been submitted to my Department since April, 1929.
    Mr. GOULD: Is my hon. Friend aware that an application was made by the Frome Rural District Council on behalf of this district, where there is a great volume of unemployment and no scheme has yet been adopted; and will he make representations to the county council of Somerset?
    Mr. MORRISON: An application may have been made by the rural district council to the county council, but it could not be made to me. An application to me must come through the county council. I am not anxious to intervene in disputes between county councils and rural district councils.
    Mr. GOULD: If it is competent for the Minister to urge, through local conferences, the need for relief schemes, would it not be competent for his Department to make representations to the county council?
    Mr. MORRISON: It may be so. If my hon. Friend writes to me telling me the circumstances, it may be that I can communicate his letter to the county council and get a copy of the reply; but that is a very different thing from my intervening in what may be a dispute between the county council and the rural district council.
    Mr. GOULD: There is no dispute.

    FLINT RAILWAY STATION.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to say when the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company propose to carry out the alterations at the Flint railway station which are necessary to make the platform safe for passengers; and whether he can see his way to intervene so that the work may be carried out without delay?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have communicated with the railway company, and am informed that they regret that in their financial position they are not prepared to undertake the heavy expenditure which the proposed alterations at this station would involve. Although the platform at this place is lower than modern platforms, the company do not consider that it is unsafe. I have no power to require the company to carry out these works.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is the Minister aware that there have been several accidents at this station?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am not aware of that fact, but I have communicated with the railway company, and, if there are any other additional facts to which the hon. Member would like their attention drawn, I shall be pleased to act on any information that he may send to me.

    MID-SCOTLAND CANAL SCHEME.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether he has reached any decision as to the publication of the Report of the committee on the proposed mid-Scotland ship canal?
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to state when the Report of the inquiry into the construction of the Mid-Scotland Canal will be published; whether the Scottish Office has been invited to take part in the consideration of the Report; and whether, before any decision is made, the Report will be submitted to the Scottish Standing Committee for their consideration?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I propose to publish forthwith the report referred to, which is now being considered by the Ministers concerned, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my hon. Friend the

    491
    Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) is doubtless aware, the functions of the Scottish Grand Committee is to examine Scottish Bills in Committee in this House, but I have no doubt that the members of that Committee, who, together with other hon. Members, will receive copies of the report when it is published, will give it their careful consideration.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the function, not only of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, but of other Standing Committees, is not merely to consider Bills, but to consider other matters which are referred to them? If he reads the Standing Orders, he will find that to be the case.
    Mr. MORRISON: I think it would be very unusual to submit to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the report of a committee of this kind; it must be dealt with on the responsibility of the Minister concerned.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Minister concerned, namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is also a Member of this Committee, and, consequently, he would be there when the Committee were considering this matter, which is purely a Scottish matter. Will not my hon. Friend, therefore, take into consideration the suggestion made in the last part of my question, No. 61?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that that suggestion is quite impossible. Ministers must be held responsible by this House for their action upon reports of this kind.

    HUMBER (BRIDGE SCHEME).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any further information with regard to the proposed new bridge over the Humber?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informing the committee of local authorities interested in this proposal that I should be prepared to make a grant of 75 per cent. towards the cost of an approved scheme, subject to the necessary agreements being reached among the various interests concerned, and provided steps are taken to seek the necessary powers at an early date.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him whether the report of his engineers has been favourable? Are we to understand from his answer that that is so?
    Mr. MORRISON: Obviously, the report of the engineers is favourable in principle, or I should not have gone the length that I have, but it is still subject to the approval of the Humber Conservancy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my hon. Friend calling together the authorities concerned at an early date, with a view to consultation?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have communicated with the clerk to the joint committee of the local authorities.

    LEVEL CROSSING, RADSTOCK.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a report on the level crossing at Rad-stock; if any agreement has been reached regarding it; and what action he now proposes to take?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The measures to be taken for adding to the safety of pedestrians have been discussed with representatives of the Somerset County Council, and I am now awaiting the submission of a scheme on lines which have been tentatively agreed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF SCHEMES (DARTFORD AND BEXLEY).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport what schemes for the relief of unemployment have been submitted to the Kent County Council or to his Department by the councils of Dartford and Bexley and the rural council of Dartford?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no information as to schemes for the relief of unemployment which may have been submitted to the Kent County Council by the urban district councils of Dartford and Bexley and the rural district council of Dartford. These district councils have not submitted any such schemes to my Department.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister it he intends to announce any further proposals in relation to the mitigation of unemployment before the Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the Prime Minister not think that the present grave situation, as revealed by the figures published this morning, demand some immediate and new proposals?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman asked me, not whether proposals were to be launched, but whether I am going to talk about them.
    Sir K. WOOD: I asked if the right hon. Gentleman was going to announce them.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any steps to be taken during the Recess before the House meets to deal with the unemployment situation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    HON. MEMBERS: What steps?

    INSURANCE FUND (COMMITTEE).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister the names of the members of the All-party Committee set up to deal with unemployment insurance; and the terms of reference of the Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As part of the series of advisory consultations which are taking place on subjects of an economic character, the facts and the meaning of the expenditure on unemployment in its more recent features are being examined by a body, upon which members of all parties sit, working under the conditions which regulate committees of the Advisory Economic Council. I must make it clear once more that these discussions are not conducted by Government Committees whose work is to prepare Government policy, but are conducted so as to put the Government in possession of different points of view authoritatively stated.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will not the Prime Minister tell us who the members of this Committee are?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will this Committee have power to investigate the conditions of employment in agricultural areas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said, the inquiry that this Committee is going to undertake is with reference to the financial state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the present moment, in view of the recent claims upon it;
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not I am right in thinking that on this committee the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Labour represent the Government, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) the Conservative party, and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) the Liberal party?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for giving the information. In the case of these committees, it is only in the rarest circumstances that the names of those composing them are given.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does not the Prime Minister know that, if he does not announce the names, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will do so?

    MINISTERS (DIRECTORSHIPS).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the election as a director of the National Co-operative Publishing Society of the hon. Member for East Ham (South), one of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and whether there has been a change in the normal practice that directorships cannot be held by Ministers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention was not drawn to this matter until the hon. and gallant Member's question came before me. I have found that there are certain special conditions attaching to this directorship which, I can inform the House, carries no salary. I am, however, making further inquiries.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the Prime Minister, when he is making his inquiries, bear in mind the case which happened in his own previous Administration with regard to the then Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who had to resign an unpaid directorship in somewhat similar circumstances, as was stated on the 5th June, 1924?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The examination that I am making is to put this case at one with the regulations which have been made regarding the application of these rules as to directorships.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: What does the Prime Minister exactly mean by that?

    GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to prevent national dissatisfaction such as has arisen over the building for the Calton site, he will set up a works department for Scotland with full responsibility for designing and carrying out Government work?
    Mr. SINKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the opposition in Scotland to the plans for public buildings sought to be imposed on Edinburgh by the Office of Works in London; and whether he can see his way to introduce legislation or regulations placing the Scottish portion of the duties of the Office of Works under the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lich-field (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) on the 2nd April last on this subject. I am aware that there have been differences of opinion in Scotland over the proposals put forward by the Office of Works for building on the Calton site, but I see no reason to suggest that either of the changes of administration suggested would resolve those differences.
    Mr. HARDIE: Apart from the immediate question of the Calton site, does not the Prime Minister think that it is exceedingly extravagant that this and
    496
    other similar Scottish matters should be dealt with by a Works Department in London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the point as to an independent Works Department ought to be raised apart from the question of this site.
    Mr. SKELTON: Is it not more important that the design should be open to architects as a whole, and not confined to Government Departments?
    Mr. SINKINSONasked the First Commissioner of Works if any alternative sites have been represented to him in place of the proposed Calton site for Government offices in Edinburgh; and if any decision has been arrived at?
    Mr. LANSBURY: One or two alternative sites for Government Offices in Edinburgh have been mentioned, but they do not require consideration at present, in view of the proposal to build on the Calton Jail site; I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to various questions on the 28th instant

    INDIA (CONFERENCE).
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Indian Statutory Commission will be represented at the Conference on Indian Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question and those involved in it have been exhaustively considered by the Government in consultation with the Indian Government. The Statutory Commission has performed its task with a distinction which will secure for its report a permanent place in our official political literature and has presented its findings to Parliament. When the Conference we are now contemplating was proposed by the Chairman of the Commission with the consent of his colleagues, the Government alone was to have taken upon itself the burden of negotiations. We have widened this so that Parliament in its varied composition might be represented. There the Government is certain it would be advisable to stop, and not add another section of delegates to the representation announced yesterday. The Government is confident that the representatives to be selected will be able to get from

    497
    the Conference the fullest examination of every proposal brought before it, and every opportunity will be taken—by the Government, of course—to secure that the most expert and well-informed advice, wherever it is to be found, will be available both for the Government and the Parliamentary group of representatives. The Government is convinced that a departure from this decision will not ease the task nor promote the success of the Conference.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure if I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly or not, but I hope that I have. Am I right in thinking that, while he does not propose to make the Chairman or any member of the Statutory Commission a member of this Conference, he does propose that the services of the Chairman should, in some capacity, he made available to the members of the Conference during the sittings of the Conference, so that if the Conference wants a full explanation of the report or of the arguments to be submitted, the Chairman, as the most authorised spokesman for the Commission, may be present to give his assistance to the Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: What I say is, that the advice of any member of this Commission, the Chairman or otherwise, and anyone else with authoritative information and experience which will enable his advice to be of value will be made available to the representatives of Parliament and to the Government as well.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That, of course, does not meet my point. [Interruption.] This is a matter which is so important that I hope the House will realise that I must make my point quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman in order that we may not differ for want of understanding. My point is, that the services of the Chairman of the Commission should be available, not to this or to that individual, not to the British delegates or to the Government only, but should be available to the Conference during the sittings of the Conference. If the right hon. Gentleman can say that he will be prepared to make an arrangement which makes it possible for the Chairman of the Commission to be present in the Conference and his ser-
    498
    vices to be available at any moment to the Conference, I shall, of course, be content.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood from the Prime Minister—in fact, I had the same understanding of the answer as that which my right hon. Friend expressed—that the Government left it open to summon anybody who bad expert knowledge of the matters that were to be considered by the Conference, to summon them to aid the Conference in coming to a decision. I would therefore ask him whether he will not close his mind, at any rate, to the importance of having those who have examined this matter closely for two years with the full authority of Parliament, at the request of Parliament—whether he will not close his mind to the question of summoning their aid to an examination of this very great problem? I understand that the Indian Legislature will probably be represented there. Why should not the British Parliament be represented by those who were unanimously chosen by both Houses to examine this problem on our behalf?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That raises a totally different point. What I say here, and what I indicated yesterday, was that, so far as delegates were concerned, there will be the Parliamentary delegates and there will be the Government representatives. They will have those rights about which my right hon. Friend asked me yesterday, they and they only. Let us be clear about that. If advice is required, and if the Conference wants advice and the Conference asks for it, it will get it. If the British delegates want advice, they will get it. How it is to be provided is a matter, I must confess, of which I have not had time to go into the details—the Conference will not meet until November, after the Imperial Conference—but the one thing I want to make perfectly clear to the House is that the Government have come to a very definite decision that it will not be possible to have other categories of delegates than those mentioned yesterday and again to-day for consultation and advice as the Conference or its relegates require.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is satisfactory, but I am most anxious to avoid any serious difference of opinion

    499
    arising on a matter of such grave importance. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate that if any of the delegations in the Conference desire the presence oi members of the Commission in the Conference to assist them those members shall, on that request, have a place made for them during the sittings of the Conference? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Not as members, I do not say as members of the Conference. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot allow members, but will he make their services available within the Conference? Of course, it will be wholly unsatisfactory if we are to be told that we may meet privately with the Chairman or with the members of the Statutory Commission. What we desire is that their services shall be available to the Conference as a whole and in the Conference, if so asked by any of the delegates to it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is perfectly obvious that I am not going to say yes or no to a form of words which I, have not seen, so that when time elapses there is a dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to what he meant. I am not going a hairbreadth over the considered statement I have made now. If there are further points to be cleared up, would it not be better to put them in the usual way, and in such a form that I know precisely what is asked?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am really in a position of great difficulty. The Conference is convened to meet before the House will meet again. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] The date publicly announced is 20th October.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, that is not the case. 20th October is the date that has been mentioned as the date when the Indian delegates might arrive in this country, but, at the same time, it was stated that the Conference itself would begin its work after the Imperial Conference had finished its work.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, so that I may consider my position, and what course to take, whether if I press the matter no further at this moment, I may make a Motion to-morrow if I think it necessary then to do so, which, but
    500
    for the particular business put down for to-day, I should ask your leave, and the leave of the House, to make now, namely, a Motion to adjourn the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance? I understand that this being the last day of Supply, such a Motion is on this day, almost alone of Parliamentary days, an impossibility. [HON. MEMBERS:
    "No!"] Yes, it is an impossibility; it is forbidden by the Rule. In those circumstances, it would seem. I venture to submit, that the Rule that these urgent matters must be submitted immediately they arise, if they are to come under the Rule at all, will be complied with if I raise the matter to-morrow, which is the first opportunity on which I could do it. All that I want at present for my guidance is the assurance that I could move the Adjournment of the House to-morrow, if nothing has passed in the interval which relieves me of that necessity.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a point of Order. He appreciates the fact that under Standing Order 15, this being the last day of Supply, it precludes him from moving a Motion for the Adjournment on a definite matter of urgency. He asks me whether, in those circumstances, I would be prepared to accept a Motion of that sort to-morrow. I understand that that is the question he put to me. I believe that course has been taken in the past, although it does seem to me that it conflicts with the actual wording of Standing Order 10, which, obviously, means that the matter must be raised at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: At the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In the circumstances, I do not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman should not raise the matter on the Appropriation Bill.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will certainly, of course, consider whether it would be desirable. It may be that it would not be necessary for me to raise it at all. I still hope that that may be the case. I will certainly consider the possibility of raising it on the Appropriation Bill, but, of course, I cannot thereon take a decision of the House, and what I should wish is an expression of the free opinion of the

    501
    House on a matter in which, above all others, the House should act as a council of State, because it is one of the gravest national problems.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is it in order to raise, as a matter of urgency, a question which will not arise until November?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that would affect my decision, because this is the last occasion before the House rises on which the matter could be raised, but the right hon. Gentleman has told me it may be that he may not wish to raise it to-morrow, and in that case I could hardly give an answer now as to whether I would allow a Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The urgent and definite question which I should have asked leave to discuss is the refusal of the Government to invite the chairman of the Indian Statutory Commission to take part in the Conference. The right hon. Gentleman has used words which, at any rate, leave a possible hope that he may still make arrangements for him to take part in the Conference. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not prepared to do that, then I do ask that I may have the opportunity to-morrow—that is the earliest possible moment—to call attention to the refusal of the Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the complaint must be a specific one, and there are no two Members of this House at the present moment who would be able, I submit with great respect to you, to guide you as to what is the meaning of "take part in the Conference."
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have not decided the point of Order yet. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question as to whether the Motion is put off till to-morrow will not prejudice me in coming to a decision. I shall be prepared to consider the question of a Motion to-morrow on its merits.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: In view of the Government decision that Parliament should be represented at the Conference
    502
    apart from the Government, I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether in the selection of the Parliamentary team to take part in the Conference, he will take steps to ensure that the point of view which is held by those who sit upon these benches, and which differs fundamentally from the point of view of His Majesty's Government, will be represented in the selection of Parliamentary delegates to the Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government represent the point of view of those who sit on these benches.
    Mr. THURTLE: Arising out of the earlier question and answer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware—whether this House likes it or not, however unfortunate the fact may be—that the admission of the chairman of the Statutory Commission to this round table Conference—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot anticipate the debate on the Adjournment of the House to-morrow.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I submit this point? There were questions and answers across the Floor of the House regarding the admission of the chairman of the Statutory Commission to the round table Conference, and I was about to put a supplementary question on that matter, when the point of Order arose as to the Adjournment of the House. Now that this point has been disposed of, may I put the supplementary question regarding this urgent matter?
    Mr. MACLEAN: The notice that has been given by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) of an urgency Motion—a hypothetical Motion—to-morrow, is really not before this House to-day.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly what I pointed out to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MACLEAN—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly this matter must come to an end now.
    Mr. MACLEAN: My point of Order—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has a definite point of Order, I shall be glad to hear it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I have a definite point of Order. What I said just now was merely a preliminary. The suggested notice of Motion by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for to-morrow has obscured everything that was before the House at the moment. There are other Members who desire to address questions to the Prime Minister relative to the setting up of this Commission, and the suggested urgency Motion has brushed out of discussion altogether those questions which we were going to put. I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of the privileges of Members of this House, that those who were precluded from putting these points because of the Motion by the right hon. Gentleman, should be allowed to put them until satisfaction is given.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question put to me by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was submitted to me as a Private Notice question. I cannot allow supplementary questions to go on the whole afternoon.
    Mr. MARLEY: I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister made his reply with regard to setting up the Conference, I desired to put a supplementary question to him, but was prevented from doing so by the point of Order raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). May I now put the supplementary question which I desired to put to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is now closed.
    Mr. HARDIE: If it had been definitely stated that the matter was to be raised to-morrow, I could have understood not allowing more supplementary questions, but since the right hon. Gentleman says he may not raise it, there is a doubt.
    Mr. WISE: Arising out of the point of Order put by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) in regard to the emergency Motion for to-morrow, I understand that he desires to raise the question of the composition of the British delegation in one respect. Will it be possible for the Motion to be so drawn so that other criticism equally urgent in regard to the composition of the delegation may also be discussed?
    504
    If the right hon. Gentleman's Motion is urgent and of public importance, I submit that similar matters are of equal urgency and importance and that they might be covered by drawing the Resolution sufficiently wide to enable them to be discussed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member really understands the situation. The Resolution that may be submitted to-morrow must conform to Standing Order No. 10. I can only consider it under that Standing Order. I cannot discuss now what may be or may not be included in that Motion. I will, however, consider on its merits any Motion that may be submitted to me tomorrow for the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. WISE: Am I to understand that it will be within the competence of hon. Members on these benches to put to you a Resolution of urgency for discussion to-morrow if we desire to do so by covering a broader aspect of the question of which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise another aspect.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite at liberty to submit to me a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and it is for me to consider whether I can accept it or not.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: May I put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the business to be taken to-day? I understand that it will meet the convenience of those who sit on this side of the House and of those on the other side of the House if the Army Estimates, Vote 12, can be taken before the Post Office Vote and the Office of Works Vote. If we can agree to that course, it will be necessary for the Prime Minister to move that Resolutions I and II be taken after we have disposed of Vote 12 of the Army Estimates.
The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very glad to make an arrangement in that respect. The necessary Motion will be mace by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order

505
(Sittings of the House); and that, if the first four Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply of the 29th July shall have been agreed to before Ten of the Clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten of the clock, under paragraph 8 of Standing Order No. 15."— [The Prime Minister.]

SHOP ASSISTANTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Special Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVILEGES.
Report from the Committee of Privileges, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
London Naval Treaty Bill,
Finance Bill,
Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill, without Amendment.
Public Works. Facilities Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],
Redcross Street, Burial Ground (Bristol) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Road Traffic Bill [Lords],—That they do not insist on their disagreement to the Amendment to the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] on which the Commons have insisted.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  SUPPLY.
    REPORT [29th July].
    Resolutions reported:
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES OR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1930.
    CLASS VII.
    1. "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."
    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    2. "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."

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1930.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £879,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931.
    4. "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 on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Production of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc."

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1930.
    CLASS II.
    5. "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."

    CLASS I.
    6. "That a sum, not. exceeding £1,309,171, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect or 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

    842

    22. Secret Service

    100,000

    23. Scottish Office

    50,743

    24. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    6,823

    £1,309,171"

    CLASS II.
    7. "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 sure of £35,000)

    170,000

    12. Imperial War Graves Commission

    552,295

    £3,817,714"

    CLASS III.
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,920,200, 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 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

    76,863

    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

    5

    ployment Schemes

    1,500,000

    Ireland.

    £

    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"

    CLASS IV.
    9. "That a sun, 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 clay 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

    542

    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.
    10. "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 NecessitousAreas (England and Wales)

    440,000

    2. Board of Control

    117,087

    3. Registrar-Generals 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 Em-

    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.
    11. "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. Banruptey 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 Suplementary sum of £10)

    1,332,320

    543

    £

    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.
    12. "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.
    13. "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"

    Chris IX.
    14. "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
    544
    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.
    15. "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

    £227,007,412"

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1930.
    16. "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.
    17. "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:

    £

    3. Medical Establishments and Services

    403,200

    4. Fleet Air Arm

    1,267,000

    5. Educational Service

    231,200

    6. Scientific Services

    480,800

    7. Royal Naval Reserves

    392,000

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

    6,280,500

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

    4,168,200

    Section 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.
    18. "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 iii respect of the Army Services, namely:

    £

    2. Territorial Army and Re-serve 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

    1,422,00

    9. Warlike and Engineer Technical Stores

    1,918,000

    £18,160,000"

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1930.
    19. "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

    546

    £

    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"

    First Resolution read a Second time.
    Ordered,
    "That further consideration of the said Resolution he postponed tilt after the Third Resolution.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Second Resolution read a Second time.
    Ordered,
    "That further consideration of the said Resolution be postponed till after the Third Resolution."— [Mr. Kennedy.]
    Third Resolution read a Second time.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I beg to move to leave out "£879,000," and to insert instead thereof "£878,900."
    When the Secretary of State for War introduced the Estimates earlier in the year he revealed the disquieting information that the Army was 10,000 men under establishment, owing to the serious falling off in recruits. Answers which he has since given to questions put to him on that subject have not done very much to relieve our apprehensions. Therefore, I think it is right that, before we separate for the Recess, we should ask him to tell us whether there has been any improvement in the situation and what steps are being taken by himself and his advisers to remedy the situation. This is a matter which he cannot leave entirely to his subordinates. It is a matter so grave and so serious as to demand his own personal attention. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman boasts of being a pacifist. If I have misjudged or misrepresented him, I will gladly withdraw. Of course, anyone who accepts the office of Secretary of State for War is bound to do everything he possibly can to secure and maintain the efficiency of the great Service of which he has charge.
    The right hon. Gentleman has a very great opportunity at the present time to help the Army. He is a trade union leader of distinction and influence, and he represents a part of the country where unemployment is severe. As Secretary of State for War he has, no doubt, visited many barracks and other military establishments, and he knows how

    547
    the soldier lives. He knows that to-day the soldier is well clothed, well fed and well paid, and I would suggest to him that he is in the best possible position for making representations and using his influence, where his influence will have very great effect, in pointing out to those young men who are finding it so terribly difficult to get employment that they would benefit immensely in every possible way by joining the Regular Army. Whatever our opinions may be on disarmament, every person with any sense of responsibility knows perfectly well that we must have an Army. It is because hitherto we have been able to get sufficient men to come forward voluntarily that we have been able to avoid any form of compulsion in time of peace. We must have an Army, and therefore it is necessary that everything possible should be done to encourage recruiting. There are various suggestions how that might be done and how the terms of service might be made more attractive. Some people advocate a return to the pre-War full dress of the Army. I should be very glad to see that done, but I am not sure that the result would be proportionate to the expense. That is a matter which the experts of the War Office are alone competent to decide.
    I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to do everything he possibly can to make it easy for the soldier to obtain employment in civil life. I would like to see a system adopted by which a man who has served in the fighting forces and afterwards gets Government employment in the Civil Service can count his service in the fighting forces towards the Civil Service pension. It is most vital that nothing should be done which would tend to discourage recruiting at the present time and yet something of the sort is being threatened. It would be out of order for me to discuss in detail the question of the employment of ex-service men in the Office of Works and other Government Departments—that I understand will come up later—and I only mention the threat as being something which would undoubtedly be a very serious discouragement to recruiting if it were carried into effect. I hope that the Secretary of State together with his colleagues the Secretary of State for Air and the First Lord of the Admiralty will do their utmost to resist that attempt.
    548
    For the vast majority of men who join the fighting forces of the Crown, the men below commissioned rank, it is not a lifetime occupation. They serve a few years and then leave the Army and have to seek employment in civil life, and it may be that their having served in the Fighting Forces is to some extent a handicap to them in obtaining civil employment afterwards. However that may be, and whatever motives may have made them join the Fighting Forces, the fact remains that by serving in the Fighting Forces they are performing essential national service, for which some recognition is due to them from the nation. So far from any restrictions being placed upon them I should like if possible to see an extension of preferential treatment in respect to them in Government offices. The country generally, even after the late War, does not quite realise what we have owed to the fighting services for many centuries. I am not speaking only of their fighting capacity. I believe that one reason for the good reputation which this country enjoys in foreign countries, including the more remote parts of the world, is due to the behaviour of our soldiers, sailors and airmen in every part of the world. We saw something of that in the late War, we have seen it lately during the occupation of the Rhineland and we saw it not long ago in Shanghai. The personnel of our fighting forces is representative of the best elements in our population, and they deserve all the consideration that we can give them.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am very glad to be associated with my hon. and gallant Friend in this debate on recruiting, and I would like to deal with the subject from two other aspects. I will deal first with the influence of recruiting on our Army abroad. We have many commitments in the rest of the world. Take first the question of India. It is common knowledge, and we have had an instance of it in our debate earlier to-day, that tremendous difficulties confront the Government with regard to India at the present time. There are in India some 60,000 Regulars who are recruited from this country, and the welfare of these effectives is clearly in the hands of the War Office. Anything that lessens the quality or the quantity of the

    549
    recruits will have a deep significance in the deliberations that are before us in the coming year. Not only is the British Army concerned in India, but it is also concerned in Egypt. I should not be in order in going into these questions, except from the point of view of their influence upon recruiting. It is well known that what keeps the Empire together, from the point of view of India, Australia and this country, is the free passage through the Suez Canal. Therefore, while we have 6,000 troops on the Suez Canal and 1,700 in the Sudan, it is obvious that there, again, recruting in this country has a great effect on the British Empire.
    I should like to know what the Secretary of State is doing to promote recruiting. We have had troubles in Palestine; and they are likely to break out again. The Army, together with the Air Force, has been called upon to step in these. Then, in China we have a situation which is a drain on our resources. The Government has seen fit to maintain garrisons at Shanghai and Hong Kong. All these matters are affected by the state of recruiting in this country. The state of trade is also indirectly affected by the presence of a strong efficient garrison in these parts. When I say "strong," I do rot mean strong from the point of view of numbers, but a garrison which is effective and efficient. Take the question of Malta, which is the centre of a different kind of disturbance. It is a very handy place in which to keep troops because you can send them to many other parts quite easily. I want to know how these places are being affected by recruiting in this country, and to emphasise as strongly as I can the danger of a shortage of recruits in maintaining these many important garrisons abroad, which are so essential to the trade of this country.
    Let me take another aspect of this question. For many years past the housing conditions in the Army have not been up to standard, but since the present Government have been in office they have been accentuated by the crowding caused by the troops being brought back from the Rhine. I say it with regret, but the Government do not appear to know whether the housing conditions meet the requirements of the troops, and especially the requirements of married
    550
    soldiers with families. It is rather unusual that a Socialist Minister should not have the facts as to the housing of the Army at his disposal. I regret it very much and I hope we shall not hear from him that it is not his fault. There is a tendency on the part of the present Government to blame the last Government for any neglect. What is the case with regard to housing? There are 2,000 married families in quarters which are altogether too small. When the Government say that they are out for a large building programme we must judge them by their actual deeds, and I suggest that as the facts with regard to the housing of the Army become known it will have a serious influence on recruiting. There are at the present time, due to the recent additions, some slum conditions in the Army—
    Mr. KELLY: How long have they existed?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Since the men came hack from the Rhine. Let me give some figures. During last year only 100 houses were started. During the previous four years 700 houses were started. Why have the Government, in view of the shortage of houses, slowed up the construction of new houses? All parties in the House would, I am sure, assist the Secretary of State if he set to work on building houses for the Army, and especially for married soldiers. In some cases the barracks are old and, as I have reason to know, are not entirely satisfactory. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing for housing the rank and file? I desire to emphasise the importance of this matter. The Government are attempting to put up housing schemes all over the country, but if they do not put their own house in order first how can they expect these various housing schemes to be successful? I hope to hear that they are going on with a programme of housing development for the Army and for a recruiting campaign in order to bring the numbers up to standard.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not understand why hon. and gallant Members opposite who are dissatisfied with recruiting for the Army should want to take £100 off the salary of the Secretary of State for War. It would have been much better if they had pro-

    551
    posed an addition to the Vote so that the pay of the soldier might be increased and the Service made more attractive. With regard to housing, no doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) is very well informed. If these slum conditions exist it is very disgraceful. I was in Aldershot last week-end, and I thought the soldiers looked very happy, well mounted, and I did not see anything wrong with the barracks, but there may be other places where the housing conditions are bad. If so, I am quite sure that the Secretary of State is looking into the matter, and will be able to deal with it.
    With regard to the question of recruiting for the Forces, which is raised again and again by hon. Members opposite, may I ask my right hon. Friend what his theory is and how he accounts for the fact that men are not rushing into the Army? I have my own ideas as to why they do not, in spite of the fact that conditions are much better than they were in times past. The pay is better, and the food is certainly better, from all I hear—I apologise to my military friends opposite for intruding into Army matters', but they will see later on why I have done so. I should like to ask whether the glorious tattoos which my right hon. Friend has been staging up and down the country have encouraged recruiting? They do not show the horrors of war; they do not make war horrible. They show an ancient combat, and are a very wonderful and artistic spectacle; but will the Secretary of State consider presenting a tattoo representing some recent campaigns?
    I have raised this question before, and the answer I have had from my right hon. Friend has been astonishing. He says that such things are too recent and may cause pain to the relatives of men who may have taken part in the particular engagement. Such an answer is simply preposterous. Regular soldiers are to-day being used for making war films, like the landing at the Dardanelles, which can be far more realistic than any tattoo can possibly be. These war films are being made with the assistance of His Majesty's troops, and yet when a tattoo takes place nit recent action is allowed to be represented. Why is that? What is the reason? The right hon.
    552
    Gentleman says that the sole reason is that it may lacerate the feelings of those who may have taken part. But he is allowing films to be made with the aid of His Majesty's soldiers! The fact of the matter is that these tattoos perform a useful purpose in raising funds for army chaplains. The Royal Navy has now copied the example of the Army. They are to have a great naval tattoo at Weymouth. Presently it will be a requirement of every man who desires to enter either the Army or the Navy that he must be a "good stager," and able to take part in these historic pageants. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look closely into this matter. Is he sure that men want to go into the Army in order to take part in these glorious displays? It is not putting their services to any serious use. In my opinion they are a deliberate propaganda to excite in the civilian population a warlike mind, they glorify war, and the methods of war, and that is their real function. I do not want to say too many hard things about them because they do raise money for the military chaplains.
    There is, I think, another reason why recruiting is falling off amongst a certain class of the population. Young lads in our schools who have to go through compulsory training in the officers training corps get such a sickener of military drill and routine that they refuse to join the Army afterwards. In this way you are cutting off the best class of recruits for the Army. They are the type you want, especially now that the avenue of promotion has been widened. It is far easier now for a well-educated soldier to rise to commission rank, but you are sickening these young lads of military life by the compulsory training they have to go through in our schools. There are camps even now in many parts of the country subsidised by the right hon. Gentleman where many of these immature lads may be found, and who are unfit to undertake a soldier's career. Indeed, before they are physically able to carry a soldier's equipment they are herded into these kraals, and I believe that. recruiting suffers in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thought so too because he removed the grant to the military cadet corps. I am glad he did so; I congratulate him upon it; although

    553
    there was something to be said for the military cadet corps because the poorer class of boys received an annual sum for his camp expenses. But he continues the grant to the wealthier classes who go to the public schools.
    When the Secretary of State is advised that in these officers training corps service is entirely voluntary, the advice that he is given is wrong. Service is not entirely voluntary. There is a very clear and distinct form of compulsion. There was a recent case at Harrow. I do not want to make much of it. One of the items of information which appeared was on the authority of the headmaster of that great school—that the parades were compulsory, and indeed that membership of the officers training corps was compulsory. I want to give my right hon. Friend an actual example, the details of which I know. I am sorry that the First Commissioner of Works is going out, because this case will interest him too. I know that his heart is softened by anything that is for the benefit of young people and I would like him to hear this case. A certain young man, a relative of mine at a very fine school, was in the lower school, and when he reached the appropriate age and passed his examination he was moved to the upper school, with five or six other young men no older than the cadets who used to be subsidised by the War Office but are not now subsidised. When my young relative went to the upper school, on the first day he was told to report at the drill shed.
    I have tested all the facts of this case, and it may be taken as really typical. When he arrived at the drill shed there was a nice, genial, kindly, fatherly sergeant major to receive these young lads, the raw material of His Majesty's Army. He knew why they had come. He said, "Book your names now for the training corps. First of all sign this paper." This youth said, "Oh, but I do not want to join the Corps." "Oh," replied the sergeant major, "Not want to join the O.T.C.? It is not a question of what you want; you have to join it." That is really true. The young man, being very pugnacious and very obstinate—he was of a type which would make a splendid soldier later—got his back up, if I may use the expression, and
    554
    said that he would not sign the attestation form. "Oh," said the sergeant major, "that is all nonsense." He saw the form master and he tried to bring pressure to bear in that way; then the prefects, the housemaster and finally the headmaster, all of whom brought pressure to bear on this youth. The others followed his example and said that they did not want to join and would not join. There the matter rested. As a matter of fact pressure was then brought to bear on the boy's parents.
    It is ridiculous for my right hon. Friend to be advised, as he has been advised, that this officers training corps service is voluntary, it is practically compulsory. If a youth is physically unfit, he is naturally excused, but it is only the youth of really strong fibre and moral character who can resist. Someone, I notice, interrupts with the remark that this young man was lazy. I asked this young man why he did not want to join the Army, and he replied, "I am going to be an airman; I hope to go into the Royal Air Force, and I do not want to waste my time learning infantry drill, which is out of date." I could show conclusively that there is far too much time wasted in infantry drill in the Air Force. I do not want to go into the matter, but it horrifies me to see the magnificent drilling of Air Force mechanics, the last people who should be taught infantry drill. They should have initiative encouraged. In some ways we have nearly ruined the Navy by adopting parade ground drill for our seamen in an endeavour to turn them into soldiers. It is a great mistake. Let soldiers stick to soldiering and airmen to flying and seamen to their own work.
    The young man to whom I have referred was not lazy. He was a very strong, pugnacious, tough boy, who had the good sense not to wish to waste his time in the officers training corps. That, I submit, is one reason why recruiting is falling off. This veiled compulsion sickens young lads of military life. I myself am delighted to hear that recruiting is slack. It shows that the conditions in the Army are not attractive enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend, as soon as the finances of the country will allow, will improve the lot of the soldiers. If the falling off in recruiting is due to the fact that there is

    555
    a spread of pacifist feelings, I am equally delighted, because if there are no soldiers and no sailors there will be no wars, and if the pacifist feeling is so strong in our country and in other countries, there will be no more fighting.
    Major GLYN: I think the House must have been interested in the description of the young gentleman who showed such spirit. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken said that the young man was a relative. From the description, I should think he was a very close relative, because one recognises in the young man certain attributes which most of us recognise in the hon. and gallant Member himself. However that may be, "one swallow does not make a summer," and there are other reasons besides the cadet corps which cause some of us anxiety on the question of recruiting. The Secretary of State himself, in Command Paper 3498 which he has issued, states that the position causes him some disquietude, and he adds that there should be an intake of recruits of 28,500 men. I would ask him, when he replies, to answer a particular point. Up to now, how many of those 28,500 men have in fact joined up, and in which branches of the Army is there the greatest shortage? I understand that there is no shortage in the Brigade of Guards or in some of the technical services.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): Generally speaking, there is no appreciable shortage in any part of the Service except the infantry. Generally speaking, the problem is an infantry problem.
    Major GLYN: I am much obliged for that information. If the problem is a problem concerning the Infantry of tile Line, I suppose the Secretary of State and his advisers at the War Office have analysed some of the reasons why the shortage is confined to these particular units. It is perfectly obvious that as you have in the mechanical world to-day a certain amount of mechanised first-line transport and so on, you should encourage boys to join the infantry with the idea that they will learn something about mechanical science so that they may realise that when their time comes to leave the Army, they will have a
    556
    better chance of getting employment in civil life than they would otherwise have. I think this, to a very great extent, accounts for the fact that recruiting for the Navy and Air Force is in a far healthier state than that for the Army.
    But there is something even more important in the general annual report of the Army, Command Paper 3498, to which I have referred. In page 5 there are mentioned certain factors which, in the opinion of the War Office, account for the shortage of recruits. I would like the Secretary of State to be good enough, in his reply, to let me have the views on these particular points. The first point is the expectation of a large increase in the unemployment benefit. That I believe to be absolutely true. I believe that the fact that there was held out to the people of the country a large increase in unemployment benefit, made every boy, no matter how good the pay in the Army might be, say, "At any rate I shall wait to see how much I shall get from unemployment benefit before I burn my boats or take the King's shilling by going into the Army." Surely we can assume that the country knows the worst and the best by this time, and knows that we are not likely, after the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see any further increase in the amount of unemployment benefit. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the hopes held out by his party of increased benefit have now reached their saturation point, and that the people of the country are satisfied that they can now join the Army without any risk of losing some of those refreshing fruits which were to fall from a Socialist Government's table?
    The next point was uncertainty as to the future of the Army owing to the publicity given to disarmament. That is a very important factor. I have spoken to some hon. Members opposite about this matter, and have been told that their feeling is not against the Army or the individuals in the Army, many of whom are their friends, but that they feel that the man who goes into so brutal a profession is often considered to be rather a lower being mentally. If they do not mean that, I do not understand how they can have anything but respect for the people who enter the Service to defend them and others who are not willing to fight. The Army is not an

    557
    aggressive force. It is used very largely for police work. It always astonishes me that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are the first to profess a desire for disarmament, and many of whom are believers in and upholders of the League of Nations, can enter into sanctions on behalf of this country which involve the employment of an Army, and yet, when it comes to the question of encouraging the very instrument on which they have to rely, they do not take sufficient steps to encourage the young man to enter the Army.
    There is something altogether contrary to disgrace in being in the Army. It is a very good form of national service, good for the man and good for the country, and there is nothing disgraceful about it at all. The old idea that the Army was a brutal and licentious Service is, I hope, ended for good. If you see the young men at any military depot, or talk to the men when they are overseas serving with their units, you realise that it is through the Army and the behaviour of the troops and of the men in the other Services that the prestige of this country is what it Therefore, I think that we should do everything we can to encourage men to enter the Army, and that we should disillusion them once for all of the idea that if they join the Army, and a Socialist Government is still in office, they will wake up one day to find their unit abolished. Such an idea is complete nonsense, because this Government and the Secretary of State want to see the Army sufficient, efficient and able to carry out its task. Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would resign his office.
    5.0 p.m.
    A third point in the Command Paper which deserves attention is the statement that there was an increase in employment in certain industrial districts in England. That is not true to-day; I wish it were. A curious feature about recruiting is that it never moves in relation to the curve of employment. You would normally think that the greater the unemployment, the greater the rush there would be of people to join the Service, but for some extraordinary reason that is not so, and I think the Army owes a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for that when he occupied an office at the War Office
    558
    in the previous Socialist Administration, he did more than anybody else to bring the trade union leaders into line in regard to the question of the training of men prior to leaving the Colours to enter social life, and that did an enormous amount of good, because even at the peak of unemployment, as we then thought it, men who obtained that training were able to pass, with the help of the trade unions, into work. I should like to see that process extended.
    There is one other matter for which think a Socialist Secretary of State for War can do more than a Secretary of State for War from our party. The question of the employment of boys and youths in industry is one of paramount importance. There is no doubt that there is a large number of boys employed now in industry, and thus the pool from which to draw for the Army is to a large extent absorbed by the demands of industry, but there is one thing which is of tremendous importance. It is a terrible thing, and I will give one instance which came to my knowledge. It is that of a boy who had been employed as an apprentice in the furniture trade. He joined a unit at the depot not far from his home, did four weeks' training, was quite happy and showed great promise, and then his mother came and claimed him from the depot, partly because he was not 17, but chiefly because he would be enabled to go on unemployment benefit when he left the Army. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for War shakes his head, but I will give him chapter and verse. The Army had no power to keep him, because he was under 17. We must not encourage a system whereby people are withdrawn from the Army after they have had partial training at the expense of the taxpayer—not to go to a certain job, but to add one more to the large number who are in receipt of unemployment benefit.
    The other question to which we should like an answer is in regard to a curious statement on page 6 of the Command Paper to which I have referred, where it says:
    "The Intelligence Test‖.has been given a thorough trial, but the results have not proved as satisfactory as was expected, and the scheme accordingly is in abeyance for the present."
    I think one of the most useful features that could be brought out in this debate

    559
    for the benefit of soldiers when they leave the Colours is for the Secretary of State for War to emphasise the wonderful system of education which a man can now receive when he joins the Army. It is one of the best features of peace-time soldiering, because very competent schoolmasters are employed in the Service, and any man can take either a first, second or third certificate—I forget their titles—and the effect of it is that a man can complete his education in a far easier way and with less trouble to himself than if he remained in civil life and went to continuation classes. I think hon. Members would be well advised some time to see the curriculum which is taught in the Army schools, so that they could realise the very high standard which a man attains if he succeeds in taking the highest certificate—so high indeed that any employer ought to go all out to obtain such a man when he leaves the Colours and is looking for a job in civil life. Not half enough testimony is paid to the work done by the Army schoolmasters in this connection.
    I want to know what this intelligence test is. There are all sorts of intelligence tests, and some of the best men in the world, as the Secretary of State knows, are not those who are the most highly educated. You want a man with common sense and quick appreciation of a situation, and you will find many of them in the rural districts. No intelligence test ought to be such as to exclude a boy who has a full knowledge of weather conditions, of geological conditions, of animals and birds, of the movement of the air, and so on. All these are things which you want in an open air life. If you talk to a shepherd on a hill, and know how to get him to talk to you, you can learn much more from him than you will ever learn from the most highly so-called educated person who comes from the most modern school, and I hope that no intelligence test that may be re-set up will exclude this sort of people. You want every form of examination perhaps, but you do not want one which will exclude the type of person who comes from the rural areas and who may make the most admirable slodier.
    Major CHURCH: Is not the hon. and gallant Member confusing intelligence
    560
    tests with examination tests? There is a very definite distinction between them.
    Major GLYN: I quite agree. The words used in the Command Paper are "intelligence test." What I am trying to make clear to the right hon. Gentleman is that I hope he will consult his colleague the President of the Board of Education and other authorities to see that such a test will not exclude the type of man we most want to receive.
    Mr. COVE: An intelligence test is a test of intelligence, not of knowledge. Therefore, I presume that what the hon. and gallant Member wants is indicated in the report.
    Major GLYN: Whatever may be the test, I want it to be a common sense test, which all of us would believe would be of assistance in obtaining the right type of man to serve in the Army. We all realise the difficult time through which the War Office is passing in obtaining recruits, and we all recognise that it is necessary to have these recruits and that the Army is going through a period of evolution when it is necessary to obtain very keen people, because, although the Army is small, it must be highly efficient. Nothing would be more harmful to the Army than any step taken which might encourage men in the belief that once their time with the Colours was over, they would not have the same opportunities for serving in Government offices and other places when they went into civil life. When I served in the Regular Army, when a man came to his time to go into civil life, we either tried to find him employment through our regimental association, or we did our best to see that the quota which we could claim for employment under the Government in civil life was filled proportionately from the different units.
    If the Secretary of State for War will give an assurance that there is no question of cutting down the jobs open to people on leaving the Colours, he will do a great deal to establish once again that confidence in the future which to some extent may be shaken at the present moment. As the Secretary of State for War promised me personally in this House, earlier in the year, that he would, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, see that people who went to Employment Exchanges were given facili-

    561
    ties with regard to recruiting, I shall be obliged if he will tell me to what extent, if at all, those steps have been successful in enabling young men who so wish to have every opportunity of joining the Army and serving their country in that capacity.
    Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) has spoken with knowledge and authority on this question of the Army, to which he has devoted a great deal of time, not only when he was actually in the Army, but since he has been in this House too. We on this side of the House, in putting down this Vote, are mainly concerned to-day with the subject of recruiting, and I want to say at the outset that I am well aware that it is a subject in which there is very little public interest, In fact, that lack of public interest is reflected in the attendance in the House this afternoon.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Look at your own benches!
    Earl WINTERTON: I am well aware of that. The hon. and gallant Member is always very ready to put in a word. I will repeat what I was saying, that the lack of public interest in this subject is reflected in the attendance in the House this afternoon. That is due, in my opinion, to an entire misunderstanding on the part of the general public, and, of course, if the general public are not interested in a thing, I want to say, as an old Member of this House, that this House is never interested in it either. The reason for this lack of interest is that the general public do not fully realise that on the number of recruits which we can obtain literally depends ultimately our ability to defend the North-West Frontier of India and to protect British lives and property from Cairo to Shanghai. In fact, in other words, the very small and efficient British Army is in effect an armed police force. It cannot be regarded by anyone as a militaristic organisation. It is an armed police force, a police force, moreover, whose personnel, by their conduct and good bearing, have produced good feeling for Great Britain all over the world.
    It is remarkable to know that the thing which has done more good than anything else—and this fact should be taken to heart by every pacifist in this House and outside—in the relations between this
    562
    country and Germany after the War is not the visits of pacifists to Germany, not those who were opposed to their own country in the War, but the good bearing, the good conduct, and the amiability of the British Forces stationed on the Rhine. On all sides compliments are paid by the ordinary German public to the British "other ranks" in Germany, and to the officers as well. I do not want to put it offensively, but that is almost peculiar to the Army of this country.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon, said that the shortage of recruits was mainly confined to the infantry, and my hon. and gallant Friend gave an interesting explanation of what I understood him to say was one of the reasons for that, and that was the fact that men felt that by going into the mechanised branches of the Army they would not only be dealing with something during their military life which was interesting to them, but that they would have a better chance of getting employment afterwards. I think that is very likely so, but it makes all the more reason for taking active steps to encourage recruiting for the infantry, because the day has not yet come when we can abolish the infantry arm in the Army, and it is very unlikely that it ever will come.
    There is a serious shortage. The figures between October of last year and October, 1928, I am informed, dropped by no less than 3,792, which is, in the case of a small Army like ours, a very serious drop, and I understand that that decline in recruiting has been continued during the present year. One disturbing feature in connection with it is the fact that in the Brigade of Guards there is a shortage of men of some 2,000. It has been usually the case in the past that the Brigade of Guards has not felt a shortage of recruits to the same extent as the infantry of the line, but on this occasion, according to a Press report which I read, there is a shortage of 2,000 in the foot guards, and they have had to lower the type in order to correct the situation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that we were told that one of the reasons why the pre-War uniform had to be reintroduced in the ease of the Guards was to encourage re-

    563
    cruiting and can he give an explanation of the fact that there is this shortage?
    Earl WINTERTON: Fortunately I am not the Secretary of State for War. If I were I would like to approach the problem in a rather different way.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But the Noble Lord is a great expert.
    Earl WINTERTON: No, I am not an expert in these matters any more than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Like him, I am this afternoon in what may be described, without offence to either of us, as an interrogative mood. I am asking questions. I do not in the least object to the hon. and gallant Member's interruption, and perhaps the Secretary of State for War when he replies, will deal with this point and give us the reason for this shortage in the Guards. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) called attention to the report of the Army Council (Command Paper 3498). He told us that in their report the Council said that one of the causes contributing to the decline was the expectation of a large increase in unemployment benefit. I wish to say a word on that subject. In my opinion the day has gone by when anyone wishes to see men driven into the Army by economic stress. At the same time, the man who is not actuarially entitled to insurance, and who prefers to draw what is in fact the taxpayers' money, rather than do service in an honourable profession such as the Army is hardly entitled to be respected for his character. Nor is he, shall I say, a good advertisement for us to those foreign countries who are very willing at the present time to say that our national morale is declining. I do not know whether there are such cases but there would seem to be cases at any rate among the parents of young men who are willing to join the Army, to judge from the example given by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    I pass to the question which has been raised by several speakers as to whether, in addition to the reasons mentioned by the Army Council for the decline in recruiting, there are any agencies directed against recruiting. I have no doubt that
    564
    what I am going to say will be regarded with great disfavour by hon. Members opposite. I think that there are certain covert and concealed agencies hostile to recruiting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Moscow!"] No, not Moscow. In Moscow there is no such agency. On the contrary, Russia is endeavouring at the present time to produce the largest and most efficient army in the world. That interruption therefore is not very pertinent. But are there not covert agencies at work against recruiting here? I am bound to say that there are. It is an astonishing thing that wherever there is a Socialist Corporation, wherever Socialists are in charge of local administration, they do what they can to impede anything in the nature of military display. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I had hoped for that assenting cheer and I am delighted to know that there is no difference of opinion between hon. Members opposite and myself on that point. I repeat that wherever Socialists are in control there is this objection to military display and it can only be based on the ground that they object to the existence of an Army. If they object to the existence of the Army, then, obviously. by a logical process of reasoning, we must come to the conclusion that they object to people entering the Army.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Does the Noble Lord not agree that there is a difference between the necessity for having a standing army, and constant military display and the glorification of the Army as such?
    Earl WINTERTON: I cannot admit that proposition. I do not consider that a military tattoo is a. glorification of the Army as such. There is an astonishing view held by extreme Socialists—largely in other countries I admit—that there is something wrong and unworthy in displaying the troops of a country. There is an idea that any "military display"—as the hon. Member opposite calls it—is something provocative but that idea is only held by a very small body of people in this country and those who hold it in this country are, almost invariably, those who themselves object to service in the Army. I do not think that any further proof is required of the fact that this is one agency against recruiting. I do not believe that there

    565
    is a single hon. Member sitting on those benches opposite now, except the two Ministers, who would go down to their constituents and say, as any of us here would say—"The Army is short of recruits and we hope you will join it because in doing so, you will be joining an honourable and useful profession." I do not believe there is a single hon. Member opposite with the exceptions 1 have mentioned who is prepared to do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Again I am glad to have the assent of hon. Members. I go further and say that one of the agencies against recruiting is the existence of such hon. Members as those at present sitting on the benches opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the situation, and at a later stage I shall ask the Secretary of State for War how he proposes to deal with that situation.
    There is another contributory cause perhaps a small cause. I should perhaps describe it as something which is likely to be in the future a contributory cause, if it does not already operate against recruiting. I refer to the deplorable decision of the right hon. Gentleman, five or six months ago, to abolish the cadets. I do not want to say much about that subject except that the right hon. Gentleman's decision has met with great resentment from people who, for years have been doing all they could for this admirable movement—a movement which has been of benefit to the youth of the country. In concluding my references to the agencies which, in my opinion, are operating against recruiting, I wish to say that I do not suggest for a moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite—this being a free country—are not entitled, if they are conscientiously opposed to service in the Army, to say so and to discourage men from joining. They are certainly entitled to express their views, but we are entitled to express our view in the House and in the country, and they must not be as resentful as they were when I spoke in a debate earlier in the Session and said that there were very few friends of the British Army on the benches opposite.
    Mr. SIMMONS: Of the soldiers, you said.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am obliged for the correction but to my mind in ninety-
    566
    nine cases out of a hundred when a man joins the Army he regards the Army as himself and if you are opposed to the Army you are opposed to the soldiers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I repeat that ninety-nine men out of a hundred in the Army regard an attack upon the Army as an attack upon themselves. I was about to say however that the Secretary of State for War is in a very different category from the hon. Members on the back benches to whom I have been referring. It is about the right hon. Gentleman's attitude that I want to speak particularly. I have asked several questions on this subject but I am hound to say that I have failed to obtain very adequate or clear information. The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken the obligations of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament for the maintenance and well-being of the Army. His position is to be sharply distinguished from the position of hon. Members on the back benches opposite. Not only that, but the right hon. Gentleman has accepted a certain strength of the Army as being necessary for the safety of this land.
    I maintain, therefore, that it is the right hon. Gentleman's clear duty to resist attempts to prevent recruiting—especially attempts by his own party—and it is also his duty, when we have what is almost a crisis in recruiting, to take active personal steps to obtain recruits and to use his personal suasion in the matter. [Laughter.] That laughter is an interesting indication of the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards this question. They think it laughable that the Secretary of State for War should try to induce people to join the Army. Why, the late Lord Haldane, whom few people would accuse of being a militarist, who worked to the very last for peace between this country and Germany, carried on a personal campaign in the country, when the Territorial Force was started, and for long afterwards, to induce men to join both the Regular Army and the Territorial Force. Yet hon. Members opposite regard it as an outrageous and laughable suggestion that the Secretary of State for War in a Socialist Government should ask people to join the force for which he is responsible to this House. It shows how far we have advanced in, shall I say, the decrease of

    567
    patriotism, since the Socialist party came into existence. At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman will not take the view of his bon. Friends behind him—at least I hope he will not—and laugh at the suggestion that it is his duty to encourage men to join the Army. It is quite true that, as yet, he has not said anything very definite on the subject, but, knowing him, I am sure he will admit that his responsibility in this matter is a great one.
    I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might follow the example of Lord Haldane, who at meetings ad hoc, at ordinary political meetings, and at public meetings of all kinds throughout the country, referred to the need for recruits both for the Regular Army and the Territorial Force. Up to the present I have not seen that the right hon. Gentleman has done so in any of his speeches. It is quite true that he has changed his views in recent years. I have looked up the Votes which were taken in 1928, corresponding to those which will be taken this afternoon in Supply, and I have discovered that a vote was given by hon. Gentlemen opposite, on that occasion, against the entire Navy, Army and Air Force. Among those who voted for abolition I need hardly say was the present First Commissioner of Works, but the present Secretary of State for War also voted on that occasion in the same way. It is obvious that he must have changed his views since, otherwise, as an honourable man, he would not have accepted his present post. He would not have made himself responsible, as a Minister of the Crown, for the Army if he still wished to abolish it.
    At some time between the end of July, 1928, and the fortuitous moment when the Prime Minister offered him the office of Secretary of State for War instead of the office of Minister of Labour, which he had previously adorned, the right hon. Gentleman must have become a convert to the need for a small standing army in this country. I only ask him to show the zeal of a convert. I ask him to go down to Preston, to his constituents—whom no doubt at the last Election were influenced for or against him, according to their views, by his vote for the abolition of the Army—and to say, "Now that I am the responsible
    568
    Minister my views have changed and I see the need for an Army. There is a serious shortage of recruits and I want the people of Preston to assist me in making up that shortage." If the right hon. Gentleman does not do so he is in an equivocal position. I do not consider that a man who is in favour of the abolition of the Army ought to be Secretary of State for War. If, indeed, he is in favour of the abolition of the Army, he ought not to be sitting on the Front Bench in the capacity in which he is there. It would he unconstitutional that a man should hold responsible office in this House if he were not in favour of the force for which he was responsible.
    Mr. WEST: If that is the principle which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward, can he explain how a person who believes in private enterprise can occupy the position of Postmaster-General?
    Earl WINTERTON: Nobody who is in favour of private enterprise has proposed the abolition of the Post Office—[Interruption.] Will hon. Gentlemen allow me to answer the question? I have already given way two or three times. A man may be in favour of the abolition of the Post Office as a public concern, but no one has suggested the abolition of the Post Office. The only question is whether it should be carried on by public or private enterprise. That is not equivalent to the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He does not want a private army.
    Miss WILKINSON Miss WILKINSON rose—
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member has plenty of opportunity of criticising her colleagues in the columns of the papers in which she writes. In the place where she cannot he answered, she does it very effectively. The difference between the Post Office and the Army is quite obvious. The right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the abolition of the Army, and I only say that I am very glad that he has changed his views. I want him, however, to go further, and show all the zeal that a convert should show, and to come forward, as his predecessors have done, and make an appeal, either by public meetings or by letters, to the mayors and the heads of local bodies to call attention to the serious

    569
    situation in which the Army finds itself. In doing that, the right hon. Gentleman would, I think, be likely to convince those who have not hitherto agreed with his views, because no one could accuse the right hon. Gentleman, even though he be in favour of an Army, of being a militarist. No one who is less a militarist ever buckled on a Court sword. There have been occasions in the past when the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a somewhat belligerent demeanour towards myself and others, but it is our experience that some of the most bellicose people in this House are conscientious objectors.
    I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question some time ago on the subject of approaching local authorities and making speeches in favour of recruiting, and I distinctly understood him to say—I cannot find the answer, but it was in the last six weeks—that he had appointed a special Departmental Committee to advise him on the matter, and that until that Committee had reported, he was unable to say whether he would adopt the proposal or not or to indicate what steps he was taking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) and I put down questions yesterday on the same subject. We asked him whether this Committee had yet reported, and to my astonishment the reply was:
    "The examination to which the 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 closely watched. In the meantime no special steps are being taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1930; col. 255, Vol. 242.]
    I regard that as profoundly unsatisfactory. Here we have this most serious shortage in recruits. The causes may not be wholly those which have been mentioned this afternoon, although I believe that those that have been given on this side of the House are on the whole mainly responsible for the shortage. Whatever the reasons, it is the plain duty of the Secretary of State for War to show far more energy in this matter than he has done up to now. I must honestly say that I do not think his administration at the War Office can be described as distinguished or of a nature which entitles him to anything in the nature of jaunty self-satisfaction.
    Mr. SHAW: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House that I should speak now, although, obviously, if I do I shall not be able to reply to the criticisms of the ex-Secretary of State for War. I have no objection to following his desire to speak now, so that the House may know exactly where I stand in this matter. There are certain things which I should like to say in introduction. As long as the Government of this country decide that a certain number of men is necessary for the Army, I look upon it as my job to provide those men. About that there is no difference of opinion. There may be some difference of opinion as to what ought to be done to find the men, and as to where the men should come from, but I frankly admit that, as long as the Government have a policy, it is my duty to try to carry it out. In the Memorandum which accompanied the Army Estimates, I called attention to the fact that recruiting was a source of disquietude from the point of view of those who desire to see the ranks filled with the numbers determined by the Government of the day.
    It is not a new problem, however. From the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, one would think that it was a new problem which has arisen during the past year, while the present Government have been in office. It is a problem which every Government has had to face, and it is no more serious to-day than it was when the last Government were in office. It is a problem which is well over a century old. It has always been a problem since the country had an army, and the question arises, is the matter of sufficient gravity to need different methods from those which have been pursued in the past, and if it is, what are those methods to be? In addition, if we have a shortage, what is the reason for it? If I address myself to these two questions, we may be able to find something like a common level of agreement as to the facts. As to policy, probably we should never find common agreement at all. Let us try, in order to keep the discussion on the high level on which it has been conducted to-day, to agree to the facts. The numbers required are, roughly, 30,000 a year; the part of that 30,000 which is required for the infantry is

    571
    17,000. Generally speaking, in the Technical Corps and in the Guards, there is no problem. It is not correct to say that the Guards are 2,000 under strength. What is true is that what is called the wastage is over 2,000 a year, but at the present rate of recruiting for the Guards, when the recruiting year finishes, there is no reason to anticipate a shortage. Rather are we likely to be slightly over-establishment. That is my information. I think that the misunderstanding has arisen through a newspaper statement, which has confused the wastage of the year and turned it into a shortage.
    Let us see what is the most vital problem we have to face. There is no problem as to the men offering themselves for the Army; overwhelming numbers offer themselves; that is not our problem. Our problem is to get men who are physically fit, and the appalling fact is that something like 67 per cent.—I speak from memory—of those who offer themselves for the Army have a reduced standard of height, chest measurement and dental requirement.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS EVANS: The percentage is 61.
    Mr. SHAW: Yes, 61 per cent. failed to reach the very moderate standard of physical efficiency that is required to enable a man to join the present-day Army. That, I think, is one of the most appalling facts that a country could face. That ought to go home to this country and every Member of the House ought to try his level best to concentrate on that problem, because if we have a deteriorating race, no army in the world can save us from going down.
    Earl WINTERTON: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of a very moderate standard, is that a true description of the situation? Is not the standard one of the highest of any army in the world?
    Mr. SHAW: That may be, but I am not at the moment concerned with other countries. In our standard the height is small and the chest measurement is comparatively small, and we ought not to have 61 per cent. of applicants who want to join the Army unable to comply with these requirements. That is a problem for the country which is even greater than
    572
    the problem of recruiting, because you cannot build a nation on inefficient physical material. We must attend to this apart from any question of whether this or that policy is good. During the nine months of the present recruiting year, 19,213 recruits were taken in. The last month shows an increase over the previous figures, but, compared with the numbers of those who offered, this number is small. The difficulty of maintaining the strength is complicated by another striking fact. I do not know whether the physical condition of the people who offer themselves for service is due to the War or not; probably it is, because many of the young men who are now offering themselves for service were War children. During the War years there was a diminution in births Which limits the number of men of military age, and possibly that in itself might be responsible for some of the shortage.
    It is impossible to deal at length with all the questions, but let me give a few details regarding the difficulties of maintaining the Army. As I am asked by the Noble Lord to interest myself in recruiting, and to try to find men, let me point out to him that he can help very considerably. It seems to be assumed that the only people who will join the infantry are the so-called working classes. What about the middle classes and the wealthy? I have during the last few months been in places like Winchester, Oxford, Cambridge, Rugby, Harrow and Eton. There are hundred—thousands—of young men there in excellent physical condition who would gain inestimable benefit by a few years service in the Army, most of them not needing to fear that they will ruin their economic future. Why not ask that in the present state of shortage 2,000 or 3,000, or 4,000 or 5,000, of these excellent young men, excellent in physique, should join as infantrymen pour encourager les autres? [HON. MEMBERS: "They did in the War!"] I intend before I finish to deal with a question which will interest the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies).
    The fact of the matter is, and we may as well face it, that the present day working man is better educated, has a better knowledge, and requires a higher standard than, I am afraid, the Army offers. As long as I am responsible for the Army I believe it is my business to

    573
    try to do as any decent private employer would do, that is, to assure, so far as it is humanly possible, that the man who works in the Government service in one line shall have a real chance in another line if for the moment his first line dries up. As a worker in the cotton weaving sheds I always expected an employer to do that, and what applies to an ordinary decent employer in a private industry ought to apply in a public industry, and, above all, should apply to anybody working for the State. I am perfectly certain, whether one be a pacifist or a non-resister, which is an entirely different thing, or be in favour of militarism, that there can surely be no question about this, that the working man is entitled, as far as it is humanly possible to give him the opportunity, to return into civil life and not to find himself the fifth wheel on the coach. Whatever my views about war—and my opinion about war is that the sooner we can abolish it the better—my duty as long as I am in my present position is to do whatever I can to secure that the men who come out of the Army shall come into civil life with a real chance, and I shall do all I can to secure a job for every man who leaves the Army, of whatever rank, from the private up to, if necessary, the field marshal. The question of the Reserve has not been specially mentioned. We have talked about the men we are taking in now. The Reserve itself gives, I think, no reason for any undue degree of disquiet, but the figures of the Reserve are not normal, because of the extraordinary "run out" that we have had lately, and I think that will have to be taken into consideration. [Interruption.] I can get the actual figures as we go on.
    What are the causes why men do not join the Army? I think it is perfectly right to assume that men do not join the Army because they do not believe in it. What is the use of shutting our eyes to facts? There are millions of men in this country who do not believe in the Army; they would never join it voluntarily, and would only take up arms in case of a grave national emergency, and there are a large number who in no circumstances whatever would take up arms. I am not going to try to hide the facts from myself. I know that those are the facts. I personally believe that unemployment benefit has had little or no effect, but whether it has had or not,
    574
    this is the last Government to which to come asking that the benefit should be made less in order that men may be driven into the Army. I shall speak with the utmost possible plainness. This Government will not be responsible for attempting either to reduce the unemployment. benefit, or to make it more difficult to get it, because recruits are not coming into the Army. That must be taken out of our category completely, because we could not be responsible for a policy of that kind.
    I know it is an opinion amongst many people engaged in the recruiting service that the unemployment benefit has this effect. All I know is what I can speak of from my own personal knowledge. I know one industrial county fairly well, and I am certain that the question of unemployment pay has relatively little to do with whether a man offers himself for the Army or not. I do not doubt, as has been said from the other side, that peace propaganda has a tremendous effect on whether men offer to join the Army or not. That is one of the things that is inevitable, and, again, I do not, think the Government can be asked, for the sake of recruiting, to deviate one inch from their peace policy or from the principles which they have always declared in regard to peace.
    I spoke a few moment ago of the rejections, and I wish to give one or two figures in order to throw into relief exactly what they mean. Sixty-four per cent.—64 men out of every 100—were rejected in 1928, and 61 out of every 100 in 1929. In those two years 30,000 men and 28,000 men were finally accepted. Nearly all of the rejections were due to physical defects, of which I gave a picture to the House on the 16th April. In answer to a question, a table was given showing what those physical defects were. The height required is now 5 feet 2 inches.
    Major The Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is that for boys?
    Mr. SHAW: That is for the ordinary infantry of the line. In December, 1928, the height standard for the infantry of the line was lowered to 5 feet 2 inches. Again I make no apology for calling attention to these figures, because to me they are positively dreadful. Let me turn to another question which has been dealt with by the hon. and

    575
    gallant Member for one of the Berkshire divisions. He put in a claim that men, whilst they are in the Army, should have training of such a kind as would allow them to come back into civil life with a real chance. I agree with every word he said, and am prepared, so far as it is humanly possible, to adopt every suggestion that can be made for the improvement of vocational training in the Army in order to achieve the end he advocated. No party can look with equanimity on a state of things in which a man leaves civil life for a certain number of years and then comes back, not an outcast but, so to speak, different from the rest. I am prepared to help in every possible way, and to accept any reasonable suggestion. for the development of vocational training centres in the Army.
    I am glad to say that those who have been trained in these centres show a very high percentage of success in gaining employment immediately they leave the Service. In 1928, 81 per cent. of the men who had been trained got employment immediately, and in 1929, 76 per cent. When one considers the abnormal state of affairs in the country to-day, those figures are very encouraging indeed. I thoroughly appreciate the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member about the type of man in the Army. I have seen one or two examples of the new soldier. I have been to two overseas garrisons, and I have made fairly extensive inquiries. There is no question that the old type of hard-drinking, hard-swearing, rapscallion kind of soldier—however attractive he may have been in other respects, that was what he was—has to all intents and purposes disappeared. As I said in my speech on the Estimates, the wet canteen, judging by the reports I get, is almost going out of commission, and a different type of man, a more studious type of man, and perhaps, on the whole, a higher type of man, is being evolved. It is my duty to help in that development.
    I am anxious to abolish from the Army one of the things which, as it appears to me, must inevitably go as this country develops. Up to now there has been unquestionably a social gulf almost unbridgeable between the man and the commissioned officer. If middle-class men
    576
    and university men will come into the ranks for a few years there will be a tendency to bridge this gulf. If we can develop the Army educational system sufficiently, there will be a tendency to bridge the most important difference of all, the educational difference. If we can evolve a method—and I am not despairing of it, although frankly I have not yet seen the way to solve the problem—of a systematic rising from the ranks into the commissioned ranks then, I think, we shall have improved the Army enormously. These things are bound to come in the next few years and anything I do in the shape of recruiting will be done with these principles at the bottom of my mind.
    6.0 p.m.
    I would like to run through very quickly questions which have been raised by various speakers in this debate. An hon. Member spoke about the soldier being well fed. It is one of the most pleasing parts of the experience of a Secretary of State for War when he hears that the men who join the Army develop in physique during the first 12 months of their service in a way which is simply marvellous. All that we can do in that respect is welcome, and I hope we shall be able to continue the good work. The question of returning to full dress has been raised, but I do not think I am going to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the enormous expenditure that would be involved, because the House knows very well that what I would like to do must be tempered by what we are able to do, and that tempering must be, to some extent, the deciding factor. I have already spoken of employment in civil life, and I admit that there is a certain amount of difficulty and the soldiers arc handicapped in finding employment when they leave the service.
    I will now turn to the question which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth(Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) dealing with housing. Estimates have been presented as to what the cost would be of rehousing the troops on a modern scale wherever rehousing was found to be necessary. Of course, rehousing would have to be done in the most modern way, and to do it would cost a sum that it is quite impossible to find at once. I will do all I can to continue the programme that has been fol-

    577
    lowed, and I will try to accelerate it. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Louth that a soldier should be provided with decent accommodation, and I should not be doing my duty if I did not do everything I could to provide that accommodation. Every soldier ought to have a decent roof over his head and a healthy place to live in.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised the question of the Army Officers' Training Corps. This is a subject which has been discussed very frequently when the Estimates have been under consideration, and it has been definitely settled for the next 12 months. It is a question of policy upon which, I think, a declaration is properly made when the Estimates are before the Committee. My attention has been called to the fact that compulsion is exercised on the boys. May I draw attention to the fact that there is no compulsion on the parents to send their children to these schools, and I think that hon. Members ought to consider the other side of the shield. If parents have not the moral courage to say, "My boy must not go to these schools," I do not think that I should be asked to take action in a private institution which I do not think necessary.
    As long as the Government policy remains what it is, I shall do my best to carry out the principle which I have laid down without compulsion. There will be no compulsion on my part, and I shall do my best to see that a man gets a square deal when he comes into the Army. Whether I like the job or not, it is my job and I have got to do it. On the subject of intelligence tests, I would like to point out that during the last few years a very valuable method has been adopted in connection with an organisation known as the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, which has certainly achieved some very remarkable results. One of the tests, supplied directly by the Institute of Industrial Psychology or by some body analagous to it, was tried, and it is at present in abeyance. I certainly have not closed my mind to the idea that a test of this kind might be useful. We have been told that what is required is a test as to a man's initiative. If an initiative test is applied, it should be applied in such a way as to show whether a man possesses
    578
    initiative or nor, and real knowledge, as apart from book knowledge, which may not be quite as valuable as the ordinary everyday science of common-sense.
    With regard to recruiting, this question is not dead; but there is no need for panic, and there has been no sudden and serious worsening of the conditions. It has been frankly acknowledged that this question has to be tackled. I do not say that next week or the week after I am going on a personal recruiting campaign throughout the country, but even that is not excluded, and I may find myself in some of the centres of which I have spoken appealing to men who ought to come into the ranks and set an example to others. I give no promise, but the fundamentals of the case as I see them are these: You have the medical side of the Service understaffed. Judging from the information I have received from reports and information kindly given to me by some of the distinguished men in the medical profession, it is quite evident that that side of the Service is understaffed, and the reason for that is, I am told, that the terms are not good enough.
    I do not know whether the same reason applies to recruiting, and it may be thought that we are not offering anything that is good enough for the men to accept. One hon. Member said that the men in the Army should have some degree of security. If by security is meant that the Army will always be kept up to its present strength, this Government can never give that security. If by security the hon. Member means that a soldier will have reasonable consideration at the end of his service, I say at once that there is no intention, and there has never been any intention, of breaking the contract which has been entered into. That plain declaration is as straightforward as anything I could say. I want every soldier in the ranks to have decent conditions and a healthy life, as I think he has now, and I hope the soldier will be looked upon as a servant of the State who should go from one job to another in the State.
    I want to see the soldier receiving a good education in the Army and making rapid progress. I had an opportunity the other day of reading one of the examination papers which have been set for Army students. I am supposed to know something about one or two

    579
    sciences, and I have some knowledge of one or two languages, but I confess that, if those papers had been put before me, I should have been "plucked." I will not say any more on that subject. I have tried to state the position of the Ministry and the Government, and I must now leave the House to determine whether or not my salary ought to be curtailed.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I congratulate the Secretary of state for War on the speech which he has just delivered. The right hon. Gentleman has relieved a great many of our anxieties, and he has given expression to intentions which I feel sure he will do his best to carry out and which, in our judgment, are in the right direction. I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the recruiting position was serious at the present time. I know that when he published the Army Annual report he said that he viewed the position with disquietude. To-day the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that it is not a new thing because there has been a shortage of recruits for many years, and that the position to-day does not differ from the position of the last few years. I have here the figures for each of the last five years, and last year was the worst but one of all those five years. This year the figures for the first nine months are shaping to be worse still. The figures for the first nine months for all arms were 19,213, which is 2,400 less than for the first nine months of last year. Those figures are not really comparable, because it was at the end of 1928 that the height standard was reduced, with the result that an additional 3,000 recruits were obtained. A shortage of 2,400 in nine months, following previous shortages, is a most disquieting thing.
    Of course, the right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that it was not the number offering that had failed, but the number that could be retained on account of health. He mentioned that 61 per cent. were rejected. That, however, is not a new thing either. There have been rejections over 60 per cent.—indeed, as many as 65 or 66 per cent.—in previous years. The rejections last year were actually less than in the previous year, when they were 64 per cent.
    580
    I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he must not take consolation from the idea that he is going to get quickly a better type of recruit than he is getting at this moment. When you have dealt with the public health, when you have removed some of the underlying causes of ill health among the population, you may effect an improvement, but that is not a thing that is going to concern recruiting next year, or the year after. What we have to do is to maintain each year, not waiting for a longer period, the numbers that go into the Army. The right hon. Gentleman also thought that the War deterioration had commenced to operate. I am afraid, however, that that is not so. I do not see how it can be so. We are in the year 1930, and the War children would only be, at most, 16 years old; and, although some of them may offer themselves at 16, the number is very small.
    Mr. SHAW: There were also the children who were three and four years of age when the War broke out.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That, of course, is true, and it does affect the question to some extent, but what I want to point out is that the children who are now 16 or 17, and who would come to recruiting age during the next two or three years, are going to be fewer in number because births during the early War years were certainly fewer. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to get help in that direction, and he will have to face a still more serious position in the next few years. I am urging him, therefore, to treat this matter, not as one which is passing, or as one which is not serious, but as a really serious matter which requires continuous watching and continuous action on his part. As he said, the numbers joining depend largely upon what the pay and the prospects of the men are to be. I am not at all sure that pay is the first consideration, because there has been experience of higher pay, and of a reduction of pay, and we know the effect that that had upon recruiting. First there was a check, but, shortly afterwards, it seemed to be made up; while in the Territorial Army, when the bounty, or part of it, was abolished pretty much the same result was observed. There was at first a check in the numbers coming in, and then a gradual making up.

    581
    I do not, therefore, believe that it is really a question of pay; I believe that it is much more a question of prospects, and, when the right hon. Gentleman says that his ideal is that a man joining the Army is joining a national service, and that he wants the nation to see that that man gets continuous employment, I am entirely with him. If he cannot guarantee continuous employment, I should like to see a continuous pension if the man continues in the Government service, so that the Army pension should also count towards civil pension in the civil employment of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, let him maintain the preferences in employment in Government service which at present exist, and, if he can, extend them. There have been committees innumerable on this subject, and that fact confirms the right hon. Gentleman's statement that recruiting has always been difficult. There have been committees innumerable on the question of what we could offer to the soldier in the way of employment in the Government service. The last committee was set up during my term of office, and at my instigation, by the Treasury, and I understand that it was in consequence of that committee that the Treasury Circular was issued to Government Departments at the beginning of this year, the Government Departments being instructed to give preference to ex-service men in certain classes of employment.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will watch that question. A departmental committee has been set up, on which I have no doubt the War Office is represented, for the purpose of facilitating the employment of ex-service men, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman himself will put his words of to-day, which we welcome, to the actual test of action, and that he will himself see that the preferences enjoined by the Treasury, as a result of the committee to which I have referred, are in fact observed, and, if possible, increased. For example, there is the 50 per cent. employment in the Post Office. That will come up on another Vote, when, no doubt, it will be dealt with in greater detail, but, on the question of the inducements to recruits to enter the Army, I think that prospects are much more likely to be the deciding factor. In the Post Office there is an
    582
    arrangement whereby postmen and certain other classes are appointed on a 50–50 basis, the vacancies being filled as to one half by telegraph messengers who are promoted, and as to one half by ex-service men. There is, I understand, a suggestion that that arrangement shall be varied by promoting auxiliary postmen, and that might be done in a way which will not interfere with the 50–50 arrangement, or it might be done in a way which would interfere with it, by taking away some of the vacancies to which ex-service men are now entitled. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will watch that matter, because any disturbance of the preferences which now exist will, without doubt, damage, and not help, the prospects in regard to recruiting.
    I am extremely anxious that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman can do to see that the ex-service man gets employment, especially in the Government service, and preferably with a continuous pension, should be done. The vocational training arrangements are not enough. At present, even if the places are fully occupied, they do not deal with 10 per cent, of the men who leave the Army every year; I think the figure is nearer 7 or 8 per cent.; so that, while a number might have the chance if they chose to apply for vocational training, a great many never get the chance. 11 the right hon. Gentleman could extend these arrangements I should be very glad indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman said that he was anxious for the continuance and, perhaps, improvement of education in the Army, it occurs to me that there might be some possibility that in the barracks themselves those who are capable of benefiting by it—and a great number of men in the ranks have very high educational certificates—might receive some increased education there, so that gradually the barracks, without becoming exactly a university, might at least be able to give, to those who were capable of benefiting by it, a somewhat higher education and training, so as to fit them more for civil life when they go out in the world. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that the type of those who are now joining the Army is improving year by year. Much as people loved the old type, and the friends of the old type must never be lost sight of, there is now a new type of men of a higher standard

    583
    of education, and accustomed to a higher standard of living; and I feel that there is a real opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, if he will only put into practice the sentiments which he has expressed to-day. not merely to earn his salary, but, at this time next year, to receive our congratulations again. In the meantime, while we have had a most excellent and useful debate owing to my hon. and gallant Friend having put down this Amendment, I feel sure that he, like the rest of us, would dislike reducing the right hon. Gentleman's salary, and I have not the least doubt that at the right time he will withdraw the Amendment.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES; I am sure that the House, and especially Members on this side, will have listened with very great satisfaction to the speech of the Secretary of State for War, because we felt that he was dealing with the subject with a great sense of responsibility, and also with a sympathetic outlook which showed that the future of the Army ought to be very much better than the conditions of the present day. We on this side welcome the right hon. Gentleman's words to-day, and feel that, while they reflect our own admiration for the Army, they also reflect very great credit on the right hon. Gentleman himself, as showing that he has this deep sense of his responsibility.
    We are exercised in our minds at the evidence of the lack of recruitment, particularly when we observe the high percentage of those cases which were refused on medical grounds. The fact that, although the height standard of to-day is only 5 feet 2 inches, 61 per cent. of the candidates could not come up to that physical standard, shows that there are in this country to-day a very large number of our young men who cannot be described as physically fit. There was one sentence of the right hon. Gentleman which struck me with considerable force. He spoke of his feeling of great satisfaction at the way in which these young men who had been introduced into the Army developed after about 12 months Or so.
    The same thing was noticed during the Great War. During part of that time we had to take into the Army men who
    584
    could not by any means be called physically fit for the Service, and yet, after undergoing a certain amount of training and exercise in the open air, and with good food, the development which they made was astonishing. This was so not only in the case of youths, but of men of 21, 22 and 23, and 1 have been wondering whether the standard for entry into the Army could not be altered so as to take that into account. No one would suggest for a moment that anyone should be admitted into the Army who was organically unsound; but I wonder whether the test could not be made a little lighter for any man who is being refused on account of lack of height, or chest measurement, or dental requirements; because I feel very strongly that, if these men, who, perhaps, have been brought up in circumstances of great poverty, who, perhaps, have been living in slums, had the chance to lead a healthy life in the open air, with exercise and plenty of good food, they might develop physically and become really good strong healthy men, a credit to themselves and to the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear this consideration in mind, and see if some slight extra benefit could be given to these people, with the idea that, with good food and the healthy Army life, they might improve in health and physical standards.
    The point about which I am principally concerned is the marked shortage of medical officers. In reply to a question which I put to him yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that there is at the present time a shortage of 140 medical officers. It is no use having an army at all, however small the army may be, unless it is a healthy army. The only way in which von can have a healthy army, and keep it healthy, is by having a sufficient and efficient medical staff. The health of the Army depends to a very great extent upon its medical service. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Question!"] I do not think even the hon. Member would like to think that all the doctors in the world were suddenly wiped out of existence and that he was to go in terror of his life.
    The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger absolutely on the vital spot—that is money. The medical man is worthy of his hire. Medical men, to a large extent, enter the profession with the idea of

    585
    making a livelihood, and they are human enough to hope to make the very best livelihood they can, just the same as hon. Members opposite, if they can get a chance of an increased salary or a better job. The medical student, when he becomes qualified, can take a panel practice, which appeals to some, but nothing like it used to, because a man has to be very keen to be willing to work seven days in the week, nights included, for a very precarious existence, and a large number of panel practitioners lead a precarious existence.
    On the other hand, more and more every year are attracted into the public services—the health services, tuberculosis services, venereal disease, and all the ether things that are offering very great inducements to the best type of men. I should like to give some of the salaries that are offered to some of these medical men. A hospital medical officer gets £600, and a senior medical officer from £750 to £1,000, a medical officer to a port is offered £800 a year, a district officer for tuberculosis £750 a year, and the medical superintendent of an institution, according to the number of beds, gets from £750 to £1,100, with emoluments. The best men are going to these appointments, and the Army is suffering accordingly. You cannot blame them when they are asked to go into work at a very much lower salary than that, to give seven years of their life, when they can have a gratuity and start a livelihood for themselves. Instead of going into the Army, as they did in the past, they are going into these public services. The pay is very much better and the outlook is better. One way to get an efficient medical service in the Army is to pay more money. If you offered sufficiently good terms, you could get them into the Army, whereas they are now going to the other services.
    There is another method. The Government employ a large number of medical men in their Departments. Would it not be possible to arrange that any medical man who had been in one of the services should have a preferential claim to any Government medical service, and later on under a municipality? By doing that, you would possibly get them to go into the Army for the sake of the life and the experience and the opportunity of travelling about the world, and they would
    586
    come out with a gratuity and with the knowledge that they would have a preferential claim to Government or municipal service. You would thus fill up the shortage and attract the best type of man into the service, and in the other services you would get keen, enthusiastic, experienced men, and ultimately it would be to the benefit of the State.
    The same trouble is to be found in the Air Force and the Navy. If the three Departments together could persuade the Government to work on that system and offer this direct inducement, the trouble would be over. You would not have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for very much more money. The position is serious, and I think it is an urgent necessity that the Secretary of State should see that the medical services of the Army are recruited up to their proper strength. It is a duty that we owe to the men in the Army to see that there is an efficient and sufficient medical service, and the sooner that is done, the better for the Army and ultimately, I should hope, for the country, and for medical men also. I hope I have pointed a way out of the difficulty, which is not difficult of application if the Government apply their minds to it. I hope my remarks will be passed on to the Secretary of State and that he may think them worthy of consideration.
    Mr. EDE: I think the hon. Member's doctrine is an exceedingly dangerous one to apply to a public service. It shows how far one can be pressed if one once departs from the sound doctrine of the best man getting the post when it is in the public service, I think the proper way to deal with the problem is to make the post in the Army sufficiently valuable in every way, not merely in emoluments but in status and everything else, to attract the right type of man to it.
    Dr. DAVIES: That was my first suggestion.
    Mr. EDE: The hon. Member's practical suggestion was that that should be postponed to the future and, as he has never revealed himself as an idealist, I am inclined to regard what he suggests as the practical step as being the one he rather anticipates will be carried out. I rise because I think this problem of recruiting presents us with one very striking sidelight on the attitude of the

    587
    country towards recruiting. During the past 25 years the work of the school medical services has revealed to us a steadily increasing efficiency in the physique of the people. When one compares the results of the medical inspection of elementary schools to-day with what they were in 1907, when they were first instituted, it is astonishing to find in most of the areas the increase in height, chest measurement, nutrition and in general physique. And yet, when these children reach the age when they become recruits for the Army, the physique of the recruit has very little improved over what it was then, and it would appear to prove that the physically fit in the population are less and less looking to the Army as a normal source of employment.
    I think the education service is in another way responsible for the difficulties in obtaining recruits. There was a very valuable type of recruit who used to join the Army. I recollect, just after the Armistice, coming in contact with one of them who had risen to the rank of sergeant-major. I was sent round by the officer commanding my unit to collect the civilian occupations of the men. The occupations varied from day to day because wild rumours went round as to which was to be demobilised first. Finding that no occupation had been given for the sergeant-major, I went to him and, with the great respect due to a person of his exalted rank, I asked him what his civilian occupation was. He said, "Write my civilian occupation down as soldier." There was no doubt that that man's civilian occupation was a soldier. He was a soldier by temperament and outlook and by a long career in the office he then held.
    The Secretary of State got very close to the real problem of recruiting when he suggested that one of the ways in which to secure adequate recruits would be for the youths in public schools to enter the Army in the ranks. When the Estimates were first introduced, I urged that that should be the one entry into the Army, and that the commissioned classes should be entirely recruited from the ranks. I believe, with the present organisation of our State and the outlook of our people on the problems of industry and employment, we shall find it
    588
    increasingly difficult to secure recruits unless it is understood that there is only one form of entry to the Army and one avenue to the commissioned ranks, and that men who are soldiers by temperament, by experience and training shall be the people who will go to the commissioned ranks. As the Noble Lord opposite said, our Army is merely a police force. To suggest that our Army of 149,000 men is in any sense a military danger to the people of the world is to say something that is palpably absurd. But we must maintain an Army at somewhere about this figure for police purposes. For such an Army to be recruited on two separate bases, as it is at the moment, first for the non-commissioned ranks and secondly for the commissioned ranks, is to create a difficulty in the way of recruiting for the non-commissioned ranks that we ought not to allow.
    I was very glad to hear what the Secretary of State said and I can only hope he is going to apply the principle very speedily in one case where the matter has lately been presed on him. There is some difficulty at the moment in recruiting schoolmistresses for the Army. The Army schoolmaster has been given commissioned rank, and some of the nurses have been given commissioned rank, and with the existing shortage of Army schoolmistresses I am sure he would find that, if they were given commissioned rank as well, it would very considerably ease the problem. Difficult as social distinctions among men may be, I am sure they are far more difficult of adjustment when they operate in the case of women. The difference in social status between the Army nurse and the Army schoolmistress is one of the difficulties in the way of recruiting for that branch of the Service. I think an unnecessary amount of heat was thrown into the debate by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton). Surely, he must realise that there are a good many men on this side of the House who served in the War and who were in the House when he spoke and made certain very general observations which were not, I understand, exactly meant to be friendly towards those who served in the ranks.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not know what the hon. Member means. On the contrary, I said that hon. Gentlemen on the back benches are entitled, if they

    589
    desire to do so, to advocate that there should be no military service of any kind. I do not know that I engendered any heat in that statement. I recognise that an hon. Member has a right to be a conscientious objector if he wishes.
    Mr. EDE: I was not a conscientious objector.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am glad to hear it.
    Mr. EDE: I am afraid that the Noble Lord hardly realises the effect which his words sometimes produce, because, if he did not generate heat, the atmosphere was considerably warmer during his speech than it was during any other part of the afternoon. Hon. Members on this side of the House who served in the ranks during the War, who had experience of the War on a good many fronts, and whose interest in the Army is derived from the fact that they have served in the Army—I joined the old volunteers at the age of 17 and I rejoined when the War broke out—do not like general remarks of this character to be thrown at them.
    Earl W1NTERTON: Really. The hon. Gentleman must not go on accusing me. [Interruption.] I am not talking to the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) but to the hon. Gentleman who has referred to me. The hon. Member is doing me an injustice, and I know him well enough to realise that he would not desire to do anyone an injustice. I said deliberately that hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite were quite entitled to hold the views which they do hold. I have not suggested that hon. Gentlemen opposite as a whole did not do good War service. Of course, they did. If the hon. Member thinks that I did make such a suggestion I wish to make it clear that I am well aware that there are many on those benches who did excellent War service.
    Mr. EDE: The Noble Lord drew a very sharp distinction between hon. Members sitting on the back benches whom he included in a general condemnation and the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench. I have not yet sunk to the level of the Front Bench, and I doubt if ever I shall. I feel that it is necessary to protest against the idea which,
    590
    at any rate, the Noble Lord conveyed to me, and, I am sure, to other hon. Members here who had similar experiences daring the War, that we were not supposed to take any interest in the Army or in the soldier. I wish to see the British Army, as a police force for the preservation of good order and government in the various countries for which this nation has accepted responsibility, to be a force which any intelligent citizen who does not hold the extreme view that an army is in itself bad may feel that he can join and that the highest offices are open to him on his military ability and his military ability alone. I am sure that all the time that the right hon. Gentleman for Preston (Mr. Shaw) is the Secretary of State for War, and while this party remains responsible for the Army, we shall be taking steps steadily towards the realisation of an ideal which will give this country, for the first time since the Seventeenth Century, an army in the organisation of which a democratic State can be proud.
    Mr. SIMMONS: Though I take, perhaps, a more extreme pacifist view than most of my hon. Friends, I also recognise that we have to face things as they are and not as we would like them to be. Facing things as they are, we have to recognise that we have an army in our midst. As long as we have an army in our midst, I am anxious that those who serve in that army shall have the very best possible conditions. The Noble Lord opposite, who indulged in the passage of arms with my hon. Friend about what he said and what he did not say will remember that he said that we on these benches were not the friends of the soldier. He has said the same things in other debates in a very much more offensive manner, and that we were against the soldier.
    I want to put forward the contention that the position of the soldier to-day is not comparable with the position of other employés of the community or of the Government. It is not the fault of the Government which is now in office. These things have obtained for years and years. If you compare the soldier with the policeman, the soldier has a much inferior job to that of the policeman. Take the soldier's pay and the soldier's conditions of life, and you will realise that they are not going to attract enormous numbers of

    591
    recruits into the Army. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) referred to the position of medical officers in the Army. I agree with the point of view and with the position he took up, that if you employ medical officers in the Army it is necessary to give them the best possible conditions and to make those conditions comparable with the conditions of medical officers in employment outside. If you are going to do that for medical officers, you ought to do the same thing for the privates and give them conditions comparable with the best kind of conditions of employment outside the Army. The party opposite, who charge us with not being the friends of the soldier, have been in the control of the armed forces of this country on and off and in and out with their friends below the Gangway for upwards of a century. I fail to see that they have made all the necessary improvements in the lot of the soldier which alone can remedy the present position.
    I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that class distinction and snobbery in the Army is another thing you are up against as far as recruiting is concerned. If we have to have an army to defend this country or to carry on necessary police work under the League of the Nations, let us have a square deal for every unit in that army. I agree that every recruit to the Army should come through the one channel, the ordinary recruiting offices, and that sheer ability and nothing else should qualify him for the rank of captain or brigadier-general or field marshal. [Interruption.] We had one, I know, but what is one among so many. You have officers' servants in the Army—you have the old class distinction—men of the same race, colour and creed acting as menial servants to other men of the same race, colour and creed. When they go to India the ordinary soldier has the service of someone who, in the eyes of the authorities, is supposed to be just a little lower in the social scale. If that sort of thing was done away with, I believe that recruiting would be encouraged.
    One of the reasons adduced on the opposite side for the decrease in recruiting was the action of Socialist councils in impeding the progress of recruitment. Socialist councils, along with any other borough councils, have not the function
    592
    which the War Office possesses in this House. Their function is to administer and to govern the affairs in their city. and I do not see that recruiting comes into the matter at all. We were also challenged from the opposite benches as to whether we would go into our constituencies and urge men to go into the Army. Why should we do so? The Army employ a staff of recruiting sergeants to do that work. That is their job, and it is not the job of Members of this House or even of the Secretary of State for War. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are so keen on recruiting, I take it that they will be able to use the platform of the Beaverbrook campaign or of any other campaign in which they are interested in order to make an appeal for recruits for the British Army, and nothing will be said about it.
    I come to another rather serious aspect of this position which is an echo of a previous debate and which has been reiterated in this Debate, namely, the suggestion that men who are receiving unemployment insurance benefit in the transitional period should be compelled to join the Army on pain of losing their unemployment insurance status. This suggestion was made a few weeks ago from the Front Bench opposite, and it has been made again this afternoon. What is that but conscription in a veiled form? If hon. Members opposite believe in conscription, they should be honest and go on to the platform and advocate conscription instead of asserting that the unemployed are receiving money and doles because they are too idle to work, and that therefore they should be shoved into the Army as a kind of punishment for being unemployed. This is the fault of the economic system under which we live. Many men have no desire to go into the Army. Temperament differs. Some men enjoy Army life. When I was younger, I enjoyed the time I spent in the Army, except the War period, and there are young men who enjoy it to-day. It is a matter of temperament and you cannot dragoon people into the Army willy nilly because they happen to be on the unemployed list. The Noble Lord said that there was very little public interest in the question of recruiting, and he thought there was likely to be less. He said that if the people of this country—and here is a point which I think the House ought not to allow to escape notice

    593
    —realised that upon recruiting depended the defence of the north-west frontier of India and the possessions of this country from Cairo to Bombay—
    Earl WINTERTON: I said the lives and the property of British nationals from Cairo to Shanghai.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. SIMMONS: I would not like to go to a party of working-class men and ask them to join the British Army for the purposes which have been outlined by he Noble Lord opposite. I know the British working-man. The British working-man would turn round and say, "Tell the people who have got the property in those districts to go and defend their own blinking property." One would gather from that argument that you were to join the Army, not to act as a member of a police force under the League of Nations, not even to defend the shores of one's native land, but to go abroad and defend the ill-gotten gains of a gang of international capitalists on whose boards of directors there might happen to be a few Englishmen drawing dividends. Then we had given to us by the Secretary of State for War very alarming figures concerning the physical standard of the recruits in the British Army. We were told that 61 per cent. were rejected because they were under the physical standard, that the standard had been considerably lowered during the past few years, that the height was only 5 feet 2 inches—I should think that even the bantams we had during the War would come up to that. [An HON. MEMBER "They were only 4 feet 8 inches!"] Well, they were as good as some of the big chaps we had. How are you doing to encourage recruiting and inspire enthusiasm in men to defend a country which has to reject 61 per cent. of those who apply for entry because of their physical defects? We had the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), winding up his peroration with the statement that there has been a decrease in patriotism since the Socialist party came in. That was the declamatory statement which we had made in his very best form. What does he mean by that? My patriotism is to make it impossible in this country for 61 per cent. of the people who apply for service to be rejected because of their physical condition. My patriotism is to
    594
    raise the whole standard of life of the community which I represent, and I suggest that that form of patriotism, though it might not be so spectacular or so melodramatic, though it might not carry with it a beautiful uniform, is a kind of patriotism which will appeal to the people whom we on these benches represent.
    Question, "That £879,000' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Postponed First Resolution further considered.
    Brigadier - General Sir GEORGE COCKERILL: I beg to move, to leave out "£409,670," and to insert instead thereof "£408,570."
    It is a pleasing custom that a Member rising to speak for the first time may crave the indulgence of the House. I do not know whether it would be possible to crave a similar indulgence when a Member rises for what may well prove to be the last time in this House. The length of life of the present Government does not depend on me, but, if this does prove to be my Swan Song, I am glad that my voice should be raised for the last time here on behalf of the regular soldier with whom a great part of my life has been served.
    I wish to raise a question of vital importance to men now serving in the Regular Forces of the Crown—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The question arises directly out of an official statement issued a few days ago by the Office of Works. It was a perfectly frank statement. The First Commissioner announced that he had recently received a deputation from the trade union side of the Office of Works Joint Industrial Council on the subject of the preference of employment which is now given to ex-regular sailors, soldiers and airmen in the Office of Works. Evidence was apparently laid before the First Commissioner of some feeling against what he calls, in his statement, a new system among the men of his Department. The right hon. Gentleman explained with perfect truth that the policy he is observing was laid down by the Treasury and applied to every Gov-

    595
    ernment Department alike, and he added that he would take immediate steps to have the policy reconsidered.
    That statement has struck consternation in the minds of everyone connected with the business of providing employment for ex-service men. After listening to the Secretary of State for War my apprehensions have been greatly allayed. There is, however, some fear in the minds of some of us on this side of the House that there is some movement which the First Commissioner might find it difficult to resist. Other Departments besides his own are affected, among others the Post Office, and it is for that reason I believe that the Post Office Vote has been put on the Order Paper to-day. I shall confine myself to the question of employment in the Office of Works. I do so for this reason. It is over 30 years since the Cabinet of the day decided that 50 per cent. of the vacancies for postmen should be assigned to ex-service men, and I doubt if such a long subsisting arrangement is likely to be upset without the fullest consultation with all concerned. I have not quite the same feeling of security in the case of the Office of Works. In a statement the right hon. Gentleman issued to the Press, reference is made to "a new system." It is easier to modify or destroy a new system than one which has its roots fixed in a longer past.
    I should like to explain to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware of it, that the so-called new system, if it can be called a new system, depends on a principle which has been accepted for many years past by every successive Government. That principle emerged for the first time from the proceedings of a Select Committee of this House which reported as long ago as 1877. That committee was set up to consider the question whether a better class of men would be induced to enter the military or naval services if the prospect was held cut to them of civil employment after a certain period of meritorious service. In the case of the Army, the committee answered the question with a very decided affirmative. They reported:
    "There is good reason to believe that if it were well understood that a considerable
    596
    number of suitable civil appointments were to be given to soldiers when their term of service expired, the effect on recruiting, would be good."
    They recommended that the appointments of permanent messengers, for which they said, soldiers and sailors appeared especially suited, should be exclusively made from persons who had served. They recommended also that the practice of reserving appointments as park-keepers for ex-soldiers might be made an absolute rule, and that such a rule should be extended to analogous employment. A second Select Committee was appointed in 1894, and they suggested further measures for extending the employment of soldiers and sailors in the civil Departments, and for helping them to obtain service with private employers of labour. They were very dissatisfied with what had been done to carry out the recommendations of the earlier committee, which they said had not been commensurate with the necessities of the case, and they added:
    "In sending back annually into civil life so many thousands of reservists, the State contracts towards these men a moral obligation which it should not hesitate to discharge."
    The principle on which successive Governments have acted for many years past cannot be better stated than in those words. Much is heard in these days of dead-end and blind-alley occupations and the injustice of employing young people in such occupations without taking steps to fit them for further employment as they grow older. There is surely no more complete blind-alley employment than that of service in the Forces. Men are withdrawn from civil life at an age when others are just entering into profitable employment, and at the end of their time of service they are returned to civil life gravely handicapped for the pursuit of other employment. Every opportunity is now taken of improving their qualifications for employment, but it still remains a fact that the Army and Navy are dead-end or blind-alley occupations in a more real sense than any other occupations unless the State intervenes to find employment for the men on their discharge.
    Clearly the Select Committee of 1894 took a very serious view of the moral obligation of the State towards those who had given the best years of their

    597
    life in the service of the State. The report went so far as to say that service in the Colours should be, under ordinary circumstances, a condition of appointment for employment in all State Departments, and it stressed the suitability of soldiers and sailors for employment in a variety of occupations, such as watchmen, store keepers, caretakers and similar posts of trust. If for no other reason, the men leaving the Services are physically better fitted for employment in civil life than the rest of the civil population. We have heard this afternoon that 61 per cent. of the men who offer themselves for recruitment have to be rejected through some physical infirmity. That clearly means that those who are accepted are the very pick of the basket, and when they return to civil life they are, naturally, men who can render valuable service in the industrial life of the country.
    I hope that there is no illogical prejudice in the mind of any hon. Member opposite as regards the employment of ex-service men merely on the score of any pacifist opinion which he may hold as regards the abolition of war. I am sure that every soldier who has served, whatever his rank, would share with hon. Members opposite the dislike of war. No soldier wantonly provokes war, but so long as the State has an Army and a Navy—we are not discussing the merits of that question now—quite clearly it has a moral obligation towards the ex-Service men to place them in a position not less favourable than other men in civil life. Since their competitors have had from youth upwards much better opportunities of securing and retaining situations in civil life than they have had, it is surely only just and right that ex-Service men should be compensated, even by receiving preferential treatment from their one and only
    employer, the State. Such has hitherto been the accepted view. To me it seems the natural and just view. It certainly still persists, for as recently as 1926 the Treasury appointed a further Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Warren Fisher, to consider the cognate question of finding suitable employment in civil life for men who had served in the Forces of the Crown. Amongst their recommendations was this very important one.
    "It should be an accepted principle that in filling subordinate positions for which
    598
    adult recruitment is the rule, consideration should first be given to duly qualified candidates who have served in the Regular Forces of the Crown."
    The Committee recommended—in addition to a long list of types of posts to which this special arrangement should apply—that there should also be found posts in industrial establishments for which ex-regulars possessed suitable qualifications. That admirable principle rests on the high moral ground of doing justice to men who have rendered faithful service to the country, and it is this principle that underlies what the right hon. Gentleman has called the new system, in the statement which he has issued from his Department. It is a principle which has been long accepted and it is a principle which he is, apparently, being invited to reconsider or modify by the trades union side of the Joint Industrial Council. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman may have the strength to resist that pressure, such as it is.
    The Secretary of State for War has expressed himself this afternoon in terms which, to me, leave nothing to be desired. He said that the men who come out of the Army should come back into civil life in a decent position. That is what we want to secure. Apart from any question of right and justice, and considered merely on economic grounds, it would be wise for Parliament to ensure as far as possible that men on whom we rely for service in the Reserve Forces of the Crown should not be exposed to the risk of that demoralisation which so often follows in the train of unemployment. If we do not do justice to our ex-regulars, there is no question but that the State will have to offer ever increasing rates of pay in order to attract recruits for military service. That is a question which may appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Already, there is some comment in foreign countries as to the scale of armaments indulged in by a Socialist Government in this country, and the cost of our services is being compared, to our disadvantage, with the cost of services abroad. That is a further point that might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.
    I prefer to base my appeal on the higher ground which I have already stated. The right hon. Gentleman is credited with a kind heart. These men

    599
    have served their country well, they have no trades union to plead their case, and they can only look to this House and to the Government of the day to do them justice. Their service to the State has very gravely prejudiced their chances, on returning to civil life, of quick absorption into the industrial life of the country, and they have every right to expect, what the Secretary of State for War has described as, "at least as decent treatment from the State as they would get from a good employer." They have every right to expect some compensating privileges in respect of further employment under the State, and I hope to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he admits the moral obligation which the State has contracted, and that he will not hesitate to discharge it.
    Major COHEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think I may follow the hon. and gallant Member in saying that in all probability this will be my swan song, and it strikes me as rather curious that we should both liken ourselves to this particular bird, because his name begins with Cock, and mine ends with "hen." As the chief representative of the British Legion in this House, it is necessary to me to say something in respect of the proposed reduction of the Vote, because the Legion is very much concerned at the suggestion that there is an attempt to deprive ex-service men of employment in a quarter where they have always looked, and where they are entitled to look, for employment. Up to now the present Government have followed the precedent set up by the previous Government, and by other preceding Governments, in giving preference in certain quarters to ex-service men. The Legion has always been perfectly satisfied with that.
    The Unemployment Grants Committee insists, whenever it gives loans for relief works, that 75 per cent. of the men employed shall, where possible, be ex-service men. The Employment Exchanges have instructions that, all things being equal, preference should be given to ex-service men. Up to now the Post Office have reserved 50 per cent. of their vacancies for ex-service men. In addition, there have been various committees
    600
    which have been set up to deal with the finding of employment for ex-service men in the Civil Service, such as the Lytton Committee, the Southgate Committee, and the Guinness Committee, and they have all recommended that preference should be given to the ex-service men in appointments to the clerical staff. Moreover, in January this year the Treasury issued a circular saying that preference should be given to ex-service men. For this purpose it divided the ex-service men into three categories, (1) ex-regulars who enlisted before the 11th November, 1918, (2) what they call hostilities men, the men who joined up in the Great War and fought in the War only, and (3) the men who have joined the Army since the 11th November, 1918. We hear now that it is proposed to upset that circular, and it is because of that suggestion that this debate is taking place. The Legion fears that if the suggestion to upset the circular should be acceded to, it may be the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of the end so far as giving preference to ex-service men in Government Departments is concerned. For that reason it is deeply concerned.
    At the present time there are, roughly, 7,500,000—I am speaking only of the men over 18—in industry in this country and there are 1,400,000 unemployed. There are 4,250,000 ex-service men in the country. if the unemployed ex-service men are in the same proportion as the total unemployed are to the total number of those employed, there are to-day 800,000 ex-service men unemployed. That number is likely to be exceeded in the near future, because the King's Roll Committee, which has done its work, as every one will agree, extremely well in the past, is now faced with a difficulty in getting employment for what they call the "B" and "C" categories—the worst disabled men. The "A" category consists of men very slightly disabled, and the King's Roll Committee have considered whether they ought not in the future to concentrate entirely on the "B" and "C" category men, and let the "A" category men look after themselves. In other words, let the "A" category men join the other ex-service men in the labour market. It is possible therefore that the "A" category men—I do not suggest they are going to lose

    601
    their jobs if they already have them but those who have none—may have to come on to the labour market.
    This is not the time to put any obstacles in the way of finding employment for the ex-service men. I realise fully that at a time when unemployment is rampant, the ex-service men must suffer with the others, and I realise that it is extremely hard that when a certain number of young men are coming to the age when they want to find employment they cannot find it, but I do say that the case of the ex-service man deserves more consideration from the country than the case of the young man who escaped the War and is now coming to an age when he wants work. We all owe a debt to the ex-service men, and the finding of employment for them is one way in which we can pay them for their service, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to refuse the request made to him to alter the present regulations.
    Major TRYON: I desire to support my two hon. and gallant Friends, and I am glad to have this opportunity of reinforcing the appeal which has been so well made by the hon. and gallant Member who speaks for the British Legion. I must congratulate the First Commissioner of Works on the remarkable development of his opinions since the date, almost exactly two years ago, when he voted for the total abolition of the Army. Now he fills a responsible position in a Government which is maintaining considerable naval and military forces.
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): On a point of Order. Are we going to repeat the discussion which took place on the previous debate? I am perfectly willing to discuss it.
    Major TRYON: I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Department, and I was saying that, in view of his responsibilities as First Commissioner of Works, in a Government which is spending over £100,000,000 on armaments, that he should do all he can as First Commissioner of Works to give employment to those men to whom the Government and the country owe so much. I understand that, in reply to the deputation, he said that he would see that this question was immediately reconsidered. I hope he will
    602
    not reconsider this question, but will carry on the tradition of his predecessors and give employment to ex-service men. I speak with some claim, because I have been head of a Department in which 97 per cent. of the male staff were ex-service men. We were faced with incredible difficulties on a reduction of staff, but we so reduced the staff that 97 per cent. of the male staff were ex-service men, and en that ground alone I have some personal claim to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do his best for these men.
    There are special grounds why he should. The State, the Government, asks these men to give up the best years of their life to the service of the country. They are being trained under the present Government to defend the country in case of war, and in order to do that they have to give up the best part of their lives, sometimes three years, sometimes seven years, in some cases more; and it is those very years in which they would have been able to build up employment in some other industry. It is because these men have missed their chance of getting established in some civil industry that they should receive special consideration from the State. The First Commissioner of Works, especially can help, because he has so many of these posts which are suitable for ex-service men. I understand there was considerable feeling by the deputation against filling these posts with ex-service men. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a feeling in the opposite direction. People when they see men employed in the parks, who can be recognised from their medals as having rendered valuable service to the State, do not want to see them replaced by men who have never rendered any kind of service whatever. Therefore, I ask the First Commissioner of Works to do all he can through his Department, which has special opportunities, to give employment to these men after their service in the military forces of the Crown.
    Mr. WALLACE: I do not think there is any Member of the House who would not listen to the appeal which has been made on behalf of the ex-service men with sympathy, but I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) what is an ex-service man. What do we mean by service? I cannot make this great distinction between service with the Colours and service on the

    603
    high seas with service in the mines. When an appeal is made that no ex-service man shall suffer unemployment I cannot stop there. I want no unemployment for any man. It so happens that I know something about this particular question, and I feel that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in regard to it. The right hon. Member for Brighton has appealed to the First Commissioner of Works to carry on the policy and has suggested that the circular of this year has made no change in policy. If that is so then there is no feeling and no disagreement, because the men who are concerned are not opposed to the ex-service man being employed. The ex-service man is a man who has served with the Colours before the War, during the War or after the War.
    This is one case which has been brought to my notice. It was the case of a man who had served in the Office of Works for seven years when his employment was terminated. He was unemployed for 10 weeks, and when he applied to the Department to know whether he could be re-employed, he was told that there was no work for him in the future because they must employ ex-service men. In the meantime an ex-service man with a pension of 42s. or 48s. per week secured employment, whilst the other man was left on the street with a wife and family to keep. I put it to hon. Members opposite; does this claim for preference for ex-service men mean no employment for the civilian? I cannot think that hon. Members really suggest that. As I see it, after the Treasury circular the ex-service men are in no way prejudiced, their rights of employment as cleaners, watchmen and doorkeepers, is in no way prejudiced. There is no dispute about those particular posts. The dispute arises in connection with the industrial classes, and even there, as I understand it, there is no opposition to the ex-service man having a fair share of that employment. I put it to hon. Members that a fair share is the right basis upon which to approach this question.
    There is just one other point I should like to make. In the case of ex-service men there are those who are in receipt of pensions and there are those who have no pensions at all. The order of selection for employment often means that an ex-service man without a, pension with a
    604
    wife and family does not get employment at all, but that the other man, without a wife, without a family, but with a pension, gets employment. This whole problem might well be considered again, and if the unions concerned had been taken into consultation in connection with the particular circular the misuderstanding would not have arisen. From what I have heard in this House I feel convinced that there is some misunderstanding. The men in employment are under the belief that when they are "stood off" for the summer period opportunity is going to be taken to dismiss them in order to take on the ex-service man. No man, however much he desires to give preference to ex-service men, desires to dismiss other men in order to make places for them. That misunderstanding has been removed. My final point is this, that if this question is closely examined it can be cleared away. The Treasury Circular and the policy of the Government as I understand it has never been to exclude civilians entirely from employment in Government Departments but to see that the ex-service man gets a fair chance and a square deal; and all that the men in the unions concerned are anxious to see is that the ex-service man does get a square deal, but they are opposed to civilians being excluded entirely from employment in Government Departments.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I should like for a few moments to put one or two points forward as one who has studied the present needs of a service in which I have had the honour to serve. The hon. Member for Walthamstow East (Mr. Wallace) commenced by asking for a definition of an ex-service man, and he then proceeded to give what he considered to be a definition. It was one which put all men on a basis of equality if they have given service to the State either in the mines or in the factories or with the Colours.
    Mr. WALLACE: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member wishes to misrepresent me. What I said was this, that I could not make this great distinction between men who serve with the Colours and men who serve in the mine, and that an ex-service man was a man who has served with the Colours.
    Captain BALFOUR: I do not desire to misrepresent the hon. Member, and I

    605
    therefore accept his explanation. I do not agree that a man who has served with the Colours, whether since the War or in the War, is in any way comparable as regards the consideration which he deserves from the community to men who have worked all their time in civilian life. The hon. Member asks for a square deal for the ex-service men. There is a definition of a square, a definition of a rectangle and also a definition of an oblate spheroid; and from his point of view that seems to come nearer his idea of a square deal for the ex-service men. It may be said that in the indication the First Commissioner of Works gave when he had the interview on 11th July with the deputation from the trade unions there is no difference in words. I will not argue that. You may say there is no change in policy; I will not argue that. But what I do say is that it indicates a change of spirit and a change of heart, and one which threatens the welfare of the ex-service men.
    There were allegations at that meeting of strong feeling on the part of the trade union side at the preference given by the Office of Works to ex-service men. Nobody wants to discharge men in order to give preferential treatment to one class, but we want to safeguard the ex-service men in the future. They deserve more for the service they have done for the country. Conversely to the strong feeling expressed to the First Commissioner of Works there is an equally strong feeling from representative ex-service organisations as to the employment of ex-service men. The First Commissioner of Works said that he was going to reconsider the matter. The indication that he is prepared to reconsider the matter is a justification for my contention that there is a danger in the spirit if not in the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman. The ex-service men do deserve a far greater consideration; and by ex-service men I mean those who have served with the Colours in some form or other in the years 1914–1918.
    There is a sort of inferiority complex abroad now—that anyone who has served from 1914 to 1918 should wipe that all away with his past life, and should be rather ashamed of it, instead of being very proud that he has rendered the greatest service to his country that he
    606
    would probably ever have an opportunity of rendering. We try to deal with the sentiment of hon. Members opposite in their policy, and we are quite willing to grant sentiment in this case. Let us be proud of sentiment even at the expense of the ordinary letter of the law. Let us exercise the national sentiment in this country towards giving preferential treatment in every way possible to those who rendered service with the Colours, and particularly from 1914 to 1918. As regards suitability, we all know that people have technical qualifications for work and have experience. That is all to the good in any employment. If hon. Members opposite are either employers or employed they must know that the one fundamental thing needed is soundness of character and honesty. Every ex-service man who has come out of the Forces without a stigma has proved that he has these fundamental necessities for success in commercial life. Let us give sentiment a run. Do not let us be ashamed of it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite has least to be ashamed of it. Let us be proud in every way possible to advance the employment of ex-service men and give happiness and security to those who have rendered service to the country; and so justify ourselves as representatives of the people in giving some form of recognition to those who best deserve it amongst the people of the country.
    Mr. LINDLEY: I want to support the point of view advanced by the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace). He reminded the House that it was necessary that we should have some clear definition of what we meant when we spoke of ex-service men. The hon. Member who has just spoken indulged in a geometrical definition which it was very difficult to follow, and he failed to answer the question of the hon. Member for East Walthamstow. We have been told that we have a moral obligation in respect of the ex-service man. I think every Member of the House will agree that we have that moral obligation, and I do not think it can be said that Members on this side have forgotten that moral obligation. We have done as much and probably more to keep that moral obligation to the front than Members of any other party inside or outside the House. But there are moral obligations in respect of others than those who were ex-service

    607
    men who served with Army or Navy. Are not the whole of the unemployed in this country ex-service men? In your definition of ex-service men you mean only those who have served the interests of the propertied and moneyed classes in this country, who have probably run the risk of making the supreme sacrifice, and you neglect altogether the moral obligation to the industrial worker, whose effort alone made it possible for you to maintain the Army in the field.
    Captain BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to address me as "you" the whole time, as if I had made some accusation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether he was addressing the hon. Member or me.
    Mr. LINDLEY: If that is a point of Order you may have many raised before the discussion is over. If you are going to differentiate between these ex-service men who are unemployed and the civilians who are unemployed and who never had an opportunity during the Great War, it would perhaps be as well to draw attention to the order of preference laid down in Circular No. 1–30. The first preference is given to ex-regulars, including boys who enlisted on or before 11th November, 1918. It is rather difficult to find boys who enlisted before 11th November, 1918. Departing from that question of moral obligations, if it be denied that all the unemployed people who have already given service in the industrial sphere of life are to be set aside as being of less consequence than those who gave military service, is it not true to say that there is an endeavour being made by hon. Members who have spoken on the other side to raise a conflict of interests between those who may be described as ex-service men in the military sense and those who were civilians and are seeking work, and whose needs are just as great in every respect?
    We were told that those who had joined the Army or the Navy or the Air Force were the pick of the basket. That may be true, but it is not a reflection on those who, because they were not in the pick of the basket, were unable to join. There are many of them. Records show that there is a very substantial number of those who endeavoured to join the Forces and were not accepted for service.
    608
    But they are still unemployed and still needing something in the way of employment or maintenance. Hon. Members opposite deny the right of any man to ask for maintenance unless he is prepared to work. We say that if people are prepared to work and there is no opportunity to work, it cannot be expected that they will rot in the gutter. We have heard again and again arguments to the effect that there is need for a surplus of unemployed labour in order to meet the fluctuating demand of the labour market. If that be true, then the unemployed people of this country have a case. If it is necessary that there should be a margin of unemployed people, whether they be ex-service men or civilians, some attention should be paid to the demand that work or maintenance should be found for them.
    In any case, surely something more than mere physical qualities should determine the selection of a man for a particular job. The trade unions of the country have pointed out again and again that when competent men have been available for given jobs, unless those competent men have been what are described as ex-service men, they have been passed over, and incompetent men or men unfitted for a particular job have been given the work. We have been told that compensation should be provided for the ex-service man. But if military service is as attractive as the posters would indicate, why talk of compensation for those who join the Forces in such favourable circumstances? "See the world for nothing." If compensation is to be claimed, surely it should be claimed by those who have been the victims of industrial life equally with those who have been the victims of military service. It has been said that the trade union attitude is not the only thing to be taken into consideration. We do not expect it to be the only thing. But we do suggest that the attitude of the trade unionists of the country and the representations made by the trade unionists are just as much entitled to respect as the representations made by any other body.
    It seems to me and many others that this is simply an endeavour to offer an undue preference to men to join the Forces—men who otherwise would not he likely to join. It is an endeavour to

    609
    acquire the pick of the basket for a particular purpose, and largely at the expense of those who are not physically fitted for that purpose. Of those who did not fight for the country many never had an opportunity, and many, although they had. an opportunity, were prepared to suffer in other ways for the sake of their country. We have been told that these last-named people were beneath contempt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yet they displayed a courage which perhaps hon. Members opposite who cheer that statement may not have displayed. It is impossible for some men to differentiate between physical courage, which might be merely brute- courage, and moral courage, which may be of a much higher order. While many of us wish to see every ex-service man employed, we also feel that the time has come when the determining factor in fixing men in any particular job should be their fitness to do the work.
    It is said that we should regard this matter with a kind heart. How many of those who have been charged with malingering and with being work-shy and with standing at the street corners, are ex-service men? From the economic point of view the employers of the country ask, first of all, whether a, man is competent for a job. It is only when it is a question of dealing with Government Departments, when some job that is worth having is available, that we hear all this talk about preference for the ex-service men and an absolute disregard of the ordinary sense of fairness. The trade unions complain quite rightly that many of these positions are filled by ex-service men in circumstances that are not quite fair. We find that special forms are provided for the Employment Exchanges and that through Exchanges employers are asked what particular work they have available, the nature of the work, whether the vacancy is suitable for an ex-service man, the age limit, whether the job is permanent or quasi-permanent. All these questions have to be answered, but never a question as to the wages offered or the conditions of labour, and it is frequently the case that men who are sent to fill these particular vacancies, although we are told that they are entitled to the highest regard and that their services to the country should be rewarded when they have been dis-
    610
    charged from the Army or Navy by the provision of work which will be both decent in respect of conditions and remunerative in respect of wages, those are the particular circumstances that the ordinary employer ignores.
    8.0 p.m.
    We feel that while these circumstances ought to be taken into consideration, the trade unionists of the country are having no sort of control over men who are pitch-forked into positions, frequently at half the rates of wages that ought to be paid. Then the employer comes along and asks that he should be registered on the King's Roll. From my own experience, I could state that very many of those whose names have been entered on the King's Roll have not complied with the conditions which are necessary in accordance with the original idea. We feel that these differentiations should now be wiped out. It is a case in which the trade unions are interested from the point of view that a very large number of their members are ex-service men, and it might be well to remind hon. Members opposite that during the War it was to the trade unions of the country that they went asking the trade union officials for help in inducing men to join the Army. Trade union members did join, and they returned to civil life, and thousands of them have been found work through their various trade unions at trade union rates of wages. We would like that to continue, and we see no reason why it should not continue, but there is no guarantee that the ex-service men who are to be taken into these various services shall receive a remuneration commensurate with the service which they are called upon to give.
    We do not object, and we never have objected, to ex-service men coming into industrial life, or any other phase of life. Ex-service men were with us before the War, and we have ex-service men still with us, sonic of them who were seriously injured, and who have drawn substantial sums of money from the funds of the trade unions and friendly societies of this country. We think that, as trade unionists, we are entitled to ask the Government to respect our point of view. That is the sum and substance of this request made to the Office of Works, and I trust that it will be respected.
    Sir PATRICK FORD: I was a little at a loss to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Lindley), who has just sat down, because he began by expressing considerable sympathy for the ex-service man; he then took various further steps in the argument, and in the end he came back to an expression of sympathy for the ex-service man, but apparently it was only for the ex-service man who was already recognised and had had something done for him by a trade union. All these points are not exactly to the point, but are all rather wide of the mark. What really comes up under this Vote is the example that the Government will set to employers in the country. I think we all, in varying degrees, admit that there is something that is due over and above to the men who have borne the brunt and heat of the battle-field for us. I speak as one who, through ill-health, was not out on active service, and I always feel as such that nothing can be done that is too good for the men who bore the burden and heat of the day on the battle-field, as these men did.
    It is these men who are first of all in my mind, but I go further and say that there is a distinction between those who have rendered service to the State definitely with the Colours, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, and those who served the State while earning wages for themselves in industrial employment, without which the business of the country could not be carried on, because in the former case there are undoubtedly elements of definite service for the State and willingness to take risks and to put up with hardships that do not exist in the bulk of civilian employment. Therefore, I feel that on moral grounds we are entitled to give a preference to the men who, either before, during, or after the War, served the State in that definite capacity.
    As one who, although invalided during the War, has been associated with one of the best regiments in the country, and with ex-service men, I have been tremendously impressed with the type of men that the Service turns out. If you take some of these old regiments, you find that for generations father and son have followed into those regiments, and if you go to their homes and see their wives and children, and the men them-
    612
    selves, you feel that there is not a better type of man. They are breeding a race which in all the finer qualities of life cannot be beaten anywhere—a self-respecting and efficient set of men.
    More is being done in Army training to-day than used to be done, and by ex-service men's associations, and so on, for them, and the trade unions, to do them justice, are doing what they can: but not enough is done for the men who have served for considerable periods with the Colours and, after being self-respecting men, with good pay and good positions, and able to provide for a wife and children, are then turned loose without the same kind of qualifications as others on the labour market. Where there are jobs to which their training entitles them, surely they should be given to them; they are entitled to a preference above the mere civilian. They do not join the Colours in a spirit of jingoism, but because the life appeals to them, because they take a pride in the Service, or may be it is a family tradition, but in the hearts of all there is that feeling of service to the State, and on moral grounds, I say that that has to be taken into consideration.
    Reflections were cast by the last speaker—and I believe, in certain cases, deserved reflections—on some employers who have been using the King's Roll for their own purposes, who have been abusing this business of the King's Roll. I think there arc cases where they have not been paying these men as they should, and where they have been priding themselves that they are employing ex-service men. There are individual cases of that sort, I believe, though not on the scale indicated by the hon. Member, but surely that is the very thing that ought to be put right, and what can show a better example than a Government Department employing as many of these people as possible at the best wages possible? For that reason, I support those who have spoken on behalf of the proposal of the hon. Member behind me, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Fairfield Division (Major Cohen), who has now left the Chamber, but who has been such an example to us, not only in what he sacrificed himself in the War, but in his lasting interest in the ex-service men. I feel bound to speak as strongly as I can in favour of the proposition put forward by him, and I hope

    613
    it will not be misinterpreted by hon. Members opposite. I realise that many of them have done a great deal, not only in their own persons, but in their own industries, for their fellows who have served in the Colours, and I hope they will see that if they support our attitude they are setting an example to the nation to treat the ex-service men with that consideration which they undoubtedly deserve.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like, before the First Commissioner of Works replies, to refer very briefly to a matter which interests a large number of people, and I may say that I am speaking now at the request of two important associations. I wish to refer to the Roman wall, called Hadrian's Wall, which, as the House knows, runs from the neighbourhood of Newcastle across the country. There is a large number of people who are very uneasy about the future of that great memorial of the Roman Empire which ruled our country for centuries. It is the finest memorial of Roman times in Britain. There are many people who take a very keen interest in its preservation, and I am glad to think that, with the growth of education, with the spread of adult education, with the increasing interest taken by people in the things of the mind, there is much more interest taken in such things as the Roman wall in these days than there was in former times. For 50 men who take an interest in such a thing as the Roman wall to-day, not one man would have taken such an interest 40 years ago, and I hope the Labour party will not show itself more indifferent to such things as I am speaking about than any other section of the community.
    We are uneasy about this wall, because of the quarrying operations that are approaching it more nearly every day. At one particular spot there is a quarry now within 100 yards of the part of the wall that is most nearly in its original condition. What alarms me most is the formation of a company which bears the very ominous name of "Roman Stones, Limited." That company is empowered to exploit the mineral rights over a large area to the west of the great Fort of Houseteads, up to and including the wall, and that company is hoping to turn out something like 100,000,000 tons of stone. There is a great demand for materials for
    614
    the making of roads for motor cars at the present time, and there will be, undoubtedly, a large demand for stone, but there are not very far from the Roman wall abundant supplies of whinstone quite suitable for the purposes for which the proposed company is going to quarry in the neighbourhood of the wall.
    It is said that this company would give much employment. I should be the very last man to ignore anything which would give employment at the present time, but there is no doubt that the objects of this company could be gained by resorting to whinstone quarries at no very great distance from the wall, and yet not injuring the wall, which would give as much employment as would be given if they entered upon operations endangering the wall. I am not speaking in any spirit of hostility to the right hon. Gentleman. I, for one, am very thankful indeed that the office of First Commissioner of Works is filled by one so sympathetic as is the right hon. Gentleman to such matters as I am now bringing forward, and I only hope that during the period in which Parliament is not sitting the right hon. Gentleman will not lose his interest because he is not being asked questions about the wall. I am asking him for an assurance that during the next three months nothing shall be done to injure the wall, and that he will exercise his rights to protect this wonderful and magnificent memorial of ancient times.
    Commander SOUTHBY: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) has introduced into this debate a plea for the preservation of Hadrian's Wall. The hon. Member appealed to the First Commissioner of Works, with confidence, to do all that he could to preserve this ancient monument. May I suggest. to the First Commissioner of Works that he ought to be as careful of the interests of the British ex-service men of to-day, as he is of this monument to the Roman soldiers of the past. The Roman civilisation at any rate, never forgot its soldiers: it grew and increased behind the shields of its soldiers and from it we have derived many benefits in laws and in many other ways. I suggest that the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield ought to give the First Commissioner to think in that connection.
    Having listened with interest to the speeches of hon. Members on the other

    615
    side of the Committee, I am not ashamed to stand up in this House and plead that perferential treatment should be given to the ex-service men. Let me say at once that I pay a tribute to those hon. Members on the other side who have splendid and gallant war records. Reference has been made to men who were unable to join up and, personally, I think that the case of the man who tried to join up in order to fight for his country but was prevented from doing so by ill-health is a very hard case indeed. He earned the opprobrium attaching to one who did not serve, and yet, all the time he was probably one of those most anxious to go. I have no desire whatever to penalise the man who tried to go into the fighting Services during the War but was unable to do so. At the same time we have to realise the plain fact, which is before us this evening, that a bargain is a bargain. The ex-service men were promised, quite rightly, certain preferential treatment. They took risks, and I venture to suggest that there is nobody sitting here now who, during the War years, would have dared to stand up in the House of Commons and suggest that anything but the best was good enough for the men who were fighting oversea.
    Yet this evening we hear speeches from the other side, sincerely delivered as I believe, suggesting that the War is over, that the time has come to repudiate the bargain, that it does not matter what was promised to the ex-service men or what they did in the War, and that they are to be put into the sad pool of unemployment now, and are to have no preferential treatment. A reference has been made to the miners. I have always had the greatest admiration and respect for the men who work in the mines and I do not think that any body of workers has a finer war record. Some of the finest fighting regiments were recruited from the mining areas. But this is not a question of doing an injustice to any other unemployed men. This is not a question of doing any injustice to any men engaged in industry. It is only a question of doing justice to a particular class of men. A definition of the term "ex-service man" has been asked for. Well, it is only quibbling to talk about service in industry being the
    616
    same as service with the Colours. We are here facing the problem of the man who served with the Colours—the specific case of the man who served in His Majesty's Army, Navy or Air Force who undertook risks not undertaken by many others and who thereby has missed many of the sweets of life enjoyed by those who do not serve with the Colours. That fact might be remembered. These are men who were led to believe that the country's bond to them would always be honoured, and that they would always be given preferential treatment.
    After all, the term "ex-service man" is not one of which anybody need be ashamed. These men deserve the very best from the State. I think it was the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace) who referred to men with pensions being allowed to compete in industry. I take the opportunity of putting this point to the Committee. Those of us who are interested in the British Legion, or in any of the other movements which look after the interests of ex-service men, often hear criticism because employment is given to an ex-service man with a pension, as if the possession of a pension should he a bar to employment. But a pension is deferred pay. It is, in fact, the savings of the ex-service man. He is paid less during his period of service in order that he may have a pension when his period of service expires. Would any hon. Member suggest that a miner or a factory-worker who saved money and put it in the bank, and who was drawing a little interest on it should he debarred from competing in the industrial world on equal terms with any other man? No single Member would, I think, make such a suggestion. Yet the ex-service man with a pension is in exactly the same case as the man who has savings. The ex-service man's pension is not something which is paid to him outside and above his earnings during his service and therefore it is perfectly just that a man in that position should he allowed to compete in the labour market with other people.
    It is not as if the ex-service man was not deserving. While he serves with the Colours, every opportunity is taken of observing his character. When he leaves the Service his character is written on a

    617
    parchment sheet for all the world to see. That cannot be said of other competitors in the industrial world. The men for whom I am pleading are men of good character and proved character who deserve the best that the country can give them. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Walthamstow means anything, it means that the ex-service man, so far from getting any preference, should be at a disadvantage as compared with men who have not served. Well, whatever the views of hon. Members opposite may be with regard to pacifism and military service, I reiterate that a bargain is a bargain, and that the nation has made a bargain with these men.
    Mr. WALLACE: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to misrepresent me and I am very anxious that in discussing this question we should not get away from the real point. There is no objection to the ex-service men having a preference, but the particular case which I mentioned was that of a man who had served for seven years and who lost his job in order to make way for others. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is no objection to ex-service men.
    Commander SOUTHBY: I am very glad indeed that that correction should be made by the hon. Member. I am sure that no ex-service man would wish any other man to suffer in the way which he has indicated, but 1 am very glad to Lear it said by the hon. Member opposite that there is a preference due to ex-service men. It is just that preference for which we are asking. Many hard things have been said about the First Commissioner of Works, at least some of which have been deserved. The right hon. Gentleman has been accused of having a soft heart, but at any rate he has never been accused of having a soft head. I suggest that this is one of the occasions on which he might give his soft heart—if it indeed exists—free play and do justice to this deserving body of men. The House of Commons is here for the purpose of seeing that justice is done to the people of this country—a fact which sometimes we seem to forget. The ex-service men appeal to us for a fair deal and I do not believe that they will appeal in vain. Whatever the views of hon. Members opposite may be about
    618
    military service, I do not believe that they desire that the bond to the ex-service men should not be honoured. I do not believe that hon. Members, because their views are anti-militarist—to use a common term—are anxious to make the ex-service men suffer.
    The number of ex-service men in need of employment to-day is probably greater than it ever was before. Many of these men joined the colours before the War with the reasonable hope of advancement in the Service, but, because of reductions in armaments, we have arbitrarily denied them the right to continue their service with the colours and the opportunity to rise in that service and earn their pensions. Yet, when they ask for a small preference in a civilian walk of life, it is suggested that the preference should not be conceded. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Lindley) agreed that we have an obligation, and then he went on to make an assertion which I cannot think he really believes. It was nothing more than a libel on ex-service men. He said that they were in fact hirelings of the moneyed and capitalist class. The hon. Member knows quite well that that is an absurd point of view. He does not really believe it.
    Mr. LINDLEY: On a point of Order. I neither believe that nor said it—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): if the hon. Member rises to a point of Order, he cannot make a speech.
    Mr. LINDLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave way.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman said that he war rising to a point of Order, and it was not a point of Order.
    Commander SOUTHBY: If the hon. Member wishes, I will give way.
    Mr. LINDLEY: I am sure that no hon. Member in the House thinks that I intended to speak to the effect that ex-service men were hired assassins or anything else.
    Commander SOUTHBY: I did not say that.
    Mr. LINDLEY: I said that many of these men were not free agents and were compelled to join the Services when there was no other employment, available.
    Commander SOUTHBY: That is not the point. I made a note of it at the time, and what the hon. Gentleman said was that they were used to protect the interests of the moneyed classes.
    Mr. LINDLEY: I say that now.
    Commander SOUTH BY: Does the hon. Gentleman deny it?
    Mr. LINDLEY: I do not deny it; I say that it is true.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Then I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman has the slightest complaint to make that I have misrepresented him. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman did not believe anything so foolish or malicious, or anything that was such a gross libel on ex-service men as that the men who joined the Services did so in the interests of the capitalist class. It is a reflection on them which they would be quick to deny. These men have joined the Colours for the service of His Majesty and of this country, and for no other purpose, and nobody knows that better than the hon. Member. To say otherwise is to bring soap-box oratory into the House of Commons. I do suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works should stand up for these men. Whatever his views may be upon military service or pacifism, he is in the position of a trustee for their rights. Reference has been made to the men who, owing to their conscience, could not join the Colours during the War. I am prepared to admit that it might well be that a man required more courage to stand up and say that he was a conscientious objector than go to the Front. But that is not the point in question; that has nothing to do with this debate.
    We are not discussing the question of conscientious objectors, but the fact that ex-service men have been allowed to believe that they should have certain posts which they were well able to fulfil in the Government service, and which, in many cases they were best able to fulfil by reason of their character and experience and tried capacity. The suggestion is that these posts should be taken away. There is no question of bringing into the question a man's conscience or moral courage or to decide whether he did or did not wish to join the Services during the War. If the specious
    620
    arguments that have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Rotherham mean anything they mean that now the danger is over, he wishes to repudiate the bargain. This afternoon it was my privilege to be in the company of a large number of men so wounded that they can never do anything again—men so broken and shattered by the War that there is nothing we can do for them except to make the evening of their days a little lighter and brighter. They are beyond our help in the industrial world, and all we can do for them is to maintain them in what comfort and ease is possible for them. But for the men whom we are discussing the men, who are fit, able and willing to work, and who, by reason of the fact that they are ex-service men, should be given a preference for these jobs, we can do something.
    We do not seek to give these men treatment above what they have had in the past, but we can at any rate maintain the preferential treatment which they have had as a bare measure of justice to men who deserve nothing but good of this country. I have had a case brought. to me in the last few days of a man employed in one of the Government Departments, who served in the South African War, and who has spent 22 years in the Department. He had six sons, five of whom served overseas and one at home. He is 60 years of age, and his appointment has been
    terminated in the Government Department. Because of his having to bring up a large family, it has been difficult for him to put anything by, and he only asks that he may be kept on five years more until the insurances which he has effected will mature. That is the case of a man who has deserved well of the country, and I quote him as a typical instance. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not be deaf to the sincere appeal that has been made from this side of the House to do the just and fair thing for the 4x-service men.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It would be convenient if I first replied to the question put by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser). Only to-day we have heard from the gentleman who wishes to do some quarrying, not on the Wall, but near the Wall, that he thinks that he will be able to satisfy us in regard to the

    621
    conditions which we laid down in a letter some weeks ago as to the preservation of the amenities of the district. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman and his friends that, so far as the Department is concerned, they will use every scrap of influence and power to see that the very least damage is done if the quarrying operations have to go on. I do not complain at all that this debate has been raised, but I think that many of the speeches have been delivered under an entire misapprehension of the whole circumstances. I should like to say to two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken that I am sorry that their swan song, if it be their swan song, should be in the nature of a very gentle complaint in regard to my administration. We differ fundamentallv, but I hope that I can respect men who hold their views as strongly as I hold mine.
    I would like to say in respect to ex-service men, that long before the British Legion was formed, long before the late Mr. Hogge formed his organisation, my wife and certain workers in the East End of London and myself, together with Lord Bethell, formed a tiny organisation to look after the men who were then coming back, and the wives and dependents of those who were at the War and of those who never came back. In Bow and Bromley I leave them to judge me as to my action on those matters. In regard to this particular question, even with the reversal that took place in the case of industrial workers, which is the only point at stake, I am only carrying on the policy of my predecessor. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member should accept my word about that, because I am stating the cold, bare fact. In the case of industrial workers it has been the custom of the Department to act in conformity with the King's Roll and on the rule that the Employment Exchanges should choose the men, on the understanding that where possible an ex-service man or woman is to have the preference. We have not interfered with that, we have no intention of interfering with that, and if you took a census of our industrial workers you would find that a very considerable proportion are ex-soldiers and are ex-service men—I am differentiating between the two, because we must differentiate, as I will show in a moment.
    622
    The Department has not altered and does not intend to alter—certainly while I am there—the conditions which prevailed when I took office; but it is perfectly true that in April last we thought that in the case of the men we require on the industrial side of our work—bricklayers, engineers, electricians and so on—we could extend this preference by laying it down that only ex-soldiers or ex-service men should be engaged. Directly we began to increase the staff for the summer, and to consider, as we have to at this time of the year, the coming autumn, we were up against the fact that in our Department there are a considerable number of men who are what are called "temporary casuals." They are men who work at one job for a season and go off to some other employer, and then come back in the autumn, and the winter to take up jobs as stokers, and so on. Many of those men have been in our employ for years. When I first considered this Circular I did not realise what we should be up against in administering it.
    We now propose that the circular shall operate everywhere—but in regard to the industrial workers; this has nothing to do with ex-service men of the kind the hon. and gallant Member spoke about just now; it is the time-expired soldier, airman, and sailor that I am talking about now. We propose to revert to the conditions that prevailed up to last April. We shall take the men from the Employment Exchanges, and we all hope that the ex-soldier—if he is competent, because we can only take competent and efficient workers for posts in the electricity, engineering, bricklaying and carpentering branches—will then be able to get his chance with the rest of the people who are registered at the Exchange.
    Major TRYON: Will there be any preference for ex-service men?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The preference, I understand, that the Employment Exchange gives; but it must be a condition that the men are efficient at the particular jobs. I am laying stress on that, because even in the week or two that we tried to operate this circular we had to send back several men who it was a pity were ever sent to us for these jobs. Over the whole period of years the Office of Works has been taking these men, in the

    623
    way I have described, from the Employment Exchanges, and the ex-soldier has come in, as can be proved by the very large number of ex-soldiers engaged in the Department.
    When we come to ex-service men, whose case has formed the chief part of the discussion, I am extremely sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) is not here, because I think if he heard me he would agree that the Office of Works is doing really splendidly by the ex-service men. Before I took office we reserved for ex-soldiers 168 jobs as park-keepers, 97 as depot clerks, and 280 as night watchmen, a total of 545. Now, under my administration, there are reserved for them as entirely new reserved appointments; caretakers, county courts, 67; caretakers, ancient monuments, 93; surplus property caretakers, 15; warders, 109; attendants in Royal parks, 40; Scottish Royal parks, 10. That makes a total of 334, and, with the earlier total of 545, gives a grand total of 879.
    Mr. TINKER: What proportion is that of the men employed?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Very nearly all—90 per cent. or more. I will put it another way. Here are posts that are reserved for ex-regulars: park-keeping staffs 168, caretakers 67, other caretakers 79, seasonal ones 14, caretakers of surplus property 15; warders, attendants,
    guides 109. Out of that number we reckon that before I took office 50 per cent. were reserved; in the future the whole 100 per cent. of those appointments will be made from ex-regulars or ex-service men. That is apart altogether from the ex-service men. We have 70 messengers, and these vacancies are filled by the Joint Substitution Board. My Department has not the least objection to these messengers being recruited from ex-soldiers. We have a considerable number of other people who fill the sort of occupations I have mentioned. On the industrial side 130 liftmen are employed and 114 places are filled by disabled ex-service men. As to charwomen, hon. Members may think this is a small thing, but we have 334 of these women in our employ, and 98 per cent. of them are widows of ex-service men. Under the King's Roll 5 per cent. is supposed to be the normal qualification.
    624
    We have been appealed to by suggestions that we should set an example to other employers. Of skilled men we employ 7 per cent. and unskilled men 16 per cent. That is on the industrial establishment. I am giving these figures because the debate has gone along those lines. In the non-industrial establishment we have got 20 per cent. of disabled men in occupations not connect with industry in the sense. If you take the Government service as a whole those holding appointments as messengers, warders, park keepers, attendants and other non-clerical appointments in the years preceding the War 30 per cent. were ex-regulars. If you take Office of Works figures before the War it was between 33 and 48 per cent., so that the Office of Works has always given a good lead to other departments. If you take the percentage of ex-servicemen including ex-regulars since the War it is 80 per cent.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Am I to understand that on the industrial side the position now is that the ex-service men, if competent, will have their applications considered, with the addition that they will have a preference because they are ex-service men?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I must not mislead the House. We have reverted to the position which obtained before April of this year. That is to say we are taking our men from the Employment Exchanges. We are bound under the King's Roll to take a certain percentage of these men, and we take more than our percentage. When it comes to the selection of ordinary men for employment, that is in the hands of the Employment Exchange authorities, and I understand that where they have an ex-service man or an ex-soldier he has the preference if he is qualified for the job. We do not take our people on in the ordinary way. We get ex-soldiers sent to us from an organisation in Victoria Street. What I want the House to understand is that in regard to men on the industrial side I am doing exactly the same as my predecessor.
    Commander SOUTHBY: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman employs men sent to him from the Employment Exchanges, and those Exchanges exercise a preference in favour of the ex-service men. Will the right hon. Gentleman see

    625
    that it is made quite clear that the officials at the Employment Exchanges are expected to exercise that preference in the case of appointments in the Department of the Office of Works.
    Mr. MOSES: That is already laid down.
    Sir G. COCKERILL: Are the conditions in the report of Sir Warren Fisher implemented?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The whole of the front page of that report, which ends with "night watchmen" and over the leaf down to "caretakers" are categories which are being reserved for ex-service men, partially disabled ex-service men, and ex-soldiers. The only change is that when we come to posts on the industrial establishments we have gone back to exactly the position that prevailed before these proposals were put into operation.
    Sir G. COCKERILL: The right hon. Gentleman is not going back upon the principle by which his predecessors have been guided?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly not, but I wish the House to understand that the operation of that principle is in the hands of the Employment Exchanges. I am sure that hon. Members would not expect my Department to dismiss a man under the conditions that we have just heard, where the man has been in our employ for seven years. I want the House to understand that the Office of Works is doing as much if not more for ex-service men than any other Department under the Government, and we are carrying out the pledge which we have given to look after these men. I have just been told that the Employment Exchanges always act on the principle "Ex-service men preferred." As the House has just decided that the Secretary of State for War is worthy of his salary I hope hon. Members will think the same of me.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I wish to thank the First Commissioner of Works for the sympathetic speech which he has just delivered, because he has reassured many people who were rather anxious about the proposals of the Government in regard to ex-service men. Certainly, no one desires, or could expect, that a man who has been employed for, say, 10 years in a Government Department, or in any branch of private employment, should be dismissed to make
    626
    way for an ex-service man, but what alarms us is that the number of recruits is being lowered, and, as I think the Secretary of State for War said earlier, the men are not certain as to their future. The best method of getting recruits is to give the men a reasonable prospect of stability in the Government service.
    The country will have been reassured in this respect this afternoon. I am glad that the park-keepers and so on are still be recruited from the regular service. It is a fact that men who have been in the Army, Navy, or Air Force for, perhaps, seven or eight years, find it difficult to get back into work, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, so far as he can, to instruct the Exchanges to recommend soldiers, sailors or airmen who have had vocational training, because it is no use the country spending large sums of money in giving vocational training to regular service men if they cannot get employment when their period of service is over. I hope that not only the Government Departments, but also private individuals, will do their best to give these men a chance in life after they have served their country for several years, when they have had an opportunity of learning a particular trade, so that they may be able to earn a livelihood in the future. The right hon. Gentleman has reassured us, and, after his satisfactory statement. to the effect that there has been no change from the course of action followed by his predecessors, I do not think we should care to press to a Division the reduction. which has been moved.
    Mr. McKINLAY: As one of those involved in the question of the extension of the fourth paragraph of the Committee's recommendation to embrace craftsmen, I feel that the position taken up by the workers' side of the Whitley Council ought at least to receive consideration from this House. As is usual, hon. Gentlemen opposite have made this the occasion for telling the world that they hold a monopoly of interest in ex-service men, and some things have been said which place the trade union movement in a rather invidious position. I hope that, when we approach the other side on the question of giving those same ex-service men who are getting a preference in the occupations which are

    627
    scheduled—even the liftmen employed by this House—an increase of wages, we shall receive their co-operation. We have no desire to prevent a soldier from obtaining civilian employment, but we do say that the fact that a man is an ex-service man or an ex-soldier is no reason why he should be paid a lower rate of wages than is paid to the regular craftsman.
    The position of the trade union movement in relation to ex-service men and ex-soldiers of every description is that it welcomes them into the industrial army, provided that their disability pensions or service pensions are not used as a lever to get them to work for less than the average craftsman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment used a rather peculiar argument when he said that our military expenditure is being watched throughout the world, the suggestion being that, if you can reduce expenditure in connection with the War Office Votes on the wages side, it will make an appreciable difference. That, at least, was my interpretation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, and I think that those who consult the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will bear t out.
    Sir G. COCKERILL: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I said no such thing, and I meant no such thing.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. McKINLAY: I accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's disclaimer, but that is how his argument appeared to me. The arguments put forward by Members on the other side
    were all to the effect that preference ought to be given, and a most amazing thing was that the ex-Minister of Pensions put forward the plea that we should exercise sentiment in this matter. He asked, what greater spectacle could there be than to see our parks policed by men whose breasts were covered with medals? Our objection is that they have all medals and no wages, and, if hon. Gentlemen opposite had treated the ex-service men in the immediate post-War period with sentiment instead of cold, hard logic, I suggest that the post-bag of every hon. and right hon. Member of the House would be lighter on the question of the treatment of ex-service
    628
    men. The hon. and gallant Member smiles, but there is no hon. Member of this House who does not know that the assurances given to the men who went to the War have not been fulfilled, and that there never was any intention of fulfilling them. The building trade unions gave a solemn undertaking to the immediate post-War Government that they would accept for training in the building industry so many thousands of ex-service men. They were taken, they were trained, they were paid unemployment benefit until they were excluded, and then no private employer would employ them, and the major portion of them finished their days playing tin whistles in the streets. If this condition is going to be imposed on Government Departments, I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to have the courage of their convictions, and ought to say to every employer who employs labour for the purpose of making profit, "You will honour the agreement we gave to these men when they joined the forces, and pay them the standard rate of wages whenever you employ them."
    Question, "That £408,670 stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in tile said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Postponed Second Resolution further considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I will not make a speech on this occasion, but perhaps the Postmaster-General could make just a brief statement as to the position, so far as he is concerned, on the matters which were raised in the last discussion.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): It will take me a few minutes to explain the position which has arisen in the Post Office, but I think the explanation which I shall give will show that I feel that I have an obligation to two groups of men, the ex-regulars and the auxiliary postmen in my own Department, and that I am considering the question—I am not at the moment doing more—whether certain arrange-

    629
    ments can be made which will hold the balance of justice fairly between the two. The Post Office, by a long standing practice, arranges that 50 per cent. of its positions for full-time postmen should he given to ex-service men in the largest sense of the term, and that 50 per cent. should be given to its boy messengers, better known as telegraph boys. In giving those 50 per cent. of positions to ex-service men, we divide them into three categories in a certain order of preference. The first preference is given to ex-time expired men, who enlisted either before or during the War, the second preference is to en-service men in the popular sense of the term, the volunteers who fought during the War as civilians, and the third preference to ex-regulars who have enlisted since the close of the War. Practically all the positions go to ex-time expired men because, when they have occupied all that there is work for, there are very few left for ex-service men in the ordinary sense of the term.
    The problem I have to deal with is the problem presented by auxiliary postmen. The Post Office has to employ postmen on part-time labour, because the work of collecting and delivering letters comes in peaks in the morning and in the evening, and we have to employ these auxiliary postmen to deal with the surplus of work during those periods. They are part-time servants and are paid a part-time wage. We endeavour to secure that as many of them as possible shall have some other occupation, but in fact a great many of them have not, with the result that the Post Office is employing many thousands of men who do not in fact obtain a living wage. I feel that this is a most depressing feature of employment in the Post Office and a standing reproach to postal administration. I receive continuous complaints from Members on the other side of the House, I receive continuous criticism and attack in the newspapers, and certainly every three or four weeks I read observations by magistrates on the bench who have to sentence for theft auxiliary postmen earning, perhaps, less than 30s. a week and who express their astonishment that the Post Office should employ men under such conditions and frequently say they would prefer, rather than the postman, to see the Postmaster-General standing
    630
    in the dock. I have thought about this question for a year and I think I can do a great deal to deal with this reproach to the postal administration. I can do a great deal along two lines. I have discovered that the problem differs between the provinces and London. It is far more serious in London.
    This is what I have done. I have made arrangements by which, throughout the country, every post and every man has been examined with the purpose of seeing how far it is possible to combine two or more auxiliary posts in order to create one full-time established postman with pension rights. I have gone further than that. I have instructed the surveyors all over the country to send up particulars of all those cases where this combination could be brought about even though a completely full-time post was not established in its place, because I have felt that it was better to spend money, within reasonable limits, rather than continue the system of part-time labour. In London the solution is far more difficult. I have turned to the possibility of dealing with this matter by opening out an avenue of promotion to full-time postmanships for these auxiliary postmen. However many years they serve, under the present arrangement they can never get an established position. 50 per cent. of the posts must go to our boy messengers in order to save the scandal of blind alley employment, and 50 per cent. must go to ex-time-expired men with the result that those men who have served the Post Office for years, and who are mainly exservice men in the popular sense of the term, find when a postmanship is vacant that they have not a right to apply for it. They must not apply for it, because that postmanship must be given to an ex-time-expired man, who has never served the Post Office at all and is very often getting a pension from the War Office at the same time.
    I acknowledge the obligation of the Post Office to ex-time-expired men. In view of certain observations that fell from the late Secretary of State for War, I might explain the extent to which this obligation is carried out. In addition to the 50 per cent. of positions that we give to postmen, we give a whole host of positions to ex-service men exclusively—doorkeepers, liftmen, night telephonists,

    631
    cleaners and a number of other positions—with the result that, out of 170,000 men employed by the Post Office, nearly 110,000 are already ex-service men. We fulfil our obligations to the time-expired men, but we also have our obligations to men who have served the Post Office itself, and I have my obligations to the ex-service men in the Post Office, who constitute the vast majority of this auxiliary grade.
    The position, broadly, is this. I propose to endeavour to create a sufficient number of full-time postmanships to give our auxiliary postmen a prospect of an established position with pension rights after some years service, to give them some hope and, I am convinced, entirely alter their outlook upon life. I believe that I can do that without trenching upon the 50 per cent. of positions which are practically now held by ex-regulars—I cannot commit myself to absolute figures—or, at any rate, for several years, and to an almost insignificant extent. The reason is, that we are not at present filling up all the 50 per cent. of the positions to which we are entitled for our own boy messengers, for reasons into which I need not go. That gives me a margin, and I propose to utilise that margin for this purpose. I may say that I have submitted the matter for discussion to officials representing the Post Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry. I anticipate fairly confidently that agreement will be reached. By using that margin, and by certain other adjustments, about which I need not trouble the House, I feel fairly sure that it will be possible to satisfy the policy I am endeavouring to work out for providing an avenue for our auxiliary postmen and at the same time not make any substantial encroachment upon the 50 per cent. of positions which have been reserved for ex-service men.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the number of boys is to be limited? Is he aware that boys are being limited in the Navy, and if he limits them in the Post Office also, the outlook for boys will be extremely black. Do I understand that he is limiting the employment of boy messengers in the Post Office?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I did not say that it was limited. I merely said that for certain causes, with which need I not trouble the House, the number of boy messengers has diminished so that we do not get the full 50 per cent.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish to lay a complaint before the hon. Gentleman, and I think that this is the most suitable opportunity. I listened very attentively to the, claims made on behalf of the ex-service men. I do not always believe everything I hear from the other side in connection with this matter. I wish to make a complaint with regard to the village of Hart-hill. The Minister has particulars of the case. It is the case of an ex-service man who has acted as a temporary postman at a wage of 30s. a week. His left hand was destroyed in the War, but the pension which he received, and the 30s. enabled him to get along fairly well. The time came for the appointment of a regular postman. Naturally, the ex-service man who was fit for no other work than the sort of work on which he was engaged expected to be put into that position. Unfortunately for him, the Post Office officials did not seem to exercise a great amount of humanity. This alteration occurred in a village in Lancashire where fully 50 per cent. of the men are unemployed. They brought in another postman from a village in the Western Highlands to supersede the temporary postman who had expected that, owing to his long service to the country and to the Post Office, he would have received promotion. The Assistant Postmaster General assured me that, according to the methods adopted in the Post Office, it was not possible to take on a man who had been acting as a temporary postman. But in a neighbouring village where there was a vacancy it was decided to appoint a postman who had been acting in a temporary capacity. I cannot say whether that man was an ex-service man or not.
    Another point I wish to raise is with reference to work in connection with the Post Office. I have heard that most of the repair work or structural alterations are put out to contract. 1 should like to know if hon. Members on the other side are prepared to insist upon the tractors as are put upon the Govern-same conditions being put upon the con-

    633
    ment. It is a very easy way of avoiding responsibilities if, instead of carrying out work direct, you give it to a contractor who can introduce whatever labour he likes to the detriment of other workers. I also object to the method of farming out sub-Pest Offices. I believe that in the country, and in some parts of cities, the Post Office give so much for the carrying out of the job. It may be £30 a year, £100, or £500 and those who get the appointments can pay whatever wages and impose whatever conditions they wish. It is a vicious system. It is not a healthy system. We have had complaints made by public authorities. Often these people who are subcontractors try to avoid their responsibilities. I do not want it to be assumed that the Government are responsible for the introduction of this system, hut I complain that they are not altering the system, which is a bad one. We were elected to try to remedy these things, and to introduce more of the human touch into the public services than exists at the present time. So long as we hold office it is our bounden duty not to be bound so much by precedents as to treat cases on their merits.
    Mr. WALLACE: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments. First of all, I would like to welcome the declaration made by the Postmaster-General, and I hope that very soon he will be able to announce that he has at last solved these problems. I would like to make a plea for the auxiliary postmen and part-time men now regularly under-employed, who should he given a chance after years of service of having full-time employment. I believe the House will share the view that. any ordinary employer who has a man in employment on part-time, who has shown himself a good and faithful servant, would feel that when there was a full-time position vacant that man ought to have some consideration. The House may know that the arrangement by which 50 per cent. of vacancies were given to ex-service men was fixed about 1890. The postmen's force has increased since that date from 25,000 to over 50,000. The number of boy messengers has diminished because of the development of the telephone service. The auxiliary postmen, according to evidence given by the Post Office before the Committee, were receiv-
    634
    ing each year about 500 full-time posts. In the year 1927 that figure had been greatly reduced. If you take the allocation of vacancies between the boy messengers and the ex-service men, you find that in the year 1921 the boy messengers received 386 appointments while the ex-service men received 4,453, showing that the ex-service men had been considered. We are all glad to do something for the ex-service man.
    The last point I wish to make is this: It is a bad thing for the public service, for the Post Office and this House that magistrate after magistrate has expressed sympathy with these men when he has to sentence one of them to imprisonment for stealing. Only the other day a man was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment and the magistrate expressed sympathy with him. I do not mind saying, for I have said it and will go on saying it, that every time I see one of those men standing in the dock I always feel, and still feel, that it ought to be the Post Office in the dock to explain this vicious system of under-employment. These auxiliary postmen and ex-service men before the War were in good employment. They took employment in the Post Office and looked forward, hoping it was going to lead to full-time employment. They start at six in the morning and do not finish their day's work until 10 at night, and their wage is something like 32s. a week, out of which they have to pay a rent of 10s. to 15s. a week. There is the man who is often living in a small room with his family and unable to preserve the decencies of life. I am glad to hear the sympathy expressed for ex-service men in this House to-day. Here is something which can be, done for the ex-service men, and I hope that it will be done quickly. The prospects and the wages of these under-employed men might have been improved. We hear expressions of sympathy from the benches opposite, but I find it difficult to understand the attempt made in the year 1927 to reduce wages. I hope hon. Members opposite will be prepared to do something to end this terrible problem of under-employment.
    Mr. MIDDLETON: I understand that it would be very inconvenient for me to speak more than a moment or two on this subject, but, as this is the only opportunity that some of us will get for ex-

    635
    pressing our views regarding the Post Office, perhaps I may be forgiven for taking up a minute or two. The Post Office to-day has a unique opportunity of showing the country what a State-owned Department can do, and it is with very grave disappointment that we find the opportunity has not been readily seized to demonstrate in all aspects that the Post Office can more than compete with private enterprise in serving the public in regard to essentials. I want to give the very greatest praise to the Postmaster-General for the way in which he has stood up to the attacks made on the service by private interests, but he can go very much further in a positive sense. I sincerely hope that when the time comes for him to lay down the seals of office he will be able to register very much more to his credit than we have been able to give him credit for up to the present. I should like to see the interests of the staff play a very much greater part in the consideration of the Postmaster-General and the Treasury than they receive to-day.
    It was with the greatest disappointment that we found. in the Budget that not only bad the Post Office to earn £9,000,000 in the current year, as last year, but that an additional levy of £1,000,000 was laid upon that Department. That means that there is no hone of any concession being made to the immense staff employed by the Postmaster-General, because the money is required for the Treasury. Surely the State, as an employer, ought to put the interests of the men and women it employs first? We ought to have no more of those scandals of which the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace) has spoken. A case was brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General the other day where a man was actually receiving 17s. 7d. per week, and, finding himself suddenly under the pressure of temptation, he threw up the job, only to find that he had no recourse to unemployment benefit because he was regarded as having voluntarily surrendered his employment. In these circumstances, he was denied the right to get unemployment pay and was forced to seek Poor Law relief. I say that, under a Labour Government, that is no credit
    636
    to those of us who preached in the past that if we got an opportunity we would at any rate give the first consideration to those who really needed it most, namely, the lowest-paid section of State employés.
    I would like to suggest to the Postmaster-General that he would relieve himself of a great deal of the difficulties if he took the staff representatives more into his confidence. Some years ago, Mr.Kellaway, who was then Postmaster-General, appointed an advisory committee of business men. That committee was a success, in so far as it served the interests of the people whom it was intended to serve. I would like the Postmaster-General to reconstitute the advisory committee and bring on to it representatives of the staff. He would then find that when he was laying down a policy or considering great questions of management he would have the advice of all sections of his great Department, instead of, as now, only the official point of view. The Postmaster-General is something more than the mere head of a Department, who has to cross the t's and dot the i's of official decisions which are made by his own officers, and he should try to hold the balance fairly between the community, the Department and the people who are employed in a subordinate capacity. If that were done, I do not think there would be any loss of dignity or any surrender of prestige if the representatives of the trade union, the representatives of the National Union of Post Office Workers, with its 100,000 members, were called into consultation. I ask the Postmaster-General to give formal recognition to such a state of affairs by asking those representatives to sit on the Advisory Committee.
    I should like to refer also to the case of the Post Office servants who sat for the 1926 examination. Probably every hon. Member has been deluged by complaints from men who sat for that examination. They are for the most part ex-service men who now find themselves denied the right to be promoted into the clerical class because the claims of the Southborough and Lytton candidates have preference. I was a member of the Southborough Committee and I have a complaint against the way in which the recommendations of that Committee were treated by those responsible for carrying

    637
    them out. We were told by the Treasury, the Post Office and other Departments that at the most they could only find 5,000 posts for the people who were to sit for these examinations, and after getting some of us to accept that as a fact and to pledge ourselves to the report accordingly, we find that not only 5,000 of those people have found posts, but many thousands besides. They were given a fairly easy examination to pass, and the men themselves neither in experience, nor capacity, nor education are on the same plane as the Post Office candidates who sat in the 1926 examination.
    While we are very grateful to the Treasury and Postmaster-General for having recently called 50 more of these particular men up to the promoted class, we think that they might go much further and bring into the promoted class men whose qualifications and capacity are undoubted. It would be only an act of justice if the Postmaster-General could induce the Treasury to agree to give more appointments to these men. They ought not to be turned down because of the fact that the Government are pledged to employ a number of ex-service men. These men are ex-service men. I suppose that at least three out of every four of the candidates who have qualified served in the War, many of them with distinction, and from that point of view they have a claim that, when superior posts are going, they shall be given at least the same consideration as men whose only claim to the consideration of the Government is that they have been employed as ex-service men in a temporary capacity in civil employment.
    I would urge the Postmaster-General to recognise that he is the trustee of a very great interest in this country. On the experience of the Post Office, whether it succeeds or fails, people will regard other State enterprises. According to whether the Post Office has succeeded or not, people will say: "There is an experience by which the country can profit." The Postmaster-General has a glorious chance of showing the country that he can have the full co-operation of the whole of his employés, if he will give them a fair deal and, having got that, he will he able to produce such results in his Department as will silence once for all any criticism that the Post Office is not an efficient institution. I am sorry that from these benches we have to
    638
    strike a critical note, but men and women are going short of food and clothing and the necessities of life when they might be employed by a great public Department, and those who are responsible for their interests would be failing in their duty if they omitted an opportunity like this to give voice to the grievances under which these men and women are suffering.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Can we not have a reply?
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put and agreed to.
    Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House does agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
    Sir K. WOOD: There are a few questions that I should like to put to the Financial Secretary to the War Office He is new to his office, and I wish him every success in it. As far as the ordnance factories are concerned, I am afraid that when he has approached a consideration of the position, more particularly at Woolwich and Enfield, he has found a state of considerable anxiety there. We have had a spell of short time at Woolwich which has involved a heavy cut in the pay of the lower-paid workers. The minimum rate has, for the first time in the history of Woolwich, been violated recently, with the result that many of the poorer paid workers in the ordnance factory at Woolwich have been reduced to the sum of £2 3s. 10d. a week. No wonder that there is depression and anxiety there! While it is true that short time has been terminated at Woolwich, I would like the Financial Secretary to say what is the exact position so far as the factory at Enfield is concerned. Curtailment in the remuneration of the workers there has resulted from Government action, and I understand that curtailment in remuneration is still going on. I would like the Financial Secretary to tell the House how much longer that state of affairs is likely to continue.
    With regard to Woolwich, an assurance was given when short time was instituted that there would be no discharges, but since the 1st January over 70 young men and young women under 21 years of age have been discharged. A large number of the young men have been employed there,

    639
    I think, for five years, and others have worked at the Arsenal for a period of, I think, three years. After short time has been instituted, when there has been at Woolwich a considerable rise in the unemployment figures, when no scheme has been instituted by the local council with a view to finding extra employment, and seeing that there are no training centres for young men and women in Woolwich, it is most unfortunate that the Secretary of State has thrown 70 young men and young women on to the labour market. What are these young men and women to do? They have spent four or five years training at the Arsenal, it is the only work they know, and by the action of the Secretary of State their service is terminated. Both they and their families are now placed in a most unfortunate position indeed. In fact, as far as these young men and women are concerned, it is turning the Arsenal into a blind-alley occupation.
    May I remind the Financial Secretary that his predecessor, when short time was introduced, said that whatever happened there would be no discharges. In the face of that definite undertaking it is difficult to understand the action of the Secretary of State for War. It is no use saying that other people have done this or that, or that some committee has been appointed to consider these matters. The fact remains that since the 1st of January, 70 of these young men and women have been put upon the labour market at Woolwich at a most unfortunate time, and I do not know what the Government expects to happen concerning them. Let me mention one other matter. What is the position, so far as the Government is concerned, in relation to the recognition of the Government Workers' Industrial Union, which consists of 3,000 members? It represents the majority of the lower paid men at the Arsenal, who, in connection with short time, suffered very much. When this question was raised his predecessor said that owing to the conflicting claims of another union he was going to ask the two organisations to table their claims and that when he had them before him and was able to get at the truth he would be only too pleased to make a pronouncement. That is some considerable time
    640
    ago and there has been plenty of time for these inquiries to be made.
    I want to know whether the Financial Secretary has made inquiries from these organisations, what is the result, and what steps he proposes to take in the matter? Apart altogether from the negotiations, and apart altogether from the conflicting claims of these two organisations, is he prepared, in respect of anything which raises matters of moment at the Arsenal, to receive representations from any duly constituted body? I wish I had time to put further questions to the Financial Secretary but I have occupied half the available time and I will leave the other matters in the hope that he will give me some reply to the questions I have been able to put.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Sanders): I regret very much that I have so little time to deal with the highly important question of the administration of the magnificent factory which the State possesses at Woolwich. I want to say that in the State factory at Woolwich we have as a nation not only one of the finest, best equipped and highly rationalised factories, in the world but also a body of men whose skill and devotion to the public service in my opinion cannot be excelled; and it is very largely due to that devotion and skill that the Woolwich factory has been able to compete so successfully with some of the most highly organised private enterprises in the country. That applies not only to the organisers and superintendents who are responsible for the factory but also to the men who are engaged under them. I have said that the factory has been rationalised. That is one factor of the highest importance which must be remembered in connection with the question of short time. Hon. Members must also remember that there has been constant pressure from all parts of the House, and from all parts of the country, to reduce the amount of money spent on armaments. The amount of money to be spent on armaments does not rest with the authorities at Woolwich. A reduction or increase in the amount to be spent at Woolwich rest with three or four Government Departments, and Woolwich is dependent on the amount of money these

    641
    Departments can spend. That must be clearly understood.
    Under the pressure of rationalisation, and under the pressure of the demand for economy, the Government was faced with a situation in regard to the staff which had to be met, and, as explained by my predecessor, it was a question whether there should be a reduction in the number of the staff or whether there should be a period of short time. That was the dilemma; and it was decided by the War Office, the Secretary of State and my predecessor that the most merciful and wisest way was to try the experiment of short time, and at the same time endeavour to discover new sources of supply of work for the Arsenal. We were not satisfied merely with appointing the despised committee mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We have discovered new ways. We have discovered not only work of a temporary character but what I believe will prove to be new work of a permanent character continually coming to the Arsenal and supplementing the work upon which the Arsenal was formerly fully engaged.
    Sir K. WOOD: Why dismiss these young men?
    Mr. SANDERS: I will answer that in due time. We have not been able to secure sufficient work to cover all the staff existing at the Arsenal, and it was necessary not to institute a new method but to follow the method which has been applied over and over again by all Governments of dismissing or ending the engagement of young men and women at the age of 21, when it was understood their position would be reviewed. It is not a new thing for these young men to go out at the age of 21. It has always been the case under all Administrations, and we felt that it was better, if we had to sacrifice a few people in order to keep the great mass of the factory going, to follow the example of our predecessors and end the engagements of people who knew that their engagement would probably be ended at the age of 21.
    Sir K. WOOD: But an undertaking was given.
    Mr. SANDERS: An undertaking was given that this Government would do all that it could to prevent dismissals at any of the national workshops and arsenals,
    642
    and we have kept that undertaking to the best of our ability. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about not referring to the past methods that had been adopted at the Arsenal, we did not adopt the method of dismissing 1,500 men in one fell swoop in one year, as the later Government did. We did our best to find new work, Which has enabled us do keep the Arsenal working and employing the same number as when we came into office, with the exception of the few dismissals mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the other changes at Enfield—Enfield, unfortunately, is in a very special position, because most of the skilled men there are highly specialised men who, with certain exceptions, can be placed only upon a certain kind of work, and in order that no dismissals should take place there we reverted from piecework to time work and have dismissed no one. It is true that under time work, as in all cases, a less sum can be earned than under piecework; but here, again, we submit that it was better, instead of dismissing men from Enfield, that we should give to the Whole of the staff an opportunity of retaining their jobs, although at some little loss caused by a difference in the method of payment.
    I do not want to raise any false hopes with regard to a return to the method of piece work, and thereby bringing the wages of the men up to the level at which they were before we introduced the system of time work, but I can say that we have not appointed one of the committees dispised by the right hon. Gentleman, but together and personally, with the staff of the War Office connected with the factory, I am exploring every avenue, not only in this country but in our Dominions as well, for the purpose of getting a special kind of work which can only be done by the men at Enfield, and I hope that our efforts will be successful. The House can rely upon this that the Government will do everything it can to keep the staffs of what I have called, and repeat, these magnificent institutions belonging to the State up to the level they were when we came into office, and we shall do our utmost to see that as disarmament proceeds we provide new work to take the place of the old.
    It being Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution under consideration.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 149.
    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House dog?, agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates, and of the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and the Revenue Departments Estimates.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1930.

    CLASS I.
    Question put,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,"
    The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 152.

    Division No. 479]

    AYES.

    [10.2 p.m.

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

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

    Marcus, M.

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

    Gray, Milner

    Markham, S. F.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Marley, J.

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Marshall, Fred

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Mathers, George

    Alpass, J. H.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Matters, L. W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Melville, Sir James

    Arnott, John

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Messer, Fred

    Aske, Sir Robert Hall,

    G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Middleton, G.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Millar, J. D.

    Ayles, Walter

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mills, J. E.

    Baker, John(Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Milner, Major J.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Harris, Percy A.

    Montague, Frederick

    Barr, James

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morley, Ralph

    Batey, Joseph

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Bellamy, Albert

    Haycock, A, W.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mort, D. L.

    Benson, G.

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

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

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

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

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Herriotts, J.

    Muff, G.

    Blindell, James

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

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hollins, A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bromfield, William

    Hopkin, Daniel

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

    Bromley, J.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Brooke, W.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Brothers, M.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

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

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

    Isaacs. George

    Palin, John Henry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Paling, Wilfrid

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Perry, S. F.

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

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Cameron, A. G.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Potts, John S

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Price, M. P.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Chater, Daniel

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

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Church, Major A. G.

    Knight, Holford

    Raynes, W. R.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lang, Gordon

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lathan, G.

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Ritson, J.

    Cove, William G,

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Daggar, George

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Rawson, Guy

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lawson, John James

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

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

    Day, Harry

    Leach, W.

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lees, J.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Dukes, C.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Scott, James

    Duncan, Charles

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Scurr, John

    Edge, Sir William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Sexton, James

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Longden, F.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shield, George William

    Egan, W. H.

    Lowth, Thomas

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lunn, William

    Shillaker, J. F.

    England, Colonel A.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shinwell, E.

    Foot, Isaac

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

    McElwee, A.

    Simmons, C. J.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sinkinson, George

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McKinley, A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gill, T.H.

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Gould, F.

    Mansfield, W.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    March, S.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Snell, Harry

    Toole, Joseph

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Tout, W. J.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Townend, A. E.

    West. F. R.

    Sorensen, R.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Westwood, Joseph

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Turner, B.

    White, H. G

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Strauss, G. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Sullivan, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Walker, J.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Watkins, F. C.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pa stow)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

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

    Wise, E. F.

    Tillett, Ben

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wellock, Wilfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Haves and Mr. T. Henderson.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Fermoy, Lord

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

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Remer, John R.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Butler, R. A.

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

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph

    Henry Salmon, Major I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

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

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wall r

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Train, J.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw1h)

    Wells, Sydney R.

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

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-Genera? E.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl

    Dixey, A. C.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.(Richmond)

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Sir George Penny and Major the

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    Division No. 480.]

    AYES.

    [10.12 p.m.

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Millar, J. D.

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

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mills, J. E.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major J.

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

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

    Montague, Frederick

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

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morley, Ralph

    Alpass, J. H.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardle, George D.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Arnott, John

    Harris, Percy A.

    Mort, D. L.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

    Ayles, Walter

    Haycock, A. W.

    Muff, G.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

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

    Murnin, Hugh

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Barr, James

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

    Naylor, T. E.

    Batey, Joseph

    Herriotts, J.

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

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

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

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Bellamy, Albert

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Benson, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Hopkin, Daniel

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

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Palin, John Henry

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hudson James H. (Huddersfield)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Blindell, James

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Palmer, E. T.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Isaacs, George

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Perry, S. F.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Johnston, Thomas

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Brooke, W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Potts, John S.

    Brothers, M.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Price, M. P.

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

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Kinley, J.

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

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Knight, Holford

    Ritson, J.

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

    Lang, Gordon

    Romeril, H. G.

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lathan, G.

    Rawson, Guy

    Cape, Thomas

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Chater, Daniel

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lawson, John James

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Scott, James

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leach, W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Scare, John

    Compton, Joseph Lee,

    Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sexton, James

    Cove, William G.

    Lees, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Daggar, George

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shield, George William

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Day, Harry

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Longden, F.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dukes, C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lowth, Thomas

    Simmons, C. J.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lunn, William

    Sinkinson, George

    Edge, Sir William

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Edwards, E.(Morpeth)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Egan, W. H.

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McKinley, A.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    England, Colonel A.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Snell, Harry

    Foot, Isaac

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

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

    McShane, John James

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

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

    Sorensen, R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mander, Geoffrey is M.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

    Mansfield, W,

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gill, T. H.

    March, S.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gillett, George M.

    Marcus, M.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Gossling, A.G.

    Markham, S. F.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gould, F.

    Marley, J.

    Sullivan, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marshall, Fred

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Mathers, George

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gray, Milner

    Matters, L. W.

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

    Maxton, James

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Melville, Sir James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Messer, Fred

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Middleton, G.

    Tillett, Ben

    648

    649

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Toole, Joseph

    Watkins, F. C.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Tout, W. J.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Townend, A. E.

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Turner, B.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Wilson, R. j. (Jarrow)

    Viant, S. P.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

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

    Walkden, A. G.

    West, F. R.

    Wise, E. F.

    Walker, J.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Wallace, H. W.

    White, H. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Muirhead, A. J.

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

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Atkinson, C.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Ramer, John R.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bracken, B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Butler, R. A.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Smithers, Waldron

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Tinne, J. A.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Train, J.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

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

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Dixey, A. C.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Sir George Penny.

    CLASS II.
    Question,
    "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS III.
    Question put,
    " That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,"
    The House divided: Ayes 286; Noes, 154.

    CLASS IV.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS V.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VI.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VIII.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS IX.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    CLASS X.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.
    Question,
    "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1930.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1930.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1930.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [29TH JULY].
    Resolution reported,
    "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."
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. P. Snowden, and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]
    RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVI SIONS) BILL [Lords]
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Precautions to be observed in the construction of large reservoirs.)
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after the word "engineer,' to insert the words "within the meaning of this Act."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments to carry out an undertaking which I gave in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments made.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be clearance area.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 3, after the word "inhabitants," insert "of the area."
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a drafting Amendment, but perhaps I may here say a word or two regarding the Lords Amendments generally. Most of them are purely drafting or consequential. The attention of the House will be drawn to those which raise points of substance, and there are some Amendments with which it is proposed to ask the House to disagree, on Clauses 12 and 48.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 2, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Validity and date of operation of clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 11, leave out from the word "Sederunt" to the word "that" in line 18. and insert:
    "so, however, that the application shall be dealt with in a summary manner, and where such application is duly made the court—

    (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."

    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Perhaps a word or two is necessary to explain the purpose of this Amendment. When a compulsory purchase order is challenged in the Law Courts, as the Bill left this House power was taken to suspend entirely the operation of the order until the Court of Session had given a final decision. In another place an Amendment was made to give power to the Court of Session to suspend only that part of an order which an individual owner may challenge in the courts, and to permit the other part of what may be a very large scheme to proceed while the court itself is determining the particular challenge.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily and of sanitary premises required to be demolished.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 20, at the end, 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."
    Mr. SPEAKER: On this Amendment, a question of Privilege arises. It proposes to make a charge by enhancing the amount of compensation.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    A very few words will suffice to explain why the Government cannot possibly
    accept this Amendment. It was very adequately discussed in Committee and on Report, and we accepted an Amendment to provide that houses built subsequent to the passage of this Bill would be passed for payment at market value if those houses subsequently were challenged as insanitary solely because of the narrowness of the streets. That provision, we understood, was generally accepted as a fair compromise and it was the utmost length to which the Government could go. May I draw attention to certain words in the Amendment which I am sure will secure unanimous support for the attitude of the Government in resisting it. The words are:
    "or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business."
    Supposing a proprietor purchased a property which he knew to be injurious to health as the result of bad arrangement or narrowness of the street, and chose to open a small shop. Although he might have acquired the property at its purely site value, under the terms of this Amendment the local authority would be compelled to give the market value, because he had chosen to open a small shop or to reside on the property. That is the position which I am certain has only to be ex-

    659
    plained to the House to secure a pretty general endorsement of the attitude of the Government in asking the House to resist this Amendment.
    Major ELLIOT: I think that the House, which has been much indebted to the Amendments moved in another place for the improvement of the Bill up to now, should think twice before determining to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment which they ask the House to consider. The general principle of the Amendment is sound enough, that where the landlord has been the possessor of property which has not in any way deteriorated or become injurious to the community but which is required in connection with the widening of roads and streets or required in connection with the clearance of other property, the burden should be placed upon the landlord. I think it is an example of the length to which we have come by argument and discussion upon this Bill. The differences between the two Houses are narrowed down to an extremely fine point. In fact, the danger of any unusual claim for compensation arising under the Amendment is reduced to a minimum. I think that the Under-Secretary of State and the Government have found difficulty, in dealing with the Amendment, of proving any ease of injustice which has actually arisen. If they see that no case of injustice has arisen, let us assume that no case of injustice will arise in the future.
    We suggest, according to the Government's own submission, that a great extension of slum clearance will take place and a great impetus will be given to the work of the local authorities, and that it is reasonable to provide against injustice taking place. It does not in any way interfere with the proprietor of insanitary property. The property proposed to be dealt with is good property and not property which is in any way injurious to health. For all these reasons, it is only reasonable to say that a man whose property has been maintained in good condition should be treated in a different way from the man whose property has not been maintained in good condition. The Under-Secretary of State drew attention
    660
    to the inclusion of the words "is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business." I cannot see; inspite of certain dim and distant hypothetical difficulties, why the Government should object to the Amendment. I still hope that it will be possible for the good sense of the negotiators between the two Houses to come to an agreement on the point. The only possibility of a speculator having bought up properties at site value with the hope of subsequently selling them to the local authority at market value is negatived by words which make it impossible for any claim to be found save where any owner was in possession before 19th August, 1919, which is, I think, the date when the Royal Assent was given to the first of the Scottish Bills.
    This Amendment was moved in another place by a Noble Lord who himself had occupied the high position of Secretary of State for Scotland and who—and this I am sure will still more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—had his origin in the County of Fife. I am now appealing to the sentiments of nationalism of which hon. Gentlemen opposite are such strong supporters. I am only saying that the Noble Lord urged this consideration and especially with reference to the Lang Toon of Kirkcaldy, which is a place where you have these elbows and turns and streets which frequently make it desirable to have clearances. It is quite unreasonable, because of the age-long arrangement of street, that some unfortunate owner should find himself called upon to have his property removed by the community for the purposes and benefit of the community and have to bear the whole weight of this community improvement himself. I therefore say we should think twice before disagreeing with the Lords. I hope the good sense of the two Houses will make it possible to come to arrangements so as not to delay the Bill on what is after all a very minor point.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 101.

    Division No. 481.]

    AYES.

    [10.22 p.m

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

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

    Arnott, John

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

    Alpass, J.H.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Ayles, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Mort, D. L.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Moses, J. J. H

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Haycock, A. W.

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

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Hayday, Arthur

    Muff, G.

    Barr, James

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

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

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

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Bellamy, Albert

    Herriotts, J.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

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

    Benson, G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hollins, A.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Blindell, James

    Horrabin, J. F.

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

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Palls, John Henry

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Isaacs, George

    Palmer, E. T.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Bromfield, William

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Perry, S. F.

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.

    Brooke. W.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Brothers, M.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pole, Major D. G.

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

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Potts, John S.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Price, M. P.

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

    Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

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

    Kinley, J.

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

    Calne, Derwent Hall-

    Knight, Holford

    Ritson, J.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lang, Gordon

    Romeril, H. G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

    Lathan, G.

    Rowson, Guy

    Charleton, H. C.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Chater, Daniel

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

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

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Scott, James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Leach. W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee. Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Scurr, John

    Cove, William G.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sexton, James

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lees, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Daggar, George

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shield, George William

    Day, Harry

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Long bottom, A. W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Longden, F.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dukes, C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lowth, Thomas

    Simmons, C. J.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lunn, William

    Sinkinson, George

    Edge, Sir William

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edmunds, J. E.

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

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Egan, W. H.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    England, Colonel A.

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Foot, Isaac

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Snell, Harry

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

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

    McShane, John James

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

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

    Sorensen, R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Mansfield, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gill, T. H.

    March, S.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gillett, George M.

    Marcus, M.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Gossling, A. G.

    Markham, S. F.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gould, F.

    Marley, J.

    Sullivan, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marshall, Fred

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Mathers, George

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gray, Milner

    Matters L. W.

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Maxton, James

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Melville, Sir James

    Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Messer, Fred

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Middleton, G.

    Tillett, Ben

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Millar, J. D.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mills, J. E.

    Toole, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major J.

    Tout, W. J.

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

    Montague, Frederick

    Townend, A. E.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morley, Ralph

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Turner, B.

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Viant, S. P.

    652

    653

    Walkden, A. G.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Walker, J.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Wallace, H. W.

    West, F. R.

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Wise, E. F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    White, H. G.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Muirhead, A. J.

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

    Falls, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fielden, E. B.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew

    Hamilton Ramsbotham, H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Remer, John R.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

    Bracken, B.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Briscoe, Richard

    George Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newbly)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Savery, S. S.

    Butler, R. A.

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Somerville, D. G.(Willesden, East)

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

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Train, J.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Cranborne, viscount

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Wardlaw-milne, J. S.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Wells, Sydney R,

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Withers, Sir John James

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

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Dixey, A. C.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon.

    Herbert Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Dug dale, Capt. T. L.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Sir George Penny.

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 482.]

    AYES.

    [10.52 p.m.

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

    Haycock, A. W.

    Muff, G.

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

    Heyday, Arthur

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Hayes, John Henry

    Murnin, Hugh

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

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

    Nathan, Major H. L.

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

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Alpass, J. H.

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

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Herriotts, J.

    Oldfield, J. R

    Arnott, John

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

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Palin, John Henry

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hollins, A

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Palmer, E. T.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Barr, James

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Batey, Joseph

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Potts, John S.

    Bellamy, Albert

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Price, M. P.

    Been, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Johnston, Thomas

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Benson, G.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Blindell, James

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bondfieid, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Ritson, J.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Kelly, W. T.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Bromfield, William

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Bromley, J.

    Kinley, J.

    Rowson, Guy

    Brooke, W.

    Lang, Gordon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brothers, M.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

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

    Lathan, G.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sawyer, G. F.

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

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scurr John

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Sexton, James

    Burgess, F. G.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Leach, W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Calne, Derwent Hall-

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shield, George William

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lees, J.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Simmons, C. J.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sinkinson, George

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Longden, F.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Daggar, George

    Lowth, Thomas

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lunn, William

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Day, Harry

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

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Dudgeon. Major C. R.

    McElwee, A.

    Snell, Harry

    Dukes, C.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Duncan, Charles

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Ede, James Chuter

    McKinlay, A.

    Sorensen, R.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Edwards. E. (Morpeth)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Egan, W. H.

    McShane, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Strauss, G. R.

    Foot, Isaac

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sullivan, J.

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Mansfield, W.

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    March, S.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Marcus, M.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Markham, S. F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Marley, J.

    Tillett, Ben

    Gill, T. H.

    Marshall, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gillett, George M.

    Mathers, George

    Toole, Joseph

    Gossling, A. G.

    Matters, L. W.

    Tout, W. J.

    Gould, F.

    Maxton, James

    Townend, A. E.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Melville, Sir James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

    Messer, Fred

    Turner, B.

    Gray, Milner

    Middleton, G.

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Millar, J. D.

    Viant, S. P.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mills, J. E.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro' W.)

    Milner, Major J.

    Walker, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Montague, Frederick

    Wallace, H. W.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Morley, Ralph

    Watkins, F. C.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

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

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    662

    663

    West, F. R.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    White, H.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Volley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Wise, E. F

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    O'Connor, T. J.

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

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

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Remer, John R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Smith, Louis W.(Sheffield, Hallam)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Somerville, D. G.(Willesden, East)

    Butler, R. A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Train, J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Llewellin, Major J. J

    Wells, Sydney R.

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Dixey, A. C.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Wood, Rt. Hon Sir Kingsley

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    England, Colonel A.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fielden, E. B.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 26, line 42, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Recovery of possession of buildings subject to clearance, demolition or closing order.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 6, after the word "subsection" insert:
    "(a) in the case of premises included in clearance order which are not specified therein as being unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health or (b) in the case of any other premises"
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege in that it increases the charge upon local authorities.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a simple point. In the case of good property, where a clearance order has been imposed by a local authority, it is now provided that the local authority shall bear any legal expenses incurred in evicting the tenants of such property.
    664
    No change takes place in the case of evicting a tenant from a slum, but in the case of good property we think it proper that the local authority should bear whatever legal expenses are incurred.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 28, line 25, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 28, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power of sheriff to determine lease where premises demolished.)
    (1) Where any premises in respect of which a clearance order or a demolition order made under this Act has become operative form the subject matter of a lease, and the action taken under the order has not had the effect of determining the lease, either the landlord or the tenant or any other person deriving right thereunder may apply to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the premises are situate for an order determining the lease.
    (2) Upon any such application as aforesaid the sheriff, after giving to any sub-tenant or other person whom he considers to be interested in the matter an opportunity of being heard, may, if he thinks fit, order that the lease shall be determined, either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions (including conditions with respect to the payment of money by any party to the proceedings to any other party thereto by way of compensation or damages or otherwise) as he may think it just and equitable to impose, regard being had to the respective rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties under the lease and all the other circumstances of the case:
    Provided that the sheriff shall not be entitled to order any payment to be made by the landlord to the tenant in respect of the lease of a dwelling-house.
    (3) In this section the expression "lease" includes a sub-lease and any tenancy or agreement for a lease or sub-lease and tacit relocation following on a lease.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Sheriff power to determine the lease.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 34, line 40, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 48.—(Interpretation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 14, leave out from the word "includes" to the word "and" in line 20, and insert:
    "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"
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    In substitution for this Amendment I shall later move an Amendment, in page 37, line 17, to leave out from the word "the" to the word "and," in line 20, and to insert "default or neglect of the occupants of the house." The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the word "disrepair" means deficiency only where that deficiency is attributable to the owner. I am sure that it meets the general wishes of all parties in the House.
    Major ELLIOT: The Amendment moved by the Under-Secretary of State, of course, goes some distance to meet the
    666
    views of right hon. and hon.. Gentlemen for whom I am speaking, but does not go the whole way. It still leaves in certain things about "likely to injure or endanger the health" of the occupants of the house. Our difficulty is that we do not think that decorative painting and papering should be included. It is quite true that "disrepair" has to be read in conjunction with the other Clauses of the Bill. It was felt in another place that this definition, having once been erected, might be quoted in some subsequent Act. I agree that that is a somewhat far pursuit of the hypothetical, but I think it would have been much better if this Clause had not been inserted in the Bill. I am sure the original Statute would have covered cases of disrepair owing to paint and paper falling into a bad state. We are not completely satisfied with the Government Amendment, but we do not propose to divide the House upon it.|
    Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Words so restored to the Bill amended, in page 37, line 17, by leaving out from the word "the" to the word "and" in line 20, and inserting instead thereof the words:
    "default or neglect of the occupants of the house."—[Mr. Johnston.]
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of Mr. Westwood, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Ernest Brown, Major Elliot, and Mr. Johnston.
    Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Johnston.]

  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

  667
  the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Alresford and parts of the rural district of Droxford and Winchester, in the county of Southampton, 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 the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Whitwell, in the rural district of Clown, in the county of Derby, 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 the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Aylsham, Depwade, Loddon, and Clavering Mitford and Launditch St. Faith's and Small-burgh, all in the county of Norfolk, which was presented on the 10th 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 district of Silsden, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 17th 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 compulsory acquisition of lands for a transforming station in the parish and Metropolitan borough of St. Pancras, in the county of London, which was pre-
  668
  sented on the 16th 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 Arleedon and Frizington, Aspatria, Cockermouth, Harrington, Holme Cultram, Maryport, and Wigton, the rural districts of Alstone-with-Garrigill, Cockermouth, Penrith, and Wigton, and part of the rural district of White-haven, all in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 16th day of July, 1930, he approved, subject to the following additions and amendments:—
  Page 5, line 37, delete "and."
  Page 5, after Clause 12 (2) (ii), insert the following:—
  (iii) such sums as are, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, reasonable and proper to enable the company to liquidate the value of any plant, mains, and other works which form part of the undertaking under this Order and which shall have become obsolete: and.
  Page 5, line 38, delete "iii)," and insert "iv)."
  Page 5, line 39, after the word "exceeding," insert "(except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.

INDIA.
  ROYAL GARHWAL RIFLES (COURT-MARTIAL).
  ROYAL GARHWAL RIFLES (COURT-MARTIAL).
  MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MEDICAL SERVICE.
  DHARASNA CHHARWADA SALT WORKS.
  DHARASNA CHHARWADA SALT WORKS.
POST OFFICE.
  FINANCIAL RESULTS.
  FINANCIAL RESULTS.
  TRUNK TELEPHONE FACILITIES, NORTH-EAST SUFFOLK.
  TRUNK TELEPHONE FACILITIES, NORTH-EAST SUFFOLK.
SCOTLAND.
  DAY SCHOOL CERTIFICATES. (LOWER).
  DAY SCHOOL CERTIFICATES. (LOWER).
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  TEACHERS" SALARIES.
  TEACHERS" SALARIES.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (MARKETING).
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (MARKETING).
  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS).
  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS).
  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
  PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (SUPERANNUATION).
  PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (SUPERANNUATION).
EDUCATION.
  ENDOWMENTS, DARTFORD RURAL DISTRICT.
  ENDOWMENTS, DARTFORD RURAL DISTRICT.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (INSTRUCTION).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (INSTRUCTION).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  FLINTSHIRE.
  FLINTSHIRE.
  LANARKSHIRE.
  LANARKSHIRE.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (WORKERS, PAISLEY).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (WORKERS, PAISLEY).
  NEW EXCHANGE, IPSWICH.
  NEW EXCHANGE, IPSWICH.
  CATERING TRADE (INQUIRY).
  CATERING TRADE (INQUIRY).
  FOLK MUSEUM (BOTANICAL GARDENS).
  FOLK MUSEUM (BOTANICAL GARDENS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  EGYPT (FOREIGN NATIONALS).
  EGYPT (FOREIGN NATIONALS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FAR EAST (ECONOMIC MISSION).
  FAR EAST (ECONOMIC MISSION).
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  TRADE PRACTICES.
  TRADE PRACTICES.
  INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.
  INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.
  RUBBER INDUSTRY.
  RUBBER INDUSTRY.
  AFFORESTATION, CUMBERLAND.
  AFFORESTATION, CUMBERLAND.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  RATING RELIEF.
  RATING RELIEF.
INCOME TAX.
  UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF SCHEMES (GRANTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF SCHEMES (GRANTS).
  FRIENDLY SOCIETY MEMBERS (SURPLUSES).
  FRIENDLY SOCIETY MEMBERS (SURPLUSES).
  COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS.
  COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  U-BOAT NET INVENTIONS.
  U-BOAT NET INVENTIONS.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL (OPERATIVE DATES).
  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL (OPERATIVE DATES).
  NEW FREE BRIDGE, LOFTSOME.
  NEW FREE BRIDGE, LOFTSOME.
  TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, ELEPHANT AND CASTLE.
  TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, ELEPHANT AND CASTLE.
  HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC, KEGWORTH.
  HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC, KEGWORTH.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, DERBYSHIRE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, DERBYSHIRE.
  NIGERIA (MOSLEMS, EDUCATION).
  NIGERIA (MOSLEMS, EDUCATION).
  TANGANYIKA (RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT).
  TANGANYIKA (RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT).
AGRICULTURE,
  FARMS, FINTRY, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  FARMS, FINTRY, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  COMMODITY MARKETING BOARDS (LEGISLATION).
  COMMODITY MARKETING BOARDS (LEGISLATION).
  FRUIT (IMPORTS).
  FRUIT (IMPORTS).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  ANTHRACOSIS.
  ANTHRACOSIS.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  PETROLEUM SPIRIT (STORAGE LICENCES).
  PETROLEUM SPIRIT (STORAGE LICENCES).
  PRISONERS, DARLINGTON.
  PRISONERS, DARLINGTON.
  LIFE SENTENCE (A. C. MASON).
  LIFE SENTENCE (A. C. MASON).
  PRISON SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  PRISON SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  WAR GRAVES (WIDOWS' VISITS).
  WAR GRAVES (WIDOWS' VISITS).
FIGHTING SERVICES.
  BEEF SUPPLY.
  BEEF SUPPLY.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  CHARITIES, BLEDLOW.
  CHARITIES, BLEDLOW.
ROYAL NAVY.
  MATERIALS FOR TESTING, PORTSMOUTH.
  MATERIALS FOR TESTING, PORTSMOUTH.
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, PLYMOUTH (STAVE LEAVE).
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, PLYMOUTH (STAVE LEAVE).
  ACTING ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  ACTING ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  DOCKYARD VACANCIES.
  DOCKYARD VACANCIES.
  ACTING-MATES.
  ACTING-MATES.
  CHINA (PIRACY).
  CHINA (PIRACY).
Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
BRISTOL CATTLE MARKET BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

BOSTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, one other Amendment agreed to with a consequential Amendment to the Bill, certain other Amendments disagreed to but Amendments made in lieu thereof, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, for which disagreement they assign Reasons.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I make a short announcement with respect to Private Bill procedure. You will probably notice that the House of Commons have made certain alterations in their Private Bill Standing Orders. A very large number of these points do not affect your Lordships' procedure, but there is an important

1019
alteration made in the time-table, with which I am entirely in agreement. In principle it amounts to advancing the dates on which Bills are deposited in Parliament with some consequential alterations in other dates. It is too late in the Session now to ask your Lordships to make similar alterations in your Standing Orders, but I wish to give notice that as soon as convenient after the opening of next Session I shall put down a Motion to effect a similar change of time-table in your Lordships' Standing Orders. This change will, of course, therefore apply to Bills which will be presented at the end of this year.

INDIA: ROUND-TABLE CONFERENCE.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, before you proceed with the business of the day I wish to draw attention again to the Question raised yesterday in this House with reference to the Indian Round-Table Conference. I stated yesterday that the Government had determined that it would not appoint a representative of the Statutory Commission as a member of the Conference, but on examination of the observations made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday I find that that statement was a little too definite, inasmuch as the Prime Minister made it quite clear that, although at the moment he was inclined to say that it would be undesirable to have the Commission represented on the Conference, the matter was still under consideration and negotiation. That was the phrase used. Therefore the Government had not definitely made up its mind. The purpose of my Question to-day is to ask His Majesty's Government to give effect to urgent representations, made both in this House and elsewhere, that the Chairman of the Statutory Commission should be appointed by the Government, with the assent of all political Parties, to be a member of the Round-Table Conference.
That it is of importance that a representative of the Statutory Commission should be present, is, I should have thought, undeniable. Our object in the Conference is, to use the Prime Minister's language in another place yesterday, in order "that the Government should have the benefit"—that is the Government and also all who are present—
1020
"of listening to the most thorough threshing out of all the problems that arise, and which will have to be dealt with by legislation." In order that there should be that thorough threshing out I submit that it is almost of vital importance that the Statutory Commission should be represented. It is not possible for any one, however familiar he may be with the Commission, who has not been present at the taking of the evidence and at the deliberations of the members of the Commission, and who has not heard all the reasons why they may have rejected one proposal and accepted another in preference, and who does not know all the considerations that have affected their minds in arriving at the conclusions embodied in the Report, in the recommendation that they have made to Parliament, adequately to represent the Commission at the Conference.
If the Conference meets without a representative of the Commission nobody will be in a position to put their view forward, and it is of even greater seriousness when it is borne in mind that representatives of India will have the advantage, if certain representatives come to the Conference, of presenting their Report and the Constitution which they have drafted, which has been in print for a long time and discussed in India, and even referred to by the Statutory Commission in its Final Report. The Constitution which is associated with the name of the Pandit Motilal Nehru was adopted by the Indian All-Parties Conference in 1928 "to determine the principles of a Constitution for India." It is a volume almost as large as the Report presented by the Simon Commission itself. Is it intended that the representatives of India—whose views we are all most anxious to hear—should have the advantage of presenting their own Report dealing with all the various considerations that have affected their minds in drawing up this Constitution, but that nevertheless the Report presented by a Commission appointed by all Parties in this Parliament should not be represented, and should not therefore have the same advantage? Does it not savour somewhat of an unfair discrimination in favour of the Indian Report and, as it would almost appear, of a slight to the Commission and even to Parliament if there is no representative of the Commission appointed?

1021
As the Government have not yet finally determined and are still considering the matter, I would urge them with all the power that I can bring to bear to give effect to the views which we are presenting, which I hope and believe will be supported by other Parties in Parliament, so that we may have the inestimable advantage, in order that we may thrash out every point and hear all the arguments pro and con, of having a representative of the Commission at the Conference. I would ask the Government, therefore, to give effect to these representations. No answer was given yesterday to the request I expressed. Of that I do not complain, because certainly I treated it as a closed matter, and I have understood hitherto that it was so; but now that we know that it is not, and that it is still under consideration, there is yet time for the Government to come to a conclusion which I cannot but think would be satisfactory to all Parties involved and also to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers might I add my voice—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): One moment. Really it is quite out of order to have a discussion of this kind to-day in addition to what we had yesterday. The request made to me was that a Question should be asked without a speech, and of course I assented to it. But really I do not think we ought to have a discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the contrary, it is usual for a Question to be put at the time of private business, and always supplementary observations are permitted—of course not at undue length. I have seen it done over and over again in your Lordships' House. I would like to add my voice very urgently to the very much more well instructed voice of the noble and learned Marquess on this matter. I agree with him that in the speech delivered in another place there was a loop-hole left in the Prime Minister's observations, which leads us to hope that this matter may be reconsidered. After all, we have proceeded hitherto in respect of these Indian difficulties with the agreement of all Parties. All three Parties are acting together: so far as our road lies
1022
together, we hope to continue to act together. Whether that will be possible throughout of course remains to be seen. At any rate hitherto we have been able to act together. Here is a point upon which, as I understand from the noble and learned Marquess, the Liberal Party and certainly the Conservative Party feel very strongly.
I do not want to adopt any language disrespectful to the Government, but after all, the Parties which we represent are really a majority of the country. We really represent the country in this matter. I would, therefore, urge very respectfully upon the Government that they should think again as to this matter. Many of us welcomed the Round-Table Conference with great hope that it might be of use in solving this very difficult problem. If we could only bring representatives of India as it were face to face with British public opinion, and representatives of Great Britain face to face with Indian public opinion, an agreement might be arrived at. But surely that must be done, if it is to be done with any advantage, in the light of full knowledge. Knowledge is absolutely essential; light of every sort must be thrown upon the problem. The representatives from India will undoubtedly bring knowledge. But what will be the position of the representatives of this country? Most of those who sit at the table will, of course, have the general knowledge which all well-instructed Englishmen and Scotsmen have, but yet they will not have any special and particular knowledge. Therefore there will be, as it were, a great want.
There is in our midst a body of men—namely, the Commissioners—who know everything about the subject. Are we to be told that a representative of the Commission is not to be present in the Conference in order to give that knowledge which is so absolutely essential, and which, I am sorry to say, otherwise will be found to be lacking? I cannot understand that there can be a doubt that in a Conference of this kind the representatives of the Commission or a representative of the Commission—Sir John Simon himself of course if he would be willing to serve—should be there so that all the necessary information upon the intricacies of the problem which they alone know better than any other English-

1023
man living should be at the command of the Conference. I earnestly believe that this is a matter which is deserving of the consideration of the Government. After all, when the Round-Table Conference has sat, and if, as we hope, it succeeds, the whole matter will have to be laid before Parliament, and unless it comes with the seal of full knowledge it cannot have anything like the weight which it should have. Therefore on every ground I would urge the noble Earl to make the necessary representations to the Government to reconsider this point. I can assure him that upon this matter there is no difference of opinion, as far as I know, in any part of the Conservative Party or, as I believe, in any part of the Liberal Party—that is, among those who represent the majority of the country.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, the Question has been put at a rather unusual length for a Private Notice Question, but my answer can be much briefer. The noble and learned Marquess spoke several times of the matter as still being considered. The matter is no longer under consideration. It has now been concluded, and I can read to your Lordships the answer which is being given by the Prime Minister in another place to a similar Question. This is the answer:—
"This question and those involved in it have been exhaustively considered by the Government in consultation with the Indian Government. The Statutory Commission has performed its task with a distinction which will secure for its Report a permanent place in our official political literature, and has presented its findings to Parliament. When the Conference we are now contemplating was proposed by the Chairman of the Commission with the consent of his colleagues, the Government alone was to have taken upon itself the burden of the negotiations. We have widened this so that Parliament in its varied composition might be represented. There the Government is certain it would be advisable to stop, and not add another section of delegates to the representation announced yesterday. The Government is confident that the representatives to be selected will be able to get from the Conference the
1024
fullest examination of every proposal brought before it, and every opportunity will be taken to secure that the most expert and well-informed advice, wherever it is to be found, will be available both for the Government and the Parliamentary group of representatives. The Government is convinced that a departure from this decision will not ease the task nor promote the success of the Conference."

WEST INDIAN SUGAR INDUSTRY.
LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER rose to call attention to the conditions arising in British Colonies dependent on the production of sugar; to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state definitely and to commend to this House the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to those conditions; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fourth occasion on which the subject of the British West Indian sugar industry has been raised in your Lordships' House, but I make no apology to your Lordships for again raising the matter before Parliament is prorogued, because I am quite confident that the subject is one of very great interest to your Lordships on two accounts: (1), because it involves the prosperity, livelihood and social stability of large numbers of His Majesty's subjects; and (2), because it raises, in my opinion, very important questions of Imperial Colonial policy, as to which I desire to elicit from His Majesty's Government some statement as to what they mean when they say that they acknowledge their responsibility. I may possibly be a little lengthy, and I ask your indulgence, but I want to summarise the whole case as it appears to me as completely as I can, and for that purpose I shall have to read extracts from the Despatches of the noble Lord the Secretary of State of the Colonies, and also from pronouncements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Your Lordships will remember that in February last, when we first approached the consideration of this subject, I stated that "if the present situation continues and no further relief is promised" to the Colonial sugar industry—

1025
"there must and will be considerable reduction of planting and cultivation after the crop now being taken off is completed. It is difficult, to see how any except a minority of the estates and planters can even carry on in the hope of better prices. If the Preference is annulled by the repeal of the Sugar Duties, without any countervailing assistance, the British West Indian sugar industry will be dismantled and come to an end, except for local supplies"—
and, I may add, for some special products such as certain grades of syrup and certain very fine yellow crystallised sugar—
"as rapidly as estates can be cropped and wound up."
That was the effect of the Report that my Commission made in reply to a reference by His Majesty's Government, in regard to which Mr. Snowden the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the purposes to be as follows:—
"We are seeing if it is possible to help in any way which will not merely enable theta to tide over their present difficulties but will put them in a financial and manufacturing position in which they will be able to stand world competition better in the future."
My Commission gave the Secretary of State exact information as to the means by which we considered that these purposes could be effected, the only means by which these producers might be able to tide over their present difficulties. I have not anywhere seen any criticism of the accuracy of our judgment on those conditions. On the contrary, confirmations of the tenor of our Report accumulate every day. The Secretary of State himself has not traversed any part of our presentation of the position, but has only either entirely ignored it or declared it impossible to adopt any fraction of the suggestions for help. The only alteration in the position since then is that the price of sugar has gone down by £2 12s. 6d. per ton. His Majesty's Government have given no pennyworth of assistance to the industry, but have simply stated that, if destitution through the unemployment of labourers occurs, they will give relief. The process which we assured His Majesty's Government was likely to take place, the probability which apparently they complacently ignored, is proceeding according to plan, and I want to give your Lordships a very brief summary of what is happening at present in the West Indian Colonies.
Let me take the Island of Antigua. This Island is the most difficult spot in the
1026
whole of the West Indies, in regard to its position in the sugar industry, and we pointed this out in our Report. We said that the Island of Antigua, although it was extremely well suited for the production of sugar and produced a very sweet and fine cane, the cultivation was good and it had about one of the best factories in the West Indies, had suffered very severely from drought and hurricane during the last two years, and the planters were on their beam ends. We said that unless the Government gave them some aid by financing them, they would not be able to carry on with the next crop. In regard, therefore, to Antigua, and Antigua alone, we asked His Majesty's Government for some definite financial assistance, such as was given, I may add, after the Report of the Commissioners of 1897, both to Antigua and Barbados. His Majesty's Government did not do so, and that which we and everybody else foresaw is naturally happening.
Let me give a very brief account of what is happening in Antigua. At most two-thirds of the labourers, and most of these for part time only, will find employment out of the crop in 1930. That, is to say, one-third of the population is thrown out of employment. Those employed will receive a rate of wages at least 25 per cent. less than the very much reduced rates Of last year, and about one-third will have no employment at all. That means that, even for those employed, highly-taxed imported foodstuffs in sufficient quantities to secure nutrition will be out of their reach and they will not have the physical strength to work full time. Industrial maintenance in Antigua is the only effective economic remedy. As an indication of the decline of wages, a well maintained estate, out of crop, in 1926 expended £53 a week. The same estate, cultivating fully in 1930, spent £30 a week. On every estate that diminution is found, owing to the difficulties in which the planters find themselves, for which we ask some temporary assistance to enable them to do what the Imperial Government profess to be willing to enable them to do—namely, to tide over.
Now I pass on to St. Kitts. Wages there have been reduced by 20 per cent. Both in Antigua and St. Kitts they have the advantage, as l said, of extremely efficient modern central sugar factories,

1027
and the proprietors of those factories are pursuing a liberal policy, and, although on the normal contract for cane production they would be paying something like £9 or £10 per ton for their cane, they are carrying on and paying £14 a ton in order to keep the planters going. If the cane supply drops out the factories will drop out as well. Moreover, they are arranging to give financial assistance to planters who have contracts with them. In Antigua only 50 per cent of the sugar acreage will be replanted with new plants. The rest will be carried on with what is already on the ground. In Barbados there has been a considerable loss on the crop—a loss of about 25s. a ton, but Barbados has had a stroke of good fortune. It has, however, been deserved. They have had record crops of cane, and a good extraction of sugar at the factories. They have also had the advantage of a good market for their speciality, refined syrups, and about one quarter of the estates have been able to make profits because of the good market for these refined syrups. The others, however, made losses.
Barbados has had a well merited stroke of good fortune. I say well merited, because in my Report I mention the public-spirited work that has been done for many years in Barbados by the Agricultural Department, which has been trying during last year to contend against one of the greatest pests of the sugar industry, the moth borer, and has now succeeded in finding a parasite, of which the Agricultural Department has distributed more than three millions. That has to some extent mitigated the evil from which the industry was suffering owing to this cause, and it shows that the Barbados planters are carrying on their business both scientifically and with success, and deserve any good fortune that may fall their way. The planters there are not so badly off as we feared they might be; still they have made a loss of round about 25s. a ton upon their crop, without providing any interest on capital, or anything for maintenance or improvements.
In British Guiana there has been a considerable reduction of cultivation. On one group of estates only in British Guiana there is a 20,000 ton reduction. The wages have been cut down, unemployment is increasing, and it is becoming very difficult, if not impossible, as
1028
it is also in Antigua, for the estate proprietors to consent any longer to do what they now do gratuitously—namely, maintain the public hospitals. In Antigua anybody employing contract labourers is bound to provide medical attendance. If the planter has to discharge his labourers, he is relieved from the obligation to provide medical attendance. In British Guiana, while there was coolie immigration, the estates had to maintain hospitals. After coolie immigration was suspended the obligation to do that ceased, but they have continued to maintain hospitals and provide medical attendance after discharging their labourers, although they have been making a loss of £2 to £3 a ton. They might continue to do that, but if the estate goes out of cultivation the hospital attached to it goes out of commission also.
The position in British Guiana is this, that every one of the principal concerns is carrying on at a loss. They are prepared, out of their liquid resources, to finance losses up to a certain amount, but when that limit is reached—and it will be reached by the end of next year—they will close down unless something is done to tide them over the present difficult position. Incidentally, I may say that the other day there was a Motion in another place asking that one recommendation of the Commission might be adopted—namely, that the British Preference might be equalised with the Canadian Preference, giving an addition of £1 a ton. If that had been done it would have made a difference on maintenance of about £20,000 or £30,000 to sugar production in the course of next year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would not make any difference at all, but I will deal with that statement presently. In Mauritius wages have been cut down, and, unfortunately, their only alternative crop, hemp, is suffering from depression of price. I do not intend further to elaborate the statistics, but will only say generally that the precise development which the Commission reported would take place is taking place, and must inevitably continue to take place under present conditions.
I want to examine what is the Government's position in this matter, and I want a reply. As I have mentioned, the Government stated that they desired to tide over the industry, meaning that they

1029
saw some prospect, as everybody in the world does, that the price of sugar would not continue at its present ridiculous figure, but if it reverted to what I may call an economical world exchange price, independently of subsidies and dumping, then there was a prospect of part of the industry being able to carry on. And there is that prospect unquestionably. I say without hesitation that if world prices were regulated on free trade prices, and if the market were not depressed by the enormous overloading which is taking place at the present time, and also by dumping and subsidies, the West Indies could perfectly well carry on the industry, to a large extent at all events, upon economic lines.
The question of giving this small addition to the Preference of 1s. per cwt. was raised in another place and was discussed there. I want to call the attention of your Lordships, and particularly the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to some things which passed in that debate. Mr. Ormsby-Gore stated—in my opinion accurately—that the cost of this additional Preference would be about £700,000 a year. That is a figure which was supported by one of the best experts in the sugar trade in this country whom I consulted, and possibly Mr. Ormsby-Gore may have consulted him also. That would be the probable cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, said he regretted to have to say that that figure was a woeful under-estimate of the cost and that the cost would be more than double that figure—at least £1,500,000 a year, and that was excluding what would certainly happen—namely, the extension of the increased Preference to British-made beet sugar.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given those figures in the House of Commons before, although when he spoke before he said it was only £1,350,000. I challenged the accuracy of that at the time, and had some correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject. He protested his great astonishment that a man of my official experience should rush into print in that manner. I have examined the figures, and I adhere to my view that his statement is an over-estimate. I want to point out this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would cost at least £1,500,000 a
1030
year, excluding what would certainly happen—namely, the extension of the increased Preference to British-made beet sugar. Apparently, one of those ministering angels who reside under the gallery sent a note to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he corrected that figure saying: "I made a mistake; that £1,500,000 would include the Preference we should have to give to British-made sugar."
To begin with it is a little disconcerting when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up and makes a wild statement of that sort which he has to correct afterwards, even if there were any reasonable, arguable case for extending the Preference in order to equalise the conditions in the British beet-sugar industry. That industry gets a subsidy and a Preference from the Exchequer amounting altogether to £18 10 s. a ton on the approximate world market price of £8 10 s. and makes large profits by it. There is not the slightest arguable case for giving at the present time to the British beet-sugar industry a share in the Colonial Preference, which is given for the sake of our obligations to the Empire just as the subsidy to sugar beet is given to foster the home industry. Therefore I entirely traverse not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the cost would be £1,500,000, but also his statement that there is the slightest justifiable ground for including sugar beet in that Preference. On the whole I think Mr. Ormsby-Gore's estimate of about £700,000 was probably reasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understood from him in correspondence, took account of the whole production, but Canada, at the present time takes more than half of the West Indian sugar production, and the whole of what goes to Canada is not coming to Britain because we increase the Preference, provided we do not increase it above the Canadian Preference.
I submit that that shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered into this matter with a mind inadequately prepared, and I want to call your Lordships' attention to that as part of my case for asking for reconsideration of the whole matter. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:
"The world price is about 6s. 6d. a cwt. or £6 10 s. a ton"—
it is less than that now—

1031
"How can a Preference of 1s. a cwt., or £1 a ton, make up the difference between £13 a ton and £6 10 s. per ton?"
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken the slightest trouble to see what were our recommendations. This 1s. a cwt. would help the industry to tide over because your Lordships will easily recognise that with the price of sugar standing at £10 a ton and the average cost being £11, a difference, of £1 a ton is all that is wanted to keep the industry afloat in the West Indies. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that the industry was down and out, that the Preference was gone and that what the Colonial sugar producers have to contend with is a price of £6 10 s. a ton. They do not. They have the Preference already. That argument was entirely irrelevant and I have proof that it is irrelevant, because I have information of cases where producers say that they are going to put out of cultivation two large estates because they cannot carry on at a loss of £2 or £1 10 s. They want the £1 a ton, because that would make an enormous difference in the stability and the prospects of the West Indian sugar industry.
Mr. Snowden, with inadequate information or not understanding his brief, entirely ignored that. He misled his supporters in the House of Commons by giving them a perfectly worthless argument. Then he said:—
"For the reasons which I have given—because of its cost and its ineffectiveness for doing anything material to help the Colonial industries in their present plight—I regret that I am unable to accept this proposal."
I have spoken to your Lordships about cost and ineffectiveness, and I shall return presently to the question of cost. Then, thirdly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that they had made an offer of credit. He said:—
".…we took steps some time ago in order to enable next year's crop to be handled. We made arrangements for credits for that purpose."
We discussed this question of credit some time ago in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has had replies now from all the Governors, and I want him to lay those on the Table of the House. Every one of them told him that the credit scheme was not worth 2½d. to the West
1032
Indies or to anybody else in the world. If he will lay that correspondence on the Table that will be proved.
Yet months afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up in the House of Commons and claims credit for having made a noble and generous offer, just as an inspired article in the Daily Herald claimed that the West Indies had been saved by a grant of £150,000, not one penny of which was ever going out of the Exchequer. That is the way the ease was put before the House of Commons. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not put the case so misleadingly as it was put in the House of Commons, but he has put it as obscurely. I want to know definitely whether we are to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement really meant that it is the deliberate policy of His Majesty's Government to say: "We are going to regard the world price of sugar as £5 10 s. or £6 and we are not going to stir a finger to tide the West Indies over their trouble. We are going to let them drop on to that price of £5 10 s. or £6 and let them go wherever they please. Certainly we will try to provide some maintenance for their starving population." I want definitely to ask whether that is the policy, whether His Majesty's Government regard it as assured that within the next year or two years, before there is any chance for the world price to recover, that the West Indies shall drop out? Is that their considered policy?
If so, it is a very serious matter and it will interest a good many noble Lords who are interested not only in West Indian sugar production but also in British beet sugar production. It is perfectly obvious, if that is the policy of His Majesty's Government and they are going to rely for sugar on buying bankrupt stock from Cuba or wherever they can get it, that the British sugar industry is going out simultaneously with the West Indian. Sugar beet is a subject of interest to those of your Lordships who in this country are concerned with the agricultural side of the beet sugar industry. I want to interest them in that situation. To put the matter very briefly, the British beet sugar industry is a very much more expensive proposition than the West Indian sugar industry. Take the factories. The best factories in the West

1033
Indies can produce sugar at the rate of one ton of sugar from 6.9 tons of cane; that is almost exactly the average of what British factories do. Last year they produced a ton of sugar from 6.92 tons. The West Indian factories do a little better than that average, but not all do as well as that.
As regards the agricultural side of the matter, the West Indian planters have to be content with 14 s. a ton for cane costing five guineas for a ton of sugar, whereas the British farmer has be paid £2 11 s. 3d. a ton. That is to say, what costs the West Indian factories five guineas costs the British beet factory seventeen or eighteen guineas—at least three times as much. That of course is the agricultural position. Enthusiasts for beet cultivation always hoped that they would get more out of the cultivation by the farmers than they do. The yield per acre is very low. It is only 8⅔ tons per acre on the average, and the beet cultivators are continually saying that they ought to have eighteen or nineteen tons an acre; but they do not get it and that is the best they can do. So that British beet sugar cannot be produced nearly so cheaply as West Indian cane can be produced.
I want to interest the British beet industry in the present plight of the West Indies. I have referred to the complaints made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by my noble friend Lord Passfield of what they call the "cost" of our proposal, and again I want to trouble your Lordships with some figures which I have written down for the sake of preciseness. I believe that they are accurate. The average open market price of raw sugar of the standard West Indian and Cuban quality—96 degrees standard—was in 1927, three years ago, £13 15 s. a ton. This is the average price from the brokers' circulars. Two years ago in 1928 it was £11 12 s. 6d. a ton. In 1929, last year, the average price was £9 Os. 9d. In December last, when my Commission drew up its figures, the price was £8 5s. a ton. The price to-day, or rather last Saturday, because I have not seen the prices since Saturday, was £5 12s. 6d. So that the price for British buyers of sugar has thus fallen in three years by £8 2s. 6d. a ton. Our consumption in 1929 was 2,180,000 tons. So that, in three years there has been a saving
1034
on our annual sugar bill at the rate of £17,712,500. In the last two years it has fallen £6 a ton, and the saving is at the rate of £13,000,000 a year. The difference between last year's average price and the price to-day is £3 8s. 3d. a ton, and the saving to our consumers is at the rate of £7,939,250, say £8,000,000 a year. Since last December, when we framed our Report, it has fallen £2 12 s. 6d. a ton, and the saving to our buyers is at the rate of £5,722,500 a year—since we made our recommendations.
We proposed that all our sugar should be handled through an import board giving a guaranteed price for British Colonial sugar. My noble friend Lord Pass field curtly dismissed that proposal in your Lordships' House on the ground that it would "cost several millions." I must protest against the word "cost." It would not have cost anything. It would have meant the sacrifice of foregoing a certain amount of this unnaturally increased cheapness of sugar by means of which sugar is now being sold at a price of about half that at which the best factories in Cuba could produce it. We should have sacrificed a certain amount of unnecessary and unnatural cheapness, but the sacrifice would have saved those about whom I am speaking. If the Government had adopted our maximum proposal for a guaranteed price to Colonial sugar the sacrifice of increased cheapness since we made our proposal would have been at the rate of £3,937,000 a year. That is to say, the net cost of our sugar would not have been increased at all, but would have been reduced by about £1,785,000 a year.
If we fake the average price for the whole of last year as a standard, the net reduction of cost, the clear gain now being enjoyed, even after accepting our proposal, as compared with last year, would be at the rate of about £4,000,000 a year— £4,001,750. Undoubtedly, if we were now buying all our sugar at the open market price of 1928, two years ago, without giving any Preference at all, it would be costing us £25,342,500 a year. If we were buying it to-day at the prices recommended by the Sugar Commission, and superseding the Preference, it would be costing us £18,825,000—a saving of £6,517,000 a year to our buyers since we reported, and the

1035
Exchequer would have saved the whole cost of the Preference which, on the same basis of calculation, would amount now to about £2,625,000, and the total reduction in cost since 1929 would have been £9,142,500.
The noble Lord talks about cost and about the great hardship to the wage-earning classes of having to pay more than they need for their sugar. We all sympathise with that view. We know that cheap sugar is a great boon, but in my opinion the extraordinary increase in the cheapness of sugar—and this is almost an echo of the words of the Royal Commission of 1897 of which the noble Lord, Lord Grey, and Sir David Barbour, both ardent Free Traders, were members—that increased cheapness is bought "at too high a price": at the cost of others of His Majesty's subjects, the West Indian and other producers of sugar. It is too high a cost to pay from the Imperial point of view, and I urge His Majesty's Government to revise and reconsider their view as to cost and to credit the rank and file of the Labour Party, to which I belong, and with whom I have talked on the subject, with a little of the generosity which I have found among them in my own conversations on the subject.
They would very gladly not allow the price of sugar go down if it would help their fellow workers in the West Indies and the other Colonies concerned that it should not go down. I appeal to His Majesty's Government not simply to regard this matter as a thing to be dealt with by a stern adherence to a fixed and immutable principle. I am told that if you put a hen in a circle of chalk and put its bill on the circle nothing on earth will induce that hen to move from that circle. His Majesty's Government seem to be actuated by that principle. Why should my noble friend adhere to that view and subordinate himself at the present time to that policy and say that this item of our Imperial trade equal to a million tons a year is to be sacrificed and scrapped, and that the workers employed in connection with it are to be thrown into destitution. Why should be adhere to that and say: "It costs too much; we must follow out the principle of this so-called Free Trade and adhere to the principle of cheap sugar"—of which your Lordships will remember
1036
he gave us a panegyric on the first occasion when he spoke on the subject— "this is the policy of His Majesty's Government on this matter"?
I have spoken of the destruction of trade. You would entirely destroy a British industry of 1,000,000 tons of sugar a year, worth, you may say, certainly £10,000,000 a year at the very least. You will entirely destroy about half of your West Indian trade. After all, your West Indian trade is worth in imports into Great Britain about £5,500,000 and exports from Great Britain nearly £7,000,000. You will destroy half of that by buying cheap sugar at 5s. 6d. cwt. or whatever it may be from Cuba. What are you going to get in the way of trade in return? I know there is an economic theory that wherever you buy your stuff you get trade in return. I doubt if you will get any return of trade from Cuba. As a matter of fact so far as this exchange of sugar is concerned, the Cuban crop is practically all held in the United States and I cannot believe, whatever you pay for your sugar to the United States of America, that you will be able to send any trade to Cuba. They do not take any of our trade. They bar it to-day. How are you going to get an increase of trade with America that would countervail that loss of your trade? You cannot possibly get trade in return when people are trying to bar, or have actually barred, your trade out. When you are dealing with your own people who are giving you a Preference, some trade goes in return, but there is inevitably a loss of trade as compared with the trade that previously existed.
I have a letter from the Principal of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, a very valuable institution which is doing very good work in the West Indies and which was largely financed and founded by the sugar industry. The people of Trinidad gave a very large grant and the sugar machinery manufacturers in England gave a grant of £25,000 for the study of the technique of sugar production. If you destroy the sugar industry, you destroy a very large amount of the value of that institution because the only sugar growers you would then have to provide for will be those of Natal, who will go on being protected, and the

1037
Australians, who can look after themselves. There will be no other British sugar industry. How can you expect the Trinidad people and other people, who have given subsidies to that college to help their principal industry, to go on giving it subsidies? Of course they will not.
In this letter Mr. Evans, the Principal, says:—
"It is a pity Mr. Snowden and some of the others have not had the opportunity of seeing some of these Colonies. They would then more fully realise that the problem is a social and political one and only incidentally a sugar problem. People out here are very sore and there are local rumours about the abolition of the. Preference on British trade goods. If the Sugar Preference is not renewed next year I think you may take it as pretty certain that most of the Colonies—British Guiana and Barbados anyway—will remove the British Preference and that will mean the return of monopoly to United States goods."
The Trinidad Government is assisting the sugar planters to the tune of £2 a ton for the next two years. So is Jamaica. Barbados and British Guiana desire to do so but they have not the money. They have asked the British Government for the money. It has been refused.
"The people are very sore," says the letter, and it would interest my noble friend if I could show him some of the letters I have received on the subject. My noble friend may complain of my statement that he has done nothing to help the West Indies. He has promised us assistance from the Development Fund and the intention, I understood, was that assistance should be given from the Development Fund to the sugar planters to improve the conditions of the industry, such as transport, and to make a live and efficient industry out of what is now a struggling industry, so that they may contend with the world conditions. What do we find? We find the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that his standpoint is that they cannot possibly contend with the world conditions with their cost of production, that their cost of production is £12 or £13 a ton and the world price is £5 10 s. or £6, and that they cannot contend with it. We can imagine the Colonies sending in an application to the Development Commission. Many of your Lord ships know the Development Commission and the Development Acts and they have
1038
sat upon the Public Accounts Committee, as I have done as a humble assistant adviser to that Committee.
Suppose you go to the Colonial Development Commission and say: "These West Indian people are in a very bad way and we want to spend a little money so that we may be able to give relief works; we would like some money for improving transport, for improving factories, making roads in order to tide them over." I do not know what the Public Accounts Committee would say to those Commissioners if they were to accede to any application for relief in the West Indies at the present time on those grounds. I have been informed by Colonial Governors that the Development Commission are taking the very proper and logical view of their duties that they will not give money for any eleemosynary purposes in order to keep an industry going that His Majesty's Government have declared cannot be kept going. If, for instance, Barbados say: "We want to improve our roads or light railways", they will ask: "What for?" Barbados will reply: "In order to improve the efficiency of our sugar industry." If Antigua ask for money for the same purpose, they will also say that they want to improve the efficiency of the sugar industry, which is their principal industry. The Development Commissioners will, very properly—I speak as an ex-Assistant Comptroller and Auditor—boggle at that.
My right hon. friend has been very liberal in telling the Colonial Governments that His Majesty's Government intend to help them through the Development Fund. I want to know what is the position about that. Is it the view of His Majesty's Government that the Colonial industry cannot survive? Are the Development Commissioners taking that view, or are they really sympathetically dealing with applications for aid for improving the sugar industry with a prospect—shared by His Majesty's Government—that that industry will survive? If His Majesty's Government do really share that prospect and believe it will survive, they are in a fool's paradise if they believe it can survive at the present time without more assistance than they are now giving. It can only survive if the Government will face the position set forth in my Commission's Report and as it has been aggravated since then by the great fall in the price of sugar.
We quite admit there are industrial difficulties in this country and that the West Indies are at the present time sharing in that depression, but, in this country, each industry supports the others and our workers do not starve because there is an Unemployment Insurance Fund and an established system of maintaining our workers. There is no such thing in the West Indies, nor does the law acknowledge any obligation to give able-bodied outdoor relief. You cannot deal with relations with British Colonies on the principle that they are to be treated as recipients of outdoor relief. They are individual satellites or associates of ours in the British Empire and we have a moral obligation to keep their communities in a healthy state of existence, just as we have an obligation on the part of the Government here to keep the community in a healthy state of existence, and therefore to assist this distressed industry. The Imperial Government cannot discharge its duties to those communities simply by saying, "We will relieve your populations in case of distress."
As I have laboured to prove, and as the Commission of 1897 also laboured to prove, in these Colonies, in Barbados, Antigua, St. Kitts and to a lesser degree in Trinidad, if the sugar industry goes out, you destroy the whole machinery of government, you render it impossible for men of enterprise and spirit to go out to those Colonies, and you discourage the progressive white element in those Colonies. You cannot discharge your duties to those Colonies in that way. You must preserve those Colonies as individuals. They are small and they may be insignificant, but, if a man is an individual member of your family, it is no justification to treat him badly and to undermine his constitution because he is a small man. He has just as much right as the bigger man, or the bigger community, to your fatherly care and your Imperial obligations.
I come to the question of relief work. I have had a great deal of experience of relief works after hurricanes and droughts in the West Indies, and if you think you can effectually from this country deal with the problem of relief by giving the population of the West Indies relief work or "doles", you are grievously mistaken. In the first place, it is almost
1040
impossible to find relief works that will at all touch the situation. I have had to deal with the question, fortunately, where relief works did touch the situation—in Jamaica, where we had the banana and the coffee industry, and where we wanted more roads. In Barbados and other places they have too many roads already. You cannot give employment through relief works, and are you going to distribute money by way of "doles"? You know very little of the population of the West Indies if you think it is not an even more disastrous expedient than the unemployment relief fund in this country, because all experience proves that the people who draw the money spend it, and their dependents, the women and children and old people, go on starving, just as they did before. You cannot deal with the illiterate and unorganised West Indian population by outdoor relief. It would create far more mischief than giving them land to work upon.
I have kept your Lordships far too long. There is a great deal more that I would like to say, but I hope I shall be followed and supported by other members of this House. I want the Government to reconsider the position in this matter. I have quoted the manlier in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this subject in the House of Commons, and I ask your Lordships whether one is not entitled to appeal for reconsideration or a rehearing, on the ground of misdirection of the jury? The facts were not put before the House of Commons properly. The facts of the situation are much more serious than the Government have given any indication of recognising, and I urge them, as I am confident all their Governors and deputations from the West Indies have urged them, to reconsider the matter on the basis of their first programme, which was to help the industry to tide over a period of difficulty and distress. In view of the perfectly ridiculous price at which sugar now stands, and of the enormous profit which the British community is reaping through the lowering of the price of sugar, I urge that the Government should be liberal and give a grant, just as they gave a grant on the recommendation of the Commission of 1897.
What is required to keep the British sugar industry in the Colonies and in Great Britain going is to guarantee the maintenance of the present Preference.

1041
I can conceive no possible reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been so reluctant last year to tell the British West Indies what was going to be done. It cost them thousands and thousands of pounds, and I made a statement in my Report that great loss was actually imposed upon West Indian communities by that. I cannot understand the quite inexplicable reluctance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If duties are going to be increased, I can understand his silence, but if a Preference is going to be maintained I can see no practical administrative reason why it should not be stated. If it is not going to he maintained, let us be told and we know where we are. Secondly, let the Government add that moderate increase to equalise our Preference with the Canadian Preference. We can perfectly well afford it from the surplus got by cheapening sugar, and that will allow the West Indies to tide over. The weaker will no doubt go out, but not three-fourths of the planters, which must happen if present conditions continue.
Thirdly, I urge the Government to pay some attention to the recommendations of their Governors, and to assist those Colonies which are making efforts to assist themselves. We ask the Government to do what Mr. Chamberlain's Government did on the recommendation of the Commissioners of 1897. We have had immense profits from the reduction of the price of sugar, and we should give back a little of it to the West Indies. Let the Government give back generously some of the profit and they will escape the evil notoriety of having been the Labour Government which destroyed not only the British sugar industry but also a great part of the West Indian Colonies.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I feel that it is my public duty to address the House on this question, because I had the honour to be Governor of Antigua and to administer the grant under Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, to which reference has been made three times in the course of the noble Lord's speech. I will be very brief, and I regret that the views which I am bound to express may not be welcome to brother Governors in the West Indies. I feel that my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is being attacked in regard to his policy in regard to
1042
sugar in the West Indies in a manner which is not always just, and which is certainly unsound financially. I regret to have to say that the days of subsidies payable outside England are over. When Mr. Joseph Chamberlain saved, by a small subsidy to encourage central factories, the sugar industry in the lesser islands of the West Indies, and Antigua in particular where it had become unprofitable, conditions were very different. Since then we are subsidising a competing sugar industry in England. To subsidise a competitive sugar industry in England, and to continue to subsidise sugar industries elsewhere outside, appears to me to be arithmetically unsound. It is as if anyone were to back in a match two horses to win the race at the same odds.
I remember on the wharf at St. Kitts when governing the Leeward Islands seeing Muscavado sugar sold for £5 2s. 6d. a ton. Their machinery was then antiquated and wasteful. Putting in new machinery created wealth by an expedient that cannot be repeated. The British subsidy of £250,000, obtained from this Parliament by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain for the West Indian sugar industry, was parcelled out among the Governors of the West Indies leaving to each to do his best with it, and in Antigua I employed it in premiums to encourage the setting up of central factories, which central factories have been very successful and added to the productiveness of the industry for the time being sufficiently to get the planters out of their financial difficulties and give them many years of profit and prosperity. But it appears that what the planters now want is not the creation of new wealth by financial and mechanical expedients, but that the Secretary of State should do much that is not practical to keep up the price of sugar for their benefit above that which is commercially possible, to an indefinite extent, and at our expense. The one thing that can be clone for the West Indies to-day is to stabilise prices for a short period on sound banking lines. To stabilise prices might cost a little but it would do much good at comparatively small cost. To raise prices against the law of supply and demand is a different proposition; to call it "preference" does not make it sound.

1043
If there is to be any raising of price in defiance of the law of supply and demand, that involves a subsidy, and if a subsidy is to be given for manufacturing sugar let it be given to keep the balance of trade in favour of England, let it be given to help English landowners and English sugar factories. British landowners last year were in many cases, in fact, nothing but unpaid tax gatherers. This year by reason of the increase of taxation to 12 s. 6d. in the pound many of us have to pay for the privilege of facilitating the collection of taxes, and passing them on, before rents are received, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If landowners here are to do that, let us vote to pass on what is taken from us to brother landlords in England, not to brother landlords in the West Indies.
The real difficulty is that there are West Indian Islands and estates of which the productiveness has ceased to be competitive in the markets of the world. There are places in the West Indies—it would not be wise to mention names—which may still struggle on competitively; but to try and help indefinitely by subsidies—not by the creation of central factories—those which are beyond redemption, as well as those which might perhaps struggle on, is certainly bad finance, if not a hopeless task. In view of the very heavy taxation now payable in England, the defiance of political economy should not be carried any further. It is with great regret that the truth has to be told. The truth has to be told equally for landlords in England and landlords in the West Indies. The time has come when for many of us our heads are left but the land that cannot meet competition is taken by the tax gatherers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, as no other noble Lord wishes to support Lord Olivier, I will endeavour to make such reply as I can to the very lengthy and detailed speech which he has made, and to which I listened with great attention and, I hope, some profit. But a large part of that speech, perhaps the greater part, was made up of an attack upon my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an attack upon him upon the figures. Really, I cannot at a moment's notice
1044
undertake to straighten out the figures either of my noble friend Lord Olivier or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest to your Lordships that too much has been made of the apparent discrepancy between the two figures of what certain proposals would cost. Is it not clear that you must make various assumptions if you are attempting to work out that sum? It is perfectly clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made certain assumptions which differed materially from those which my noble friend himself made.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that an offer of increased Preference to Empire sugar would lead to a larger proportion of Empire sugar coming to this country than does under the existing Preference. I cannot say whether such an assumption was exactly justified, but it is not an unreasonable one. If the present Preference draws a certain proportion of Empire sugar, an enlarged Preference would probably draw a somewhat larger proportion of Empire sugar, and on that increased amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not only lose the increased Preference, but would also be at the cost of the existing Preference on that sugar, which otherwise would have come from foreign sources. That is only one assumption which has to be made on which apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer differed from my noble friend. There are other assumptions which were made into which I do not want to go now, but I submit that probably the discrepancy lies in the difference between the assumptions made for making the calculations. But, whether that is so or not, surely the essence of the matter does not lie in the amount of the cost. The cost is considerable, and the cost, as my noble friend has attempted to show, is one which ought to be incurred.
LORD OLIVIER: I put the point definitely. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that the Preference would be abolished, and that what the West Indies had to contend with was the price of £6 10 s. Does the noble Lord assume that sugar will remain at that price?
LORD PASSFIELD: That is not the point to which I was referring. The noble Lord in his speech dealt with this

1045
matter two or three times, and I think each time dealt with it somewhat differently. With regard to his last explanation, I certainly do not assume, and I do not know that I have ever assumed, or that His Majesty's Government have ever assumed, that the price of sugar is always going to be as low as the present price, or anything like it. Really, that is not a matter on which I can prophesy. I am not a speculator in sugar myself, I am glad to say, and, if I were, I do not know whether I should be inclined to be a "bull" on sugar at this moment. But I ant certainly not able to answer the question; I cannot say what the future price of sugar is going to be. The policy of the Government must necessarily be based on the present and existing circumstances. It cannot gamble on the future; it cannot assume that sugar is going to go up or go down; it can only have regard to the existing circumstances and what is reasonably and immediately in prospect. And it would not be accurate to say that the Government policy is founded upon an expected increase in the price of sugar or au expected decrease. Obviously, we ought not to speculate in that way.
Another part of my noble friend's attack—an attack, I think, upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer—very largely was that he was constantly assuming that the existing Preference is going to be abolished, or that at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to say that it will not be abolished—never be abolished, I suppose. All I can say is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said definitely as long ago as July, 1929, and has repeated it several times, and I have said it here on his behalf, that so long as the duty remains he will not attempt to take off the Preference. But he has, very naturally I think, not been prepared to commit himself to the statement that the duty is going to be maintained for ever. I do not know whether my noble friend thinks he ought to have done that, but I cannot hold out any hope that we shall be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he is never going to touch the Sugar Duty or any other duty. I doubt whether he ought to, but at any rate I do not believe this particular Chancellor of the Exchequer will do that, and he has gone pretty far in attempting to com-
1046
fort the West Indies on the point, by saying that unless the duty is removed the Preference will not be removed.
I think the Sugar Duty yields at this time something like £15,000,000 a year. I know no more than your Lordships what is the actual state of the Exchequer at this moment, but it would not be going too far to say that the prospects of there being £15,000,000 to spare at the next Budget do not appear to be at all rosy. And consequently I should not assume that it was likely that the Sugar Duty was going to be abolished at the next Budget or, for that matter, at the Budget after. But I know nothing about it, and there is no reason to assume, as I think the noble Lord several times did, that the Preference is going to be abolished next year or within the near future.
The noble Lord based a large part of his argument on the fact that, if the present low prices continued, if the existing Preference were abolished and if nothing were done to replace it, the sugar industry in the West. Indies and in Mauritius would come to an end. I am not prepared to say what would happen if all those circumstances took place. All I can say is that the Government are not in a position at this moment to act as if all those prognostications were going to be carried out to the letter in the near future. We are not prepared to act on that assumption. I should prefer to act in the light of the information we have, and it is really only causing additional trouble and apprehension for the noble Lord to go on talking as if the existing Preference were going to be abolished next year or the year after. I do not know that it is, and I should think it more reasonable to proceed on another hypothesis. At any rate, your Lordships will realise that I am not in a position to give any assurance that the Sugar Duty will not he abolished. All I can say is that personally it does not look to me as if it would be within the power of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to lose £15,000,000 of Revenue in the next Budget.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the various terms of his speech. I should like, for his sake, and I think for your Lordships' sake also, to try to give what I will call a positive answer to the noble Lord rather than mere debating points. I shall not satisfy him, I am

1047
afraid, but at the same time I want to say how the position stands. Naturally it has been a matter of very grave and almost continuous consideration. We have had the benefit of the presence in this country at the Colonial Office Conference of a number of the Governors of the sugar Colonies and of high officials from those Colonies from which the Governors were not able to come, and we have therefore obtained a great deal of information from them, and also as the result of recent telegrams, about the exact position of most of these Colonies.
Undoubtedly the position is grave. I do not want to exaggerate. There is a good deal of apprehension, but there is some actual trouble. In most of the sugar Colonies there are some estates—not many—that have thrown up the sponge, and there is a good deal of local organisation among them by which they are endeavouring to help themselves. Barbados, Jamaica, British Guiana and Mauritius are all turning to and endeavouring to see what can be done. There is already some unemployment but, I am glad to say, no very serious amount in any place. The worst, place in this respect is British Guiana, where there are some thousands of people out of work. Steps are being taken to deal with them and, needless to say, the action taken will not be dictated from Downing Street, but will be organised and administered by the local Governments in places where this is possible. Funds are being found, partly locally, where it has been possible, and partly from the Colonial Development Fund; and we shall very likely have to come upon the Exchequer also for something on the Estimates to maintain the administration of these Colonies. My noble friend made much of the fact that we could not let the administrations go down. I need hardly say that the Government have not the least intention of letting the local administrations go down. At any rate, so far as we can see, we shall he able, to keep them going.
I want to give some particulars regarding the Colonial Development Fund. I want to make it clear that, although there have been one or two applications from people engaged in the sugar industry for direct assistance, those applications from employers for aid to keep their enterprises going have not been
1048
acceded to—very properly, as I venture to think. But those responsible have already agreed to free grants, or loans free of interest, to an amount which, including all the West Indian Colonies, comes to £322,000.
EARL PEEL: Is that all from the Development Fund?
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes. That, of course, is for specific works of one kind and another which are not in any sense relief works. They are justified as works of utility which are required. They are not invented for the purpose of giving employment and, of course, some few of them do not give any employment at all. The bulk of them, however, have the advantage that they will supply wages to a certain number of the population. That is something. Other applications are before them and, I hope, will be acceded to. Then, as I have said, we have telegrams from a number of the sugar Colonies.
LORD OLIVIER: Have there been any grants for assistance in maintaining or improving the conditions in the sugar industry?
LORD PASSFIELD: No, if the noble Lord means any direct assistance to people engaged in the sugar industry.
LORD OLIVIER: If they desired to centralise the sugar factories in Barbados would they get a grant?
LORD PASSFIELD: I cannot say what would happen, but grants, as a matter of fact, have been given for roads, bridges, water supply and various health measures. Roads and bridges cannot be considered as directly contributing towards maintaining the sugar industry, and yet they are part of the means by which the sugar industry is carried on. I cannot be more precise than that. I have said quite frankly that they have refused to give grants to particular sugar firms for the maintenance or improvement of their industry. Whether they would make a grant to enable central factories to be substituted for a number of smaller ones I cannot say. They have not had this before them. We hope to pursue the policy of public assistance, either through the Development Fund or directly from Colonial funds, or possibly by a grant in aid.

1049
I want to add that all the Governors who have said anything on the subject have endorsed and welcomed the view laid down by the Colonial Office that they must at all costs avoid anything in the nature of out-relief, handed over the pay table because people are starving. They must contrive in seine way, if possible, to offer employment at wages. It is a little difficult to define exactly what relief works are, but I think your Lordships will realise that there is a difference between taking on a man at wages, even if the work would not have been undertaken but for the desire to take him on, and out-relief handed over the pay table to a man and his wife and children, There is another small thing. In a number of these Colonies there have been export duties levied on sugar when it is exported. It is obvious that when you are dealing with the market in its present state such export duties are a real deduction from the possibility of carrying on business without a loss or without a great loss, and we have told the Colonial Governments that to comtinue such export duties or any duties which press directly upon the sugar industry at the present time is a very bad policy, and we have asked them to obtain the removal of these duties and taxes at the earliest possible moment, even if they have to substitute some other duty which does not directly fall upon sugar for the taxes thus remitted.
I am not able to say anything more about the policy of His Majesty's Government. We are watching the situation. We are doing everything we can short of actually giving a subsidy to sugar production. We have not thought it wise to take that course. It would be in many ways the easiest thing to do, if it was not that it would mean a considerable cost, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When my noble friend says this country has made a large profit out of sugar by its cheapening, I would point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have that profit. It is the public which gets it, in so far as the fall in the wholesale prices has been realised in the retail trade. I think the House must understand that any increase of Preference, or any grant of a subsidy in any way whatever, does mean a direct addition to the expenditure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Government are constantly told that
1050
the one thing necessary for the revival of industry is that expenditure should be reduced and not increased, it is of course a little difficult to say that in this particular case there should be an item of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 added to the Government expenditure to enable the sugar industry to conic nearer making both ends meet than it can do at the present time.
That is not the Government policy. The noble Lord asks that it should be reconsidered. I confess I can promise him that it will go on being considered, because we shall not get away from this question—we shall be bound to go on considering it—but I cannot believe that I shall be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to guarantee the maintenance of the Preference or to increase it up to the Canadian level, or to assist—the Colonies my noble friend said, but he meant, of course, the planters. We can assist the Colonies, and I think we can assist the planters, but I do not think the Government will be able to do anything in the nature of giving a subsidy to the sugar industry. I think that is the only thing that I can actually say. I will only state generally that I think the situation may be going to be grave, but it is not so very serious at the present moment. The replies which we have from the Colonies concerned indicate that, whilst they will have to provide for a certain amount of distress and unemployment in the coming winter, it will be within their capacity to make the necessary provision for that, aided from the Development Fund and, possibly, by here and there a grant in aid.
What is going to happen if the position gets worse in a year's time I am not prepared now to say. We do not see any indication that more than the fringe of the sugar industry is at present going to be given up. Undoubtedly the fringe is being given up here and there, but I would like to say that in Antigua, for instance—one of the most difficult places—the central factory, which I am told covers two-thirds of the whole sugar production of the Island, has offered a loan of £20,000 to its planters—to the people who grow the cane—in order to enable them to go on. That seems to indicate that the central factory at any rate sees its way to go on,

1051
even at that cost, and I have no doubt that for the rest of the people in Antigua the Government would be able to make at any rate provision.
I ought to say one other word with regard to the effort the Government did make last year to help the people who were growing cane with credit from the banks. The noble Lord made great fun of that at the time. He has made great fun of it since. I give him the satisfaction of saying that he proved to be right, and that that particular effort was not necessary. As a matter of fact, I remember very definitely that we did not put it forward as being any help to the sugar industry or any solution of the, sugar problem, but we were informed very definitely that the banks were refusing credit to the little planters—credit actually necessary to enable them to go on with their planting, and, because we were informed of that fact, we did consult all the banks, and we said: "We do not want you to reduce your advances to an amount less than you gave before, and we are prepared, if you say that that may land you in any loss, to stand in with that loss." The banks accepted that, but the various Governments said it was not necessary, and it has proved apparently not to be necessary. It was a false alarm. The banks did their business in the way they had done it before, and the planting took place. We were to blame, if you like, for being misled by what turned out to be a false alarm, but I submit we were not to blame for making an effort to cope with the particular difficulty. It was a relatively small matter in the whole range of the problem.
EARL PEEL: May I ask the noble Lord, was no advantage then taken of so generous a Government offer?
LORD PASSFIELD: No advantage was taken, for they were able to do without it. In Mauritius they considered it very carefully, but found on the whole they could go on without it, and, that being so, it was obviously better that they should go on without it and that the banks should do the business. I own that the noble Lord has the laugh of us there, and all I can say is we acted on the information that there was going to be a restriction of credit. And may I say that part of the trouble in this West Indian problem is the prevalence of these
1052
rumours of coming calamity, and of the tremendous size of the calamity. The sting of death is most in apprehension. I think there is rather too much apprehension about this.
In conclusion, I am sorry to say I am not able to give the noble Lord the sort of assurance he wants that the Government is going, by subsidies or by buying the sugar at £15 a ton, to maintain the whole of the sugar industry. That is the position of the Government. We do acknowledge our responsibility to the people of the West Indies and Mauritius, and we are going as far as human effort can go—we are going in the least bad way we can find—to save them from any extreme destitution or distress. We are going to try to put them in the way of earning their living to the greatest extent possible. The noble Lord has not been very promising as to what he thinks can be done, but we are trying at any rate to see what can be done in that way, and no effort will be spared to do it. I can only say that I have the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whatever money is necessary on these lines he will give very favourable consideration to. But the moment is not yet. We have not needed the money, and when we do need it I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to come forward with an estimate in the House of Commons, and we shall be able to get what is absolutely necessary. I do not pretend that the picture is a pleasant one. I do not pretend that we can avert very serious calamity from the West Indies. This calamity has been impending for the last four years. No more than the late Government can we avert the calamity in any way that I can see practicable. All we can do is to be guided by the best information we can find in the Colonies and to steer as far as we can in such a way as to prevent the local administration, the hospitals and everything else going down, and as far as we can prevent the most severe distress coming on any of the population.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I did not formally move for Papers, but I explained to my noble friend that I hoped he would lay Papers, especially the replies received to the Despatch asking the Governors for their views.
LORD PASSFIELD: I shall be very glad to see what Papers can be given.

1053
Some Papers can be given. It will not be possible to give such Papers as refer to the circumstances of particular firms or confidential matters of that kind and also it is not in accordance with the practice of the Colonial Development Fund that we should publish the actual applications made to that Fund. The Fund itself publishes periodical particulars of what it has done. Subject to those two exceptions, if the noble Lord will not mind certain omissions to preserve the anonymity of particular people mentioned, I shall be very glad to lay all the information possible.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us as little comfort today as on previous occasions. He says that he sees a great calamity and does not see a way to do anything to avert it. Our complaint is that the Government are not prepared to take means to avert a calamity by tiding over the industry until prices have resumed a normal level. The present price of £5 10 s. a ton is a great deal less than the price at which any factory can produce. One little crumb of comfort I have elicited is about export duties. Last autumn the noble Lord referred to my colleague, Mr. Semple, and myself the question of these export duties and we strongly recommended that they should be taken off. They were put on in Antigua at, a time when Antigua was doing very well with its sugar industry. They have been kept on ever since. We pointed out that it was perfectly ridiculous to tax in this manner an industry which was not making a penny. About five weeks ago I enquired if the duties were still being levied and the people in Antigua said: "Yes, they were still being levied." I wrote to the noble Lord and said I was going to ask whether these export duties would be taken off, and I am very glad that now the noble Lord has had his attention called to the matter he has given directions. I suppose the difficulty was that the revenue from these duties could not be spared and that he could not get anything out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make good the loss of these duties. I hope he will get something now.
There is only one other point—a very small point—to which I want to refer. He said he was not sure that the
1054
increasing cheapness of sugar was getting through to the consumer. Nor am I. It seems to go to the wholesalers and refiners, and I would like to suggest, that a little extra levy might be put on the wholesalers and refiners—that they should make a sort of conscience money payment to the West Indies which the West Indies think is their due. Having had the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been directed to the amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations proposed by the Committee appointed to bring the provisions of the Covenant into harmony with the Pact of Paris; whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the amendments proposed by the Committee go far beyond the purposes for which the Committee was appointed, and would (if adopted) materially alter the position and powers of the Council of the League and largely increase the liabilities of this country; whether His Majesty's Government will undertake to submit the proposed amendments to Parliament before giving them any acceptance or suppport on behalf of this country; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to ask your Lordships at this crowded period of the Session to consider the matter to which I am about to call attention. I do it only because it is a matter which gives me very considerable anxiety and because I have the best reason for knowing that that anxiety is shared by others whose authority and experience are far greater than my own. Unless some satisfactory assurance is given it is quite possible that before Parliament reassembles this country may find itself involved in entanglements and responsibilities not less formidable than those which were contained in that Protocol which was so emphatically condemned when it was laid before the judgment of the country in 1924.
The matter arises out of certain proposed amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations. As your Lordships remember, under what is known as the Kellogg Pact—the Pact of Paris—the signatories to that Pact renounce war as an instrument of national policy. Under the earlier Covenant of the League of Nations the signatories to that Covenant agreed not to resort to war except in certain circumstances. There is, therefore, an inconsistency between the two obligations. The inconsistency is, I think, not a very serious one, because most of the signatories of the Covenant of the League of Nations are also signatories of the Pact of Paris, and in their case it will only involve that some wars would be a breach of their obligations under both agreements whereas others would only be a breach of their obligations under one agreement. However, the Assembly of the League of Nations in September last resolved that it was desirable that the Covenant should be amended to bring it into harmony with the Pact of Paris and a Committee was set up to recommend what amendments were necessary for that purpose.
The committee met, I think, for only one week, between February 25 and March 5. It seems to have carried out its business with remarkable celerity. But in that limited space of time it commenced by reaching a decision which I think was a most unfortunate one—namely, that it would not confine itself to bringing the two agreements into harmony, but that it was charged further with the duty of finding some alternative pacific means of settlement to replace the arbitrament of war, and that since war was to be renounced it was essential in the language of the Report itself that "its place must be taken by methods of pacific settlement in order to ensure the settlement of disputes." I shall show your Lordships in a few moments that having laid down that definition of its duties the Committee signally failed to perform its duties, because if its proposed amendments be accepted the result will be that a great many disputes will still have no pacific means of settlement provided, and therefore with regard to any particular dispute nobody in this world will know when the dispute breaks out whether it is one which is covered by a pacific means of settlement or not.
If I may, I would remind your Lordships of the present position in order to indicate what are the proposed alterations. The matter concerns three Articles of the Covenant—Article 12, Article 13 and Article 15. Since we are not taking a final decision on the merits of the proposed amendments, but only considering whether they are worthy to be submitted to Parliament before a decision is taken, I do not propose to develop all the possible criticisms that may be made but only to indicate one or two salient points arising particularly under Article 15. Under Article 12, as the Covenant now stands, the Members of the League agree that if a dispute arises between any two of their number they will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiries by the Council—that is by the Council of the League—and that they will not resort to war for three months after the award or after the report by the Council. That obligation is altered, in view of the fact that war is now excluded altogether, into an agreement that they will in no case resort to war for the solution of their disputes. The embodiment of that Covenant has certain results in bringing in the provisions of Article 16, but I do not want to develop them now because I am anxious to confine myself to what I think are the most serious matters.
Article 13 is the one under which the Members of the League agree that they will submit any dispute which is suitable for arbitration or judicial settlement to that method of determination, and the principal alteration is one in language. Under the existing text when an award is made and is not carried out, the Council shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect thereto. The amendment is that the Council shall propose what measures of all kinds shall be taken to give effect thereto. That, again, is a minor amendment designed, as the Report shows, to indicate that all the serious obligations of Article 16 can be invoked in order to enforce awards given under that Article. But that is not the main objection to the proposed amendments.
Article 15 is, in my submission to your Lordships, the most important alteration. Article 15 is that Article which provides

1057
what is to happen when the parties to a dispute have not submitted it to arbitration or to judicial settlement. Primarily, at any rate, it refers to those disputes which are not matters of legal difference at all but are matters of high political importance. Under the existing Covenant what happens is this. The Council of the League of Nations enquires and reports. If its report is one by a majority of the Council—that is to say, is not a unanimous report—then that report has no effect at all except, of course, the moral effect of showing what the majority of the Council think. If, on the other hand, the report is a unanimous one it still has no binding effect upon the parties. Your Lordships appreciate that these are disputes which are normally at any rate not matters of law but matters, it may be, of vital import to the disputants, and the Covenant was very careful to preserve the character of the League of Nations as not being a super-sovereign body imposed upon the Members of the League, but as merely a free combination of a number of independent sovereign States.
Accordingly, the Article as it stands to-day provides that where there is a unanimous report the Members of the League agree that they will not resort to war against any party which complies with the recommendations of the report. But it does not make the report a binding decision which either party is bound to accept or obey, and it does not impose upon any Member of the League any obligation to attempt to enforce the report which the Council has reached. Under the proposed amendments, wherever there is a majority report of the Council the position is to be left unchanged and it binds nobody. Probably in the great majority of cases, having regard to the kind of dispute which is likely to be dealt with under Article 15, that is what will happen and in all those cases the Committee gives no means of pacific settlement. It does nothing to provide a means of pacific settlement of these disputes. I think the Committee is right and I am not criticising it. I do not think it is right or in the least necessary, at any rate, that in the Covenant of the League there should be a means set up which the parties are bound to accept of enforcing a settlement of every dispute which may arise. Very
1058
often a great deal more can be done by leaving the matter to good sense and time to cure so long, of course, as it is understood that neither party can resort to force.
At any rate, that is what the Committee have done, and in all cases a majority report has no binding effect. But wherever there is a unanimous report the whole character of the functions of the Council and the whole effect of the report are being radically altered. Instead of being a document which binds nobody, which the disputants may or may not accept according to their will and pleasure, if it happens that the Council reaches a unanimous decision the parties are bound to obey that decision whatever it is. And not only are the parties bound to obey it, but every Member of the League is bound to adopt such measures as the Council recommends in order to enforce the obedience of any recalcitrant party. The report is quite definite in explaining that, although it has made this complete change, the Committee felt that the unanimous report was of so great an authority that it ought to prevail over the individual will of the States, and it would only take a final decision of the Council in cases where it was compelled to overcome the resistance of the States concerned. So that it is clear, as indeed the text shows, that the intention and effect of the proposed amendments are to provide that wherever there is a unanimous report by the Council on any dispute of whatever character, the parties are to be bound to accept it. If they do not the other Members of the League are bound to adopt coercive measures in order to compel their submission. That at once alters the position of the Council. It becomes a super-sovereign to which the hitherto sovereign States who are members of the Council are submitted.
So far as any disputes in which we ourselves are concerned are affected, your Lordships can readily appreciate how serious the consequences might be. For obvious reasons, I do not want to envisage in too much detail disputes which might arise; but your Lordships will remember that India, for instance, is a Member of the League of Nations. Egypt may easily become one, and the possibilities that this raises of the Council being called in to determine not a matter

1059
of law at all but some other matter of high policy in case of dispute arising, is one which I do not think many of us could contemplate with equanimity. Let us look at the disputes in which we are not directly involved. I will take only questions out of the past because, for obvious reasons, I do not want to suggest possible instances of friction between friendly nations in the future. Italy some years ago took possession of Corfu to bring pressure upon Greece. Italy and Greece are both Members of the League of Nations. If this Covenant had been amended, then the Council would have been bound to reach a unanimous report, if they could, and, if they did so, every nation of the League would have been bound to adopt the coercive measures which the Council chose to recommend in order to compel the submission by either of these two Powers to the decision which it had reached.
Again many American States are Members of the League. Not very long ago there was a dispute between two or those Members. If this Covenant, so amended as the Committee suggests, had been then in force, it would have been the duty of the Council to reach a unanimous decision and it would have been an obligation on every Member of the League to enforce that decision when once it was reached. When I remind your Lordships that the United States of America are not Members of the League and of the jealousy which the United States feel for the doctrine which they describe as the Monroe doctrine, it is not difficult to appreciate that that war, which all of us are accustomed to speak of as unthinkable, might easily be provoked by some unwise action by the Council of the League of Nations.
I can well understand that other nations may be quite content to accept these amendments because, whatever further obligation they put upon them, it is a very great advantage no doubt to the rest of the world if the British Navy can be used as a kind of policeman to enforce decisions which the Council of the League reaches and to enforce awards between two States with neither of whom we are directly concerned. It is natural enough that they should like to have our Navy as their weapon to enforce decisions against any recalcitrant State, but, when I look at it from the point of view
1060
of the interests of this country, then it seems to me that we are undertaking a very grave liability at the very time when we are reducing our capacity to discharge that liability. It will be said that Great Britain was represented at the Committee which has put forward these suggestions. It was represented by no less an authority than my noble and learned friend Lord Cecil.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No. This was a Committee not of States but of individuals, and I was not representing the British Government on that Committee.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I did not mean to say he was there in a representative capacity, but that our country was represented by the presence upon that Committee of my noble friend. I am quite right in saying he was a member of the Committee and I am quite certain that, whether he went there as a representative of this country or in whatever capacity, he would bring to the discharge of his duties that great capacity which we have all learned to appreciate who have had the privilege of working with him. I am not speaking with any reservations at all when I say I have the very greatest admiration for his enthusiasm for the League of Nations. I hope also he will not think me discourteous when I suggest that it is just possible sometimes that his zeal may somewhat outrun his discretion.
It is not only I who am concerned about this. There is a body known as the Executive Committee of the League of Nations Union, which is certainly not lacking in enthusiasm for the League of Nations and all its works. Even that body, when it was called upon to consider these proposed amendments, thought it necessary to say that, although it generally approved them, it only did so on two conditions. The first was that none of the amendments should be made until a treaty for the reduction and limitation of armaments in pursuance of Article 8 of the Covenant has entered into force, a limitation of time which is at any rate postponing the amendments for a very considerable period. Secondly, that there should be a resolution of the Assembly to show that, in enforcing the powers of the Council under the Articles to which I have called attention, 11, 13

1061
and 15, the Council will not recommend any measure involving an act of war except against the party which has itself resorted to war. I quote that not as my opinion but as showing that even so enthusiastic a supporter of the League of Nations as the Executive Committee of that Union is unprepared to face the risk which in existing circumstances the acceptance of these amendments involves.
I am not asking your Lordships to-day—it would be unreasonable to do so—to pronounce a considered opinion upon the amendments which have probably not come to the attention of many members of this House until this afternoon. What I seek to do is to satisfy your Lordships, if I can, that the amendments are matters which raise questions of very grave importance for the future of this country and are amendments which ought not to be endorsed by this country until Parliament has had an opportunity of full discussion and of reaching a mature decision. That request is not met merely by saying: "Well, we shall approve the amendments, but of course they will not actually come into force until the Government action has been ratified by a vote of one or both Houses," because you do not in that event get what it is essential we should have—a free decision of Parliament on the merits. It will not, be possible to get that decision if the Government come down to the other House and say: "We have endorsed these amendments. This is our considered policy. We claim from you a vote of confidence in our action." There are some at any rate whose enthusiasm for the avoidance of a General Election is apt to outweigh their decision on the merits of any particular problem submitted for their consideration.
I do desire—and I ask your Lordships to say that it is right—that, before anything is done to commit this country in any way to approval of these amendments, the matter should be submitted to the unfettered judgment of Parliament. I think that would be right in respect of any Government, but I suggest to the noble Lords opposite that it is preeminently right in a case in which, as they themselves remind us from time to time, they represent only a minority of the nation and are anxious to regard Parliament as a Council of State and are yet in a position, as the Government of
1062
the day, to commit the country without the approval of the representatives of the country ever having been sought. I had hoped to ask, if this Motion had come earlier in the Session when I put it down, that an opportunity would be found for a debate before Prorogation, but that obviously is impossible to-day. Therefore, all I can ask, and do ask, to-day, is that the Government should undertake that they will do nothing at the forthcoming meeting in September at Geneva to commit this country to an acceptance of these amendments or to approval of these amendments, but that they shall take such steps as will ensure the postponement of a decision until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its unfettered judgment upon it. I am sorry to have taken so long but the matter is one which your Lordships will agree is of somewhat grave importance and, in the hope of eliciting some satisfactory assurance from the Government, I beg, to move the Motion standing in my name.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I have no wish to complain of the course my noble friend has taken. On the contrary, it is very desirable that all the proceedings connected with the League of Nations should be brought before Parliament and be explained as fully as it is possible to explain them. My complaint is not that too much attention is given to the matter in Parliament but that a good number of members of another place are perhaps not as familiar with the details of the League of Nations as is desirable in a matter of that importance.
I do not like speaking about myself, but may I explain exactly what is my position in this matter? I am not a member of the Government; I am not responsible for the policy that they pursue; but I have been very glad to do anything I can to assist the Government in connection with the League of Nations to the best of my ability. When the Assembly decided last September that thin matter should be examined by a Committee of the League, and the Council accordingly set up a Committee in which my name was included, I was very glad indeed to accept the duty of attending that Committee and assisting it as far as I was able to do, but I think it is important—that is why I ventured to in-

1063
terrupt my noble and learned friend—to make it quite clear that I was acting in an exclusively personal capacity. It was perfectly well understood, and reiterated over and over again in the proceedings of the Committee, that we were not a Government Committee in any respect, and that the Government were entirely free to take any action which they chose on receipt of the report of the Committee.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I approve of the conclusions in the report, and entirely support them. I think they were wise and judicious, and if it be proved that my discretion is not to be trusted in these matters, that is my misfortune. I can only represent to your Lordships the reasons which induced me to arrive at the conclusions I did, and it is for your Lordships to say whether you agree with those conclusions or not. My noble and learned friend in his Question makes three charges, and asks a question. He charges that the Committee went far beyond the purposes for which it was instituted. He charges that our decision materially alters the position of the Council, and it was on that point he most insisted. He charges also that, in consequence of that I suppose, it will increase the liability of this country. I will deal with those charges presently.
He also makes a request, and the request is that the Government shall not commit themselves at the coming Assembly at all, because they have not been in a position to take the opinion of Parliament upon the subject. I think that would be a very unusual position for any Government to adopt at the Assembly of the League of Nations. They go there as the executive of their various countries. The League of Nations is merely a means of negotiating great international matters, and at the Assembly they go there to negotiate these matters and express the views of their Governments upon these matters. In that respect it does not differ essentially from any other international conference, and of course the Government always goes to a conference with a perfectly free hand and does in fact commit itself, and commonly signs the document which issues from the conference without any reference to Parliament at all.
1064
My noble and learned friend, it seems to me, is enunciating quite a new doctrine, and a very serious change in the Constitution of this country, when he suggests that in a matter of this kind, in what is essentially an international negotiation, the Government should have its hands tied until it has previously asked the opinion of the two Houses of Parliament. I have the greatest possible respect for the two Houses of Parliament, but I have never thought it was right that they should discharge executive functions. Their business is first criticism and discussion, and secondly legislation, which is perhaps less important. Their business is not to direct the policy of the country, but to express their opinions and if necessary to turn out a Government which has not carried out what they think is a wise policy. Of course it is open to any member of either House to raise any question for discussion, and if he so desire to ask for the opinion of the House to which he belongs, but I deny that it is the duty of the Government to consult Parliament as to great executive acts until those executive acts have been completed. In old days, not so long ago, Parliament was not consulted before the ratification of a treaty. We have, I admit, made an innovation in the Constitution, and before the ratification of any important treaty Parliament or the House of Commons—there seems to be some dispute about which—has to be consulted. That is an innovation which has a certain convenience, but it is an innovation, and I hope the House will give no countenance to this novel doctrine that the Government is not entitled to discharge its executive duties up to the time when it has always been hitherto entitled to discharge them.
I pass from that particular proposal of my noble and learned friend to the charges which he makes. I trust your Lordships will forgive me if I venture to go into this with a little detail, because I am anxious to help your Lordships and have special means of information on this particular point. The matter arose in this way. At the Assembly last year the British Government brought before the Assembly a proposition that it was desirable to harmonise the Pact and the Covenant. That was supported by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secre-

1065
tary, and immediately received the warm support of all the principal nations assembled at Geneva. They all thought that it was an essentially undesirable thing that there should be two sets of international obligations into which Members of the League had entered, one setting in motion the machinery of the League, and the other the obligations under the Pact of Paris, which, as your Lordships know, has no machinery and no obligations behind it, beyond the moral obligations. Therefore, the Committee was set up and the plan which the Committee adopted, and which I think was the right one, was to try to insert the Pact into the Covenant. The effect of that would be, of course, to apply the machinery of the Covenant to the execution of the obligations of the Pact, and that will of course, if accepted, produce the result that there is only one document, which includes all the serious obligations of the Nations, and they will know with exact precision what their obligations are.
I am sure it is a most essential thing in all international affairs that you should know as far as possible, without ambiguity and uncertainty, what are your obligations. I believe that the great evils of the past, and many of the wars, have arisen because one did not know quite what the obligations of tile countries concerned were. Therefore, I am always strongly in favour of this policy, although the question of whether the actual time at which it was launched was right is another matter with which I do not wish to trouble your Lordships. There never was any doubt as to what the Committee was going to do in its main functions. The British Government proposed then and there specific amendments to the Covenant, and they were discussed by the Committee of the League; and in substance, as I think—I am not going to forget my noble and learned friend's contention about the Amendment to paragraph 6 of Article 15, though I do not agree with him: I am not going to try to evade that in any way—but in substance, as I shall contend, the proposals made by the British Government last September were those which were adopted by the Committee. There were certain changes which I shall explain to your Lordships in a moment, but in sub-
1066
stance that was what was done, and the broad object which was pursued was to take these obligations which we had entered into, and which we all desired to make a reality, from the Pact and put them into the Covenant, and say: "Now these obligations not to go to war are put on precisely the same footing as the other international obligations into which we have entered, also not to go to war." That was the broad principle, and I venture to think that was a perfectly sound principle, and one which ought to be adopted.
My noble friend objects—and he a little surprised me, I admit—that we have altered the consequences of the unanimous decision of the Council in a dispute submitted to it under Article 15. That was the main point that he presented. The argument that convinced me that we ought to do something of the kind, that we ought to proceed in that direction, was simply this, that it was a mistake to leave imperfect obligations hanging about, and as far as we could—we did not succeed altogether, as I shall have to explain in a moment—those obligations should be made clear and distinct. And I agree that that is right. My noble and learned friend seemed rather to suggest that there were a good many cases in which it would be desirable to leave an international deadlock without any means of settlement. I cannot think that is a good plan. It is quite true that, with respect to a very strong country, it may work pretty well at times. But I do not believe it is a good plan, taking the world over; and we must look at these matters not only as affecting our own convenience, but as affecting the peace of the world.
That is the really important thing, because, if the peace of the world is broken anywhere, it affects British interests at the most vital point. No one knows how far a breach of the peace may extend. The late War began with a quarrel in the extreme South-East corner of Europe, a quarrel which ex hypothesi no ore would have thought would involve the world; yet it spread and spread and spread until it involved not only practically the whole of Europe, but the greater part of America, and even of Asia. That is the characteristic of war, a characteristic perhaps more especially of modern war rather than of

1067
ancient war, but still the characteristic of war. Once it breaks out you do not know how far it is going to extend. And therefore in considering this subject I do beg your Lordships to look at it mainly, if not entirely, from this point of view. Do the provisions that we have recommended make the maintenance of peace more likely? That is the real test. If they do not, they are wrong; if they do, they are right. That is my submission to your Lordships. Now, that is why I do not like these deadlocks. It is quite true, you may have a deadlock lasting for many years, a dispute between two countries unsettled and hanging about. There was the dispute between us and France over the fisheries of Newfoundland, which lasted for nearly a century if I remember aright. But no one, I think, who has studied the diplomatic history of that period will doubt that it was a serious evil, and that every difference of opinion between us and France was more or less aggravated by this outlying and unsettled matter of dispute. It remains as a bit of poison which tends to make septic every wound in the international body politic.
For that reason I agreed, and still agree, that it was right to try, as far as we could, to provide for the settlement of disputes by pacific means. What is this great change that we are accused of having made in the functions of the Council? Under the Covenant as it stands the position is this. If there is a dispute between two parties which is likely to lead to a rupture of a dangerous character, And it comes before the Council under Article 15, then, if the Council makes a unanimous recommendation, which is in effect a unanimous decision as to what ought to be done in reference to that dispute, nobody is entitled to resist that decision by force of arms; and if they do, the whole apparatus of Article 16 applies. My noble friend says that that is not a decision, and that that does not involve the obligation on all parties to obey the decision. But just let him consider. In a number of cases it does involve a decision. Take the case of a dispute about a piece of territory. If the territory is given to one party, and, if it is already in his possession, the decision is final—absolutely final—because no one can take it from him without forcible action. If it is not in his possess-
1068
sion when the decision is made, I still think that, if he sends in officials to take over the territory—I am taking the Covenant as it stands—and they are resisted, that is resisting by force a decision of the Council, and involves all tile consequences of Article 16. That is my view very strongly as to the present position of the matter.
I think that the framers of the Covenant undoubtedly did mean that where the Council was unanimous its decision was to have, not complete but an incomplete force of a decision. I cannot say that I admire the particular provision that was made, because, as it seems to me, it leaves too much to the parties concerned. It leaves it a matter of doubt as to how far the party can go in trying to enforce the decision which he has obtained, and how far the other party is justified in resisting that decision. That is just the kind of ambiguity which seems to me likely to lead to trouble. I greatly prefer the idea that when you get to that decision it is not right for the Council to disinterest themselves in the matter. They ought to recommend what steps ought to be taken, and only those steps should be taken which are proper to the carrying out of the decision. There is nothing novel in it. They have got that power already under Article 13 with respect to any judicial decision that is given. It is their duty then to propose any step—the change in wording which we have made is a matter, I think, of no importance—but it is their business to propose any step.
What is it we have put into Article 15? My noble and learned friend, I think, did not read the actual words, but they are rather important. This is what we have said:—
"If a report by the Council is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof other than the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League agree that they will comply with the recommendations of the Report. If the Council's recommendation is not carried out"—
what happens?—
"the Council shall propose suitable measures to give it effect."
The exact words which now apply—I doubt whether there is a verbatim change—in Article 13 with reference to a decision. They propose. That is what they are entitled to do. They cannot command. The Council never can com-

1069
mand, they can propose. It will represent no doubt a strong moral obligation on those who propose it to comply with their proposition. That will be so, whether you put these words in or not. Wherever the Council makes a proposal, there will be a strong moral obligation on all the Members of the League to comply. Here we say definitely that it is their business to propose it, and the importance of this is, not that it increases the power of the Council—I do not think it does—but that it does, so long as they comply with the terms of the Covenant, take it out of the power of individuals to take the law into their own hands. That is the real way, and the only way, in which you can establish a peaceful situation in the world.
I cannot help thinking that my noble and learned friend exaggerates enormously, if he will allow me to say so, the importance of the change that has been made in this respect. I do not think he had in his mind—perhaps I am wrong—the provisions of Article 11, as they now stand. Those provisions, I think, are much more valuable than those of Article 15. They have constantly been employed and they are much more likely to be employed. What does that Article say? It says:—
"Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may ho deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations."
No power could be more general and, as my noble and learned friend is doubtless aware, it was under that provision that measures were taken to prevent the Graeco-Bulgarian conflict. It has been employed on more than one occasion, and my noble and learned friend is probably aware that it has been recommended by the Assembly, and assented to by the British Government under the late Administration, that all sorts of measures short of actual war are to be open to the Council. That is the provision.
I cannot help thinking that the effect of the changes in Article 6 has been enormously exaggerated and, for the same reason, I am wholly unable to agree with my noble and learned friend that the general effect of what we have done is to increase the liabilities of this country. The general effect of what we
1070
have done has been, in my judgment, to increase the probability of the pacific settlement of disputes. That is the object to be aimed at. If disputes are settled pacifically, then no questions of sanctions or of war arise. The great thing is to keep your machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes as effective as you can.
I know the reply that is sometimes made, more or less openly. It is: "Why should we do than? We are very strong, we can settle our own disputes and, if anyone resists us, we can put pressure upon them to make them agree to our settlement." It is perfectly true that any agreement made by a strong Power that it will rely in future on pacific and not on warlike settlements does, to some extent, limit their action. But we have limited it absolutely by entering into the Pact of Paris. We have said quite definitely that vie will never resort to war—never!—in order to carry out a matter of national policy, and we have said quite specifically in the second Article that we will never seek to settle any dispute except by pacific means. We have abandoned that right, if it ever was a right that was worth having, and we have said that we are determined to settle everything by pacific means. The thing that is now really essential, as President Hoover has pointed out, is to provide the necessary machinery to make that general statement of our policy effective in the future and to carry out that policy.
My noble friend said: "You have not done that." He was quite right. We have left paragraph 7 of Article 15—that is to say we have left the case where the Council is not able to arrive at a unanimous decision. We have said that, in that case, all that we can recommend is that the Council will take every measure they can to bring about a peaceful settlement, and we have suggested, among other things, that they may consult the Court of Justice. That is all that we can do. But we also said in the report that we felt that this was a very unsatisfactory solution, and that the only really satisfactory solution was to establish a complete system of arbitration applying to all disputes. When I speak of arbitration, I am using the word in the widest sense. We recommended what was called a general act, not because it is a perfect instru-

1071
ment in itself, but because it does in fact provide for the complete settlement of all disputes.
That is the defence that I make to your Lordships. I think we have promoted the peaceful settlement of disputes, and I was a little sorry, if my noble and learned friend will forgive my saying so, that he thought it right to indulge in the old—I was going to say clap trap, but that would be a very unfair observation to make about anything that falls from my noble and learned friend—about the British Navy. After all, what is the function of the British Navy, laid dawn by every authority that has ever existed? The function of the British Navy is to preserve peace. That is the function of the British Navy. It is the only reason we keep it up, the only object we have in view—to preserve the peace of this country and of the world. It has constantly been used for that purpose. It was used the other day when they sent two ships to Alexandria because they thought there was a danger of a breach of the peace.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: To discharge our obligations.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly, but our obligation, our duty, our right and our interest is to preserve the peace all over the world. We have constantly used the Navy for that purpose, and I hope that we shall continue to use it for that purpose. The first business of the British Government in foreign affairs is to preserve peace, and I certainly think that we cannot use the Navy in a more economical way or in a way more in accordance with the interests of this country than in using it for the preservation of peace. That is the view that I take about the function of the British Navy.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships, and I have only one further observation to make. My noble and learned friend was good enough to refer to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the League of Nations. As I was going to do the same, I am very glad that he did so. What does this resolution say? It says that the Committee—
"are of opinion that it is desirable so to amend the Covenant as to bring it into
1072
harmony with the Pact of Paris. They recognise that this can only be done by international agreement"—
that is to say, you cannot have it all your own way—
"and they support the proposed amendments"—
with a little exception which does not affect our discussion—
"….as a reasonable compromise on two conditions. In the first place, they think that no alteration in the existing provision, of the Covenant should be made until a treaty for the reduction and limitation of armaments in pursuance of Article 8 has entered into force; and in the second, that it should be made clear by a resolution of the Assembly that, while the Council must have discretion as to bow it should exercise its powers under Articles 11, 13 and 15, it should be understood that it will not recommend measures involving acts of war except against a party which has itself resorted to war. If these conditions are fulfilled, the Executive Committee, while recognising that the ambit of Article 16 will be in principle extended, yet are of opinion that the guarantees of peace will on the whole be increased."
I was a party to that resolution. I warmly support it and I think it is right. I think that no great changes in the relations of countries dealing with security ought to be made until we have disarmament established. I think that this is a very important principle.
I do not know at all what the Government will do, but I hope that they will act upon that principle, because, if I may venture to say so, I think, as I have always thought, that, while the Locarno Treaties were admirable in themselves, their one great difficulty was that they were not dependent upon the disarmament of the parties concerned. I want to say only one word more. That resolution which I have read was issued by a Committee, and on that Committee sat the following people: Lord Lothian, Mrs. Dugdale, Miss Courtney, who was a very well-known Pacifist; Mr. Hudson, who was a Conservative member of Parliament; Mr. Worsley, a well-known Liberal; Mr. Rennie Smith, a Labour Member of Parliament; Sir Thomas Inskip, Mr. Wynch, a Conservative; and Major Walter Elliot. They unanimously agreed to that resolution, which was presented to the Executive Committee and passed unanimously by them, so that if I have sinned I have at any rate sinned in fairly good company.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to support the proposition which has fallen from the mover of this Motion. It is of extreme importance that the amendments of the Covenant which have been proposed by this Committee should be brought before the full consideration of Parliament before they are adopted, and I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Cecil, who has just spoken, that it is impossible for any Government to go to an international conference with its hands bound. At the same time, I think any Government attending an international conference or League of Nations meeting should make it clear that it is by no means confident that it can secure the ratification of an important treaty and should not arouse expectations in the fellow members of that conference that because it has given its assent, as usually happens in Great Britain, that assent is tantamount to ratification.
I do not propose to follow the legal arguments which the two noble Lords who have preceded me have gone into, but the amendments are after all of considerable importance. They introduce in the first place, for the first time, the principle of compulsory arbitration. I do not express any opinion as to whether compulsory arbitration is or is not a step which it is possible to take to-day in the defence of world peace, but it is a principle of enormous importance, and it should only be adopted, it seems to me, by Parliament after very mature consideration, and when Parliament has had a full opportunity of saying yes or no to any proposal which is made. In the second place, these amendments introduce the principle of coercion for policy. As I understand it, hitherto the League of Nations has rested on the very sound principle that it is an institution which brought the parties together and acted in a mediating capacity, but stood behind those mediatory activities in this sense, that they would take common coercive action against any nation which tried to settle a dispute by war in its own interests. That I think is a sound principle, and I stand here heartily behind Article 16—the coercive article in the League Covenant.
But this is introducing another principle, which is that coercion should be used for the decisions of the League
1074
when they are arrived at by unanimity. That is another very important principle which, in my view, should only be adopted after full deliberation by Parliament, and when you have made certain that the public opinion of the world has realised what you are doing, because in these international matters almost everything depends upon treaties having behind them the conscious and willing assent not merely of Governments or officials, but of public opinion. Then there is a third element in the amendments which I think is of considerable consequence. That is Article 16. While the amendments do not deal with Article 16 specifically, they alter the effect of Article 16 in a very important manner. Article 16 provides:—
"Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 and 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not."
That Article at present only comes into force as against a nation which does not submit its dispute to investigation by the League for a period of six months, and awaits a further three months before it resorts to war. If it goes through that procedure it is at the end of that time free to go to war, and the nations are not bound to take military action against it. Under the Article as amended the Members of the League of Nations will be content to take economic sanctions against it whenever any nation goes to war at any time under any circumstances. That, in my humble judgment, is a change of very considerable significance.
How are you to define what is a war? There is a considerable difference between saying you will take action against a nation which declines to submit to investigation, and saying that in any circumstances you bind yourself entirely to take these very strong measures against a nation which is guilty of a technical act of war. That also, I think, is a matter which requires most earnest consideration before it is actually

1075
adopted by any country, especially in view of the fact that the greatest Naval Power of the world is not a party to the League of Nations. It is a matter which I think must be considered not merely as part of the machinery of the League, but in relation to the world which is not wholly in membership of the League. Therefore I would urge upon the Government, if I may do so, that it is extremely important, in discussing this matter, they should make it clear that Parliament shall have a full and unfettered opportunity, as I am sure it will, of discussing this matter, and that, not being in a majority in this Parliament, they cannot assure fellow Members that the treaty will be ratified because it is assented to by them.
There is one other comment which has not yet been made in this House about the alterations. The alterations were made in order to bring the Covenant into line with the Pact of Paris. The Pact of Paris is already in effect, and all the Members of the League of Nations, except certain States in South America, have already renounced war. Therefore, by undertaking these particular obligations, they are doing nothing to add to the security against war. In so far as the Pact of Paris itself is concerned, they have renounced war, and they have no right to-day to exercise that residuary right to war which they did possess, and had possessed under the unamended power. They have renounced that power, and, therefore, by amending the Covenant, they do not add anything to the security against war so far as the Pact of Paris is concerned. The real significance of these amendments is in the additional changes which I have just mentioned—the introduction of the principle of compulsory arbitration, of coercion for policy, and of some extension of Article 16. Those are changes of real significance, the Pact of Paris already having done what the amendments purport to do in other respects.
One final word on the resolution of the League of Nations Union about disarmament. I am a party to that resolution, and I stand by it. The significance which I attach to disarmament is this. Just as people used to say that war was an instrument of policy, so I think that disarmament is the consequence of policy. You have in the League of Nations, you
1076
have in the Pact of Paris, you have in the Locarno Treaties, instruments of a novel character of great importance for solving the problems of Europe. If these instruments, which in my judgment are adequate to-day for that purpose, are working effectively the result will be seen in the reduction of armaments. If you are going to secure a reduction of armaments it will be because you have begun to bring some conciliation into the acute difficulties which now exist in Eastern Europe; because you will have begun to reduce the friction which now exists between France and Italy; because you have begun to bring some spirit of reconciliation into the Balkans. It was suggested only the other day that mattes in dispute between Italy and France should be brought before the League of Nations. That suggestion was bitterly resented in both countries, as I understand. How is it possible to conceive that you are going to solve these questions, which really affect the peace of the world, by introducing any element of compulsion? It seems to me that we are in these amendments pursuing the shadow rather than the reality.
The reality is that the nations of Europe should, if necessary, make such adjustments as are fair to treaties which are really unjust and begin to get into friendly relations with each other, and then disarm. If you make that step forward you may make these amendments something worth considering. If you do not do that, you are endangering, I think, the authority of the League of Nations by adding to its technical clauses. You must first change the spirit within, without which no peace can really exist. There is a well known quotation of Bacon which I would like to quote to your Lordships, because it seems to me to have a bearing on the question. Bacon wrote many years ago: "It is good not to try experiments in States except the necessity be urgent and the utility be evident."
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think this is the first time that this House has had the pleasure and privilege of hearing a speech from the noble Marquess who has just spoken. Let me very heartily congratulate him, if I may, on behalf of the House, on the speech he has made. I am sure we shall hope that he will speak often, particularly on topics in connection with the League of Nations,

1077
because we know from what he has written and what he has done that he is really one of the great authorities on international matters. He urgently desires what most internationalists desire—that is, to promote in every possible way the peace of the world. It may be that there is difference of opinion as to the best way of promoting that peace. I am one of those who regard peace as never secure unless we get a measure of disarmament, which is one of the obligations of the Covenant of the League. But whatever difference of opinion we may have—I do not know that there is any difference of opinion on that point—I am sure we shall always welcome the contributions of the noble Marquess on this subject, and at any rate in principle I think we shall always substantially agree with him.
May I now go back from what he has said to the question asked me as representative of the Government as to what is the attitude of the Government towards the proposed amendments of the Covenant at Geneva? I think. I have put that question rightly. The answer, I think, has already been adumbrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I think the answer is quite clear. So long as a Government is in power, so long as is entrusted with the safeguarding of our country and Empire, it must as a matter of primary duty perform the functions of Government and not be afraid to act up to its true and complete view of what the needs and interests of the Empire and the country may require. That has been a fundamental proposition as far as I know from the early stages of representative or any other government in this country. Executive powers are exercised by the Government as part of the Prerogative of the King. The function of Parliament, as has been pointed out, is an entirely different one. We could not, and ought not, to avoid our responsibilities at Geneva. But before ratification—which is the second step, making what we do at Geneva effective—we shall in this case, as we have in all other cases, consult the opinion of the House of Commons. Not only is that the modern method—before ratification, not before signature—
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Does the noble and learned Lord mean to lay that down at all times, that he will consult
1078
the House of Commons, not this House? It is a most important statement.
LORD PARMOOR: I should not have thought there was any reason to interrupt me on that point. There is this difference, a very great difference, that if the Government on a matter of this kind found itself not in accord with the House of Commons it would be contrary to constitutional usage to try to conduct further the government of the country. That is quite clear as a constitutional principle which has been known for a long time. That is not the case as far as this House is concerned. So far as this House is concerned, it has not the power of altering the Government which the House of Commons has, because no Government can proceed without the consent of the House of Commons on which it really depends for its daily life. There can be no doubt whatever on that point. I am sure that any one who has studied constitutional principles would—at least I hope any one would—agree with me. As an executive act as regards treaties—and this is in the character of a treaty—the Government has, in theory, absolute power. But as a matter of practice—and I think convenient practice, and practice in accordance with the reality of government as carried on in this country—treaties of this character are submitted before ratification to the House of Commons.
The reasons which make that right in regard to the House of Commons really do not apply to submitting such Resolutions to the House of Lords. It is no derogation of the position of this House at all. We are not the House of Commons, we have not got the power of the House of Commons. Certainly it has been the practice of the present Government to bring everything it possibly can before your Lordships' House, but to say that where no Act is required and where the question is simply one of ratification of a treaty, the Government should bring the matter before this House would be entirely out of accord with constitutional practice. We have no power in this House which would make a practice of that kind really effective. Therefore, the first answer I have to make to the noble and learned Viscount opposite is—but perhaps I had better read the words of his Question so as to make it quite complete. He asks—

1079
"whether His Majesty's Government will undertake to submit the proposed amendments to Parliament"—
I do not know whether he means both Houses there.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Quite obviously. The meaning of the word "Parliament" is perfectly well known.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not disputing that, but it has been disputed even by the successors of the noble and learned Viscount in legal office.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is because I was so shocked by that knowledge that I thought I would make it quite clear.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble and Viscount is quite justified in his astonishment. It only shows, what astonishes some people, that the best lawyers are not in accord upon what ought to be a very simple constitutional question. If I may resume reading the Question:—
"—to submit the proposed amendments to Parliament before giving them any acceptance or support on behalf of this country."
We do not intend to submit any arrangement made at Geneva to this House. We do intend to submit it to the House of Commons before ratification. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will differ again on the legal point. That is the constitutional practice and constitutional duty at any rate in recent years.
Leaving that point, I want to go to the other point which the noble Viscount raised. I do not want to travel over the ground which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has already so ably traversed. It is sufficient to say that I agree with him on his construction of the various Articles of the Covenant which he has already explained so clearly to your Lordships. Let me say what it is that we are about here. We are about bringing into correspondence the terms of the Pact and the terms of the Covenant. What are the terms of the Pact? They indicate really what is the necessity at the present time for the suggestions which are being made. We all know the first Article of the Pact. It is that:
"The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare, in the names of their respective peoples, that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."
1080
The words there are extremely strong. They not only renounce it, but they "renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another." But that goes, admittedly and undoubtedly, beyond the terms of the Covenant.
There is, no doubt, the statement in the Preamble of the Covenant about renouncing resort to war. But when that Preamble is taken in connection with the subsequent Articles to which reference has already been made in this debate, it is seen that by no construction can it be said that the Covenant per se in all eases renounces war as an instrument of national policy in the relations of countries one with another. The first series of amendments proposed has the object of bringing the Covenant into correspondence with the Pact upon this point. We want the Covenant to say, as the Pact has said, that for the solution of international controversies countries shall renounce war as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. I think it is sometimes said in too narrow a sense that you have conditions of war or conditions of peace. They do not spring up spontaneously. The conditions which lead to war and make war are the result of national policy. Just as in the past—end this has been the curse of Europe and other places—the organisation of international policy on a war basis has led to a number of cruel and devastating wars; so at any rate our view is (it is the view of the Government) that by organising a system based on peace and not a system based on war you will be able under the new national policy to avoid the risks of war which exist at the present time.
Really it comes back very largely in my opinion, to this. Do we want in all cases, or even not in all cases but as widely as possible, to have war renounced as a basis of international policy? I think that the one great advance in modern times has been the advance in that direction under the authority and assistance of the League. I should like to say a word further on that point which I do not think is always understood. The League constitutes an agreement, a very far-reaching agreement between the parties who have signed its terms. It is about the most solemn treaty that has

1081
ever been made in the history of mankind, so far as I know. The result is that we have given up, and have rightly given up, certain powers which we exercised by international right in the past, in order to enter into a relationship of mutual obligation that we might deal with one another, not on a war organisation but on the basis of a peace policy. That, I think, is one of the greatest advances that has ever been made in the history of mankind. Even as it stands it covers an enormously large field. I think the noble Viscount realises that. But it does not cover a quite wide enough field, and the object and purpose of the proposals we are now considering is that its character as assisting peace as in opposition to war can be further utilised and should be further utilised for the good of all mankind.
The second step, Article II of the Pact of Paris, is almost more important for our present purpose, and this is where, I think, I differ very particularly from the noble Viscount: It provides that when these disputes arise the solution "shall never be sought except by pacific means." No one has spoken mere strongly of the meaning of words of that kind than Mr. Baldwin and others on various occasions. I do not want to quote particular names because I do not think that anyone will get up now and deny the enormous importance of the Kellogg Pact, the Pact of Paris—that in future the solution of international difficulties shall never be sought except by pacific means. Is there any member of your Lordships' House who would controvert the value and importance of that proposition? The difficulty has been that although they can never be settled according to the terms of the Pact except by pacific means, no pacific means are indicated by which the policy of justice—which is what is meant by that pacific settlement—can be substituted for the policy of war.
The other amendments to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has referred are all to extend and extend largely, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, a method and scheme of pacific means by which these international difficulties can be solved without resort to war. I am one of those who feel strongly that unless you have a pacific means so as to get
1082
a just solution as between persons in disagreement you are only half way on your journey. It is a terrible mistake, in my view, merely to take the negative side. You must go beyond that. You must say: "You must not go to war when you can have the justice of an impartial decision which is open to you or to your adversary as the case may be, where the matter can be settled on the basis of the terms of justice." Justice, as I use the term, means the impartial decision of a third party. There is no other way of making certain you have a just result. I should like to ask the noble Viscount opposite whether he does not think that the pacific means to which reference is made in Article II of the Pact ought not to be formulated so that they can be used as a practical method if you are dealing with one another on a friendly and peace basis?
That is the whole matter. It has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cecil that there is nothing new in principle in these suggestions that have been made. What is new is that they extend over an area which has been often referred to as the "gap in the Covenant." Is that not right? What can be done by the Council, to width the noble Viscount referred, does not seem very terrible, on the one hand, but seems, on the other hand, a method of reaching a solution by pacific means. If the Council is unanimous then they can take such measures as they may deem necessary in order to bring about a solution of the difficulty. I have not the exact words by me, but I think those are they and they are exactly the same words that you find in Article 13 while you find very similar words in Article 11. Why not? Do we want international peace or not? Do you want disarmament in the terms of a covenant or not? If so, you must have security and how can you not have security when you not only negative the possibility of war, if you can, but also have a tribunal by which difficulties, instead of being settled by force, can be settled on the ordinary basis of justice?
That really, after all, is the whole matter. I understand the noble Viscount to say that there are areas in which he desires the war principle still to be maintained. That is wrong. For the good of mankind war should be limited in every possible way. I do not believe that

1083
under these resolutions, if they are carried, war would be a practical method likely to be resorted to in the future. I cannot say it is absolutely eliminated because to eliminate war you must have disarmament and must obey the obligations, the obligations of honour I would call them, which you have already assumed under Article 8 of the Covenant. I think that is the answer to the noble Viscount's third Question.
There are two other specific Questions. The first is—
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been directed to the amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations proposed by the Committee appointed to bring the provisions of the Covenant into harmony with the Pact of Paris."
Of course their attention has been so directed. They have been very carefully considered and my noble friend Lord Cecil has pointed out the extent to which they have been approved. Secondly, he asks—
"whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the amendments proposed by the Committee go far beyond the purposes for which the Committee was appointed."
We are certainly not aware of that. In my view they have not gone anywhere beyond the purpose for which the Committee was appointed—namely, reconciling the Pact and the Covenant.
The Question goes on:—
"and would (if adopted)"—
—these perhaps are more material words—
"materially alter the position and powers of the Council of the League and largely increase the liabilities of this country."
They would alter in the right way the position and powers of the League. I do not think, nor does the Government think, that they would largely increase the liabilities of this country. The more peace you can obtain, the more you can have the spread of a peaceful principle, the less are the liabilities of this country than when every international dispute was referred to the arbitrament of force. I cannot expect the noble Viscount will agree with me, but I hope I have answered his Questions and that he will appreciate that those, like Lord Cecil and others, who do not take his view are quite as sure and quite as anxious as he is, by the promotion of peace, to diminish the liabilities of this country in the
1084
direction of war, and to make us what we ought to be, the missionaries of peace in every part of the world.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if my Motion has served no other useful purpose it has, at any rate, provoked a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Lothian, to which I am sure everybody on this side of the House, equally with the other, has listened with pleasure, and we hope that he will join our debates more often in future. That, I am afraid, is the limit of the satisfaction which I am able to obtain from the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cecil, and the noble Lord who has just spoken denounced the suggestion that Parliament ought to be consulted beforehand as being a dangerous innovation in our Constitution. We realise then what humbug the Prime Minister was talking when he said that, as a Minority Government, he desired that Parliament should assume the functions of a Council of State and should be called into consultation. We realise now that he was what would be called in another place "talking through his hat," and that what he really means is that the Government are going to act without consulting Parliament and then confront Parliament with the alternative of turning them out or else of accepting an act of which the House may profoundly disapprove. It would not cause me any compunction to turn them out at the earliest possible moment. Unfortunately, there may be those who see things in a contrary direction and it is very unfortunate that a course should be adopted by the Government which must have the result, and apparently is designed to have the result, of ensuring that Parliament shall pronounce, not on the merits of the proposal, but only on the merits of the Government.
The noble Lord who has just spoken said the question was: "Do we want to renounce war?" Of course that is not the question. We all want to avoid war. The question is whether these particular proposals are designed to avoid war or not. At any rate it is arguable that an amendment of the Covenant, the effect of which is to impose on every Member of the League an obligation to resort to war in circumstances in which it is not now bound, is not a means of avoiding war. It is a funny way of avoiding war by making a number of people solemnly agree that

1085
they will go to war under conditions under which they are not now bound to do so.
My noble friend Lord Cecil said one thing which a little surprised me when he said that under the existing provisions of Article 15, as he read them, all parties to a dispute were already bound to accept and comply with a unanimous report of the Council. I am surprised at that. Not only because it is not my reading of the Article, which is perhaps a matter of comparatively minor importance, but because I see stated in the report of the Committee of which the noble Lord was a distinguished member, dealing with this proposed amendment, that paragraph 6, on the other hand, gave some degree of force to a report of the Council which was unanimously adopted but the parties to the dispute were not obliged to comply with the report. I entirely agree with that view but, of course, it is the exact opposite of the view which the noble Viscount has stated to your Lordships' House. It only shows how important it is that the matter should be further considered before the nation and the country are committed to it.
The noble Lord opposite has said that he desired to see compulsory arbitration in all cases, which he refers to as synonymous with justice. I profoundly disagree with him. I think that arbitration in arbitral matters in matters of judicial decision is an eminently desirable thing; but I think that compulsory arbitration by a body of twelve representatives of nations, in matters which may have no judicial element in them at all—matters merely of policy—is a very dangerous innovation. And when we go further and we find that when this arbitration is embarked upon nobody can tell whether the result will be to produce a binding or non-binding report, then I do not think we get that degree of certainty to which the noble Lord attached importance. It is said that there were very distinguished members on the Executive Committee which gave the decision to which I have called attention. It is because the attention of some of those members of the Committee was drawn to the very
1086
grave consequences which these proposed amendments involve that I was invited to look into the matter, and it was with their approval and agreement that I made the Motion which I have brought before this House.
Then I was accused of talking claptrap about the Navy, because I pointed out that in my judgment, while it might be desirable for other people to use our Navy to enforce an award which they had obtained, it was not the function of cur Navy, and it was not a position in which I should desire our Navy to be placed. The noble Lord said that our Navy was intended to protect British interests, and that the preservation of the peace of the world is a British interest. Of course it is, but to use our Navy to involve us in quarrels with which we have no immediate concern is not in my opinion the best way to promote or preserve the peace of the world, especially when I remember the character of the disputes in which we may be involved. Then Lord Cecil reminded us how the last War broke out through a conflagration in a remote part of Europe, but one reason for others getting involved in it was the number of entangling agreements which involved other people who had no concern in the original trouble, and resulted in their being dragged into the conflict. Therefore I am not sure that it is an argument in favour of the amendments.
I do not desire to say anything more, except this, that the noble Lord has told your Lordships that if, and when, they have signified their approval of these amendments they are going to bring the question before the House of Commons, but do not intend to bring it before your Lordships' House. I do not desire to enter into the constitutional question there raised, but I would like to point out to noble Lords opposite that if they persist in that attitude there are other means by which the matter can be brought before this House, whether they wish it or not. Having made those observations, I have at least elicited some statement of the view of the Government, and I do not wish to persist in my Motion for Papers. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BENEFICES (TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF PATRONAGE) MEASURE, 1930.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Transfer of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion that I have to move you will perhaps realise would have been moved by the Archbishop had the most rev. Primate been able to be here, but as I happen to be a member of the Church Assembly I would like to ask you to assent to the Measure. It is a very small one, and it is in consequence of a previous Measure passed in 1923, limiting the sale of patronage of church livings. As your Lordships know, up to quite recently the patronage of livings could be sold like any other property. In 1923 a Measure was passed limiting the sale to the next two vacancies, after which the sale of a living is no longer permitted. One effect of that Measure seems to have been that there has been a rather more prolific trade in livings, doubtless because people have thought desirable to buy them and patrons have thought it desirable to sell them while they can do so.
That being so, the Church Assembly has considered whether the sale of livings should not be made a little more public. Of course the gravamen of this Measure is that at the present time the sale of a living can take place privately, and the people of the parish have no knowledge whatever who is going to buy the living, or what class of clergyman is likely to be appointed to the next vacancy. This Measure, therefore, proposes quite simply that if a patron desires to sell a living he shall notify to the Bishop his intention to do so. Secondly, he shall give the name and address of the proposed transferee, and also particulars of the terms of the proposed transfer. Then notice has to be given to the churchwardens and to the secretary of the parochial church council as to the proposed sale, and such notice shall give particulars of the proposed transfer and invite objections, if any, from the parochial church council.
There is no further restriction on the right of the patron to sell. The Bishop
1088
may communicate with the patron and persuade him not to sell to a particular person, or persuade him to leave the matter in his own hands, or to hand the living over to a diocesan trust, but there is no further restriction on the right of the patron. It is merely desired to make public the fact that the living is proposed to be sold, in order that the parochial church council should be able to express their views and place such influence upon the patron as they may properly do. In no other way is the right of the patron to deal with his property interfered with. It is desired very much that this Measure should get through before Parliament rises, and in those circumstances I beg to move the Motion in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Transfer of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Viscount Brentford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I think it is proper that a word should be spoken from the Episcopal Bench in favour of this Measure, even if the main thing is to thank the noble Viscount for coming to the rescue of the Bishops when they are extremely busy in another direction. The noble Viscount has succinctly expressed the origin and intention of this little Measure. I have always considered that the Measure to which he referred, of a few years ago, was a remarkable testimony to the growth of public opinion in this country with reference to the duties of the Church. I think not many years ago it might have been thought improper for Parliament to assent to a Measure which made it impossible to sell art advowson after the next two vacancies. As the noble Viscount has already explained, it has led to a number of patrons using the opportunity, while they had it, of disposing of their property while it has monetary value. This Measure does nothing to prevent any such procedure, but it merely makes the proceedings public. Indeed, it has no sanction whatever, and any patron can proceed in his intention if he fails to be persuaded by the words of the Bishop, or intends to go through with it.

1089
The only criticism that might be made against the Measure is that it is hardly worth passing it if it really does nothing. But the truth is that, first of all, it makes it plain in the parishes that the parishioners are at least recognised in an advowson. At the present moment the parishioners may say: "No one knows, and no one cares what becomes of us." This little Measure encourages the parishioners to know that the Church at large does care at least to see and examine what is going on. The other thing that it does is this. It may have no sanction that can be enforced, but it does bring to bear public opinion upon the matter. Any transaction that was inherently undesirable, or any transaction of which the buyer or seller might be ashamed, would probably be checked if this Measure were in existence, because of the publicity that it gives to the whole transaction. I hope that your Lordships will see no objection to accepting this Measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the day read for the consideration of the Sixth Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
The Committee considered an application with regard to some change in the official residence of the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod. The further consideration of the matter was adjourned.
2. CLERK IN THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE.
The Committee sanctioned an increase of pay of £50 a year to Captain G. J. W. Townsend, M.B.E., Clerk in the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain, to date from the 1st of April, 1931.
3. APPOINTMENT OF JUNIOR CLERICAL ASSISTANT.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that he had appointed Miss A. N. Phipps to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Miss D. C. Hood.
4. FEE FUND.
The Clerk of the Parliaments submitted to the Committee a recommendation from the Treasury contained in a letter dated 3rd July, 1930, of which the relevant portion is as follows:—
1090
"As regards the Fee Fund, My Lords suggest for the consideration of the House of Lords Offices Committee that fees in future should be credited, as and when received, direct to the Vote as appropriation in aid in accordance with the normal procedure and that the pensions, etc., which under existing arrangements are paid from the Fee Fund, should be charged to and paid from a subhead of the Vote. The Fee Fund under this arrangement would cease to exist, the capital accumulation being surrendered to the Exchequer.
My Lords wish to make it clear that in suggesting the disappearance of the Fee Fund They are not proposing any alteration in the existing method of awarding pensions. These would continue to be awarded precisely as at present. The change would affect merely the procedure for payment, after an award has been made.
My Lords are aware that when a similar suggestion was put forward in 1869, objection was taken by the House of Lords Offices Committee on the ground that the Fee Fund arrangement affords some additional security in the matter of pensions. Whatever validity may have attached to this objection in 1869 would appear to My Lords to have long since passed away. It is relevant to point out that the change proposed would, in the matter of the provision of the necessary funds, place pensions, etc., on the same basis as salaries and remuneration. The latter are clearly of no less importance than pensions to the House of Lords Offices Committee and My Lords anticipate that the system which for upwards of half a century has proved satisfactory to the Committee in the matter of salaries and remuneration would prove equally satisfactory in the matter of pensions."
The Committee resolved that the Clerk of the Parliaments be authorised to take the necessary steps in consultation with the Treasury and Exchequer and Audit Department to give effect to the suggestions in Treasury Letter of 3rd July, 1930, on the subject of the Fee Fund and Security Monies.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Procedure for conferring on local authorities and statutory undertakers power to execute works.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any powers required by a local authority or by statutory undertakers for the purpose of enabling them to execute works which will contribute to the relief of unemployment may be conferred on them by an order made in accordance with the provisions of this section, and any such order may contain any provisions which might have been contained in a local Act.
(6) Where any such inquiry is directed to be held, the inquiry shall be held at such place as may be determined by the appropriate Minister by a tribunal consisting of one or more persons nominated by him (not being persons having any interest in the subject matter of the inquiry), and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, shall apply to the tribunal as if the tribunal had been established and that Act had been applied thereto in manner provided by that Act; and the tribunal shall, as soon as may be after holding the inquiry, make a report to the Minister recommending whether the order should be proceeded with and, if proceeded with, what modifications, if any, should, in the opinion of the tribunal, be made in the draft order.
The costs incurred by any tribunal in relation to any such inquiry with respect to a draft order (including the remuneration of any member of the tribunal) shall, save in so far as the whole or any part thereof may be ordered by the Minister to be paid by any person whose objection he adjudges, after considering the report, to have been frivolous, be paid by the local authority or statutory undertakers by whom the draft order was submitted to the Minister, and the Minister may certify the amount of the costs so payable by any person, authority or undertakers, and any sum so certified shall be a debt to the Crown from that person, authority or undertakers, as the case may be.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "an order made" and to insert "a scheme made, and confirmed by Parliament." The noble Lord said: On this first Amendment I perhaps might explain that it is felt there is a risk to the procedure under the Bill as it stands of its being confused with the procedure of Provisional Orders under the Public Health
1092
Act, 1875, and other Public General Acts. It is therefore proposed by this Amendment and later Amendments that a draft scheme should be submitted to the appropriate Minister instead of a draft order, and that the Confirmation Bill should be one to confirm a scheme instead of an order. A great number of Amendments are consequential on this change.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("an order made") and insert the said words.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There are now a number of Amendments which are consequential or drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("an order") and insert ("a scheme")
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("an order") and insert ("a scheme")
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("section") to the end of the subsection and insert ("make the scheme and submit it for confirmation by Parliament")
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("An order") and insert ("A scheme")
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("an order") and insert ("a scheme")
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("laying the draft order before Parliament") and insert ("making the scheme")
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("he") to ("his") in line 26, and insert ("submits the scheme for confirmation by Parliament, also lay before Parliament")
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("laying before Parliament any draft order") and insert ("making any scheme")
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("thereto") and insert ("to the draft thereof")
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("lay the draft order before Parliament") and insert ("make the scheme")
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("appropriate").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "one or more persons nominated by him," anti to insert "three persons, one of whom shall be a member of the House of Lords nominated by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and one a member of the House of Commons nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and one a person nominated by die Minister."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. It does makes a material difference. As your Lordships know, this Bill is designed to accelerate the procedure for starting certain works which it is thought will assist unemployment, and it provides that the Minister of Health may direct an inquiry, where there is an objection, and that that inquiry shall, in effect, be substituted for the Parliamentary procedure with which we are familiar. The proposal which I make is that, instead of the tribunal being a, tribunal consisting of such persons as the Minister chooses to appoint, there shall be some provision made which will ensure that the two Houses of Parliament shall have some voice in the selection of the tribunal—that it shall consist, in other words, of three person's, one off whom shall be nominated by the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House, one by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and the third by the Minister.
I see two advantages in that proposal, first of all, that it ensures that persons representing this House and representing the other House shall take part in the inquiry, and therefore that the tribunal shall be one which must command public confidence; and secondly, that if at a later stage any question be raised in either House with regard to the inquiry or its conduct or the report which has been made, there shall be available to Parliament somebody who has taken part in the hearing of the inquiry, who will
1094
be able to inform your Lordships or the other place as to what has happened, and as to the reasons for the report which has been made. I think the alteration which I suggest is one which is in the public interest, and it will not involve any delay because I have a consequential Amendment later on to provide for the unlikely case of the two nominating Persons not being available at any moment; and the result will be that we shall get a tribunal which will not only command public confidence but which, we may be quite sure, will deserve public confidence.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("of") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that this Amendment appeals to me. It seems to me a great improvement on the Bill. I do not wish to elaborate my reasons, because they are the same as those which have been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. It does seem to me very important that these inquiries, though they cannot take place in a Parliamentary atmosphere, should at any rate take place in harmony with the customs of Parliamentary inquiries; and that can, of course, be secured by a member of your Lordships' House and a member of the House of Commons being present and taking part in them, and, of course, they will be independent people. If your Lordships were good enough to ask me I o undertake this duty, I should not, of course, send a Lancashire Peer down to Lancashire to take part in a Lancashire inquiry.
LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I quite recognise the importance of this Amendment, backed as it is by such authorities as the noble and learned Viscount and the Lord Chairman of Committees. But I think its merits are really rather superficial, and appear more in the wording than in the significance of the Amendment. The idea that Parliamentary control is introduced at this stage by the mere presence of a member of your Lordships' House and a member of the House of Commons appears to me to be entirely illusory. I am afraid such a Committee, apart from the inconvenience of setting it up in a

1095
Recess, apart from the inconvenience of finding sufficient members of the two Houses to serve on numberless inquiries, which might have to be held up and down the country, and the difficulty of getting them in the Recess, would in itself be extremely hampering to the Minister. I think, as the Bill stands, he has the advice of experts—the Parliamentary control comes in at a later stage—so that the Minister is by no means unfettered, but such a Committee as this, although it is recommended by such leading authorities, is, I am afraid, a suggestion which the Government cannot adopt.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I confess to feeling a little disappointment at the answer which the noble Lord has given me. I cannot feel that the arguments which he has used are very conclusive, but I am very anxious that this Bill which, as the Government profess, is going to be a valuable assistance to enable them to grapple with unemployment, shall pass in the form which they think most useful for the purpose, and, although I confess that my reason is not convinced by the arguments which the noble Lord has put forward, I should not be disposed, unless the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, who spoke in support of the Amendment, thinks otherwise, to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (6) before "the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921," to insert "Section one of." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a separate point and, I think, an important one. I gather that the Government are less unfavourable to this Amendment. Under the Bill as drafted it is provided that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, shall apply to the tribunal. That is an Act which is intended to apply all sorts of tribunals—
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendment which follows it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Then I will merely move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, after ("and") insert ("Section one of").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The three Amendments that stand next in my name are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("order should be proceeded with and if proceeded with") and insert ("scheme should be made and if made")
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had given Notice to move, in subsection (6), to leave out "he" ["whose objection he adjudges"], and to insert "the tribunal has reported and the Minister." The noble and learned Viscount said: I understand that the Government are willing to accept this Amendment. The point is that, instead of the Minister deciding whether the objection is frivolous, it is to be decided by the tribunal. I should like to move the Amendment in a slightly different form.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("he adjudges, after considering the report") and insert ("is reported by the tribunal").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had given Notice to move, after subsection (2), to insert the Hollowing new subsection:
"() The public shall be entitled to be present at any hearing by a tribunal of an inquiry under this section and any person appearing to the tribunal to be interested may appear in person or by counsel or solicitor."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has been accepted, but here again I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to move it in a slightly different form.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, at end insert the following new subsection:

1097
"() The public shall be entitled to be present at any hearing by a tribunal of an inquiry under this section and any person appearing to the tribunal to be interested may appear in person or by counsel, solicitor, or Parliamentary agent."—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The rest of my Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("report") to ("also") in line 24, and insert ("and making in the draft scheme such modifications, if any, as appear 1.o him to be necessary make the scheme in the terms of the draft and shall, if he submits the scheme for confirmation by Parliament,")
Page 4, line 26, leave out from the beginning to ("he") in line 27, and insert:
("(8) A scheme under this section shall be of no effect unless confirmed by Parliament, and if the Minister submits a scheme for such confirmation,")
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("order laid before") and insert ("scheme submitted to")
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")
Page 4, line 40, leave out from ("undertakers") to ("and") in line 41, and insert ("having powers under the original scheme")
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme")
Page 4, line 44, leave out ("order") and insert ("scheme").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provision as to land belonging to local authorities and public undertakings]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have a number of consequential Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("order made") and insert ("scheme or order confirmed")
Page 6, line 19, after ("the") insert ("scheme or")
Page 6, line 22, after ("land") insert ("or of the approaches to any such bridge")
Page 6, line 22, after the second ("such") insert ("scheme or")
Page 6, line 23, at end insert ("scheme or")
Page 6, line 25, after ("any") insert ("scheme or")
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("is") and insert ("and the approaches thereto are").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: All my Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 32, at end insert ("scheme or")
Page 7, line 39, after ("the") insert ("scheme")
Page 8, line 16, after ("any") insert ("scheme or")
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("An order") and insert ("A scheme").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have a number of drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 33, after ("servitude") insert ("the expression 'local authority' means a county or town council")
Page 9, line 25, at end insert:
("(e) for any reference to a municipal corporation there shall be substituted a reference to a town council; for any reference to Section one hundred and five of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, there shall be substituted a reference to Section three hundred and fifteen of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892; and for any reference to Section one hundred and sixteen of the Housing Act, 1925, and for any reference therein to the Minister of Health, there shall be substituted respectively a reference to Section ninety-six of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, and a reference therein to the Scottish Board of Health.")
Page 9, line 26, after ("II") insert ("and paragraph 6 of Part. III.")
Page 9, line 35, after ("the") insert ("First").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, extent, saving and duration]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8 ("any") insert ("scheme or").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  PART II.
  Procedure with Respect to the Making, Submission and Confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Orders.
  1. A compulsory purchase order shall be in the prescribed form and shall describe by reference to a map the land to winch it applies, and shall incorporate, subject to the modifications hereinafter mentioned and any necessary adaptations—
  (b) the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919; and
  Provided that the Minister may direct with respect to any such order that the order shall not incorporate Sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-two of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.

  PART III.
  Provisions with respect to the Validity and Date of Operation of Compulsory Purchase Orders.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had given Notice to move, after sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of Part II, to insert:—
  "and
  (c) Where the order is made with respect only to a local authority, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1910."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment of some little importance. It proposes to alter the provisions in the second part of the First Schedule. Under the Bill as it stands, a compulsory purchase order shall incorporate, amongst other things, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of compensation) Act, 1919. That sounds a very innocent proposal, but it is not quite so harmless as it sounds. This is a Bill which is designed, as I understand, to accelerate and simplify the procedure in starting these works and obtaining the necessary orders. It is not designed, or
  1100
  does not purport to be designed, to alter the basis upon which property can be acquired. That is to say, it is not, as I understand it, one of the objects of the Bill to deprive people whose property is compulsorily taken of the compensation which they would otherwise get, if the ordinary procedure had been adopted.
  Your Lordships probably know that, where a statutory undertaking, such as a railway or any other undertaking carried on for profit, acquires land compulsorily, there has been for nearly a century a well-recognised principle under which a sum of 10 per cent. is given for the compulsory acquisition, and there are certain well-known principles as to what you may or may not take into account. In the case of a local authority, provision is made by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which does away with the 10 per cent. and very much limits the matters that may be taken into account in assessing compensation. There are certain provisions as to pot taking into account amenity values, and things of that kind which are taken into account ordinarily. As the Bill is drawn, this Act is to be applied to all these compulsory orders, with the effect that, wherever an order is made under this Bill, persons would get less compensation if the purchasing authority were not a local authority than if they went under the ordinary procedure, to a Select Committee.
  That seems unjust, and therefore I am asking your Lordships to amend the Schedule. I am sorry to say that I have to make a slight alteration. It is really not my fault, but I have been in communication with the Government draftsman and I shall propose it in the form in which he desires to put it. The reason of its being put in is that there are some statutory authorities which are not carried on for profit which already have the advantages of the Acquisition of Land Act. My purpose is to preserve the rights of people whose land is taken in exactly the same way as they are under this Act, but to leave the procedure only altered. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, leave out lines 29 and 30, and at the end of line 33 insert:
  ("and (c) in the following cases the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919; that is to say, in the

  1101
  case of an order made by a local authority or by a public authority within the meaning of that Act").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think I ought in one sentence to remind your Lordships of what your practice has been for the last ten or eleven years. I confess at the time I was not enthusiastic about the Act of 1919, but it was accepted by Parliament because it was felt that public authorities not trading for profit were in a special position, and required and were entitled to this special treatment. But Parliament then took the view that bodies trading for profit ought to be no more favoured than anybody else, and that has been the attitude of Parliament ever since. I cannot remember any case where a company trading for profit has been specially favoured. I can remember several cases where they have asked that they should be so favoured, but I have consistently informed them that if the matter came before your Lordships I should advise you not to accept it, and I have been flattered to the extent of finding that when I have made that statement the matter has not been pressed before your Lordships.
  LORD CLWYD: As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill knows, I have had some consultation in reference to the effect of this Amendment. I thought the noble and learned Viscount was going to move it as it appears upon the Paper, and I was anxious in regard to the position of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. For instance, if the Amendment was passed in the form in which it appears on the Paper I was anxious to learn whether that undertaking would be prejudicially affected. I was of opinion that it would, but, having regard to what the noble and learned Viscount has said with respect to the amendment of his Amendment, I feel that I can rest assured that no difference will be made in regard to an undertaking of that character by the Amendment as it is now proposed.
  LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: This again is an important point which has been raised by the noble and learned Viscount. I do not want to stress the argument that in several instances the Minister of Transport now makes orders authorising the compulsory purchase of land by a railway company. He has, for
  1102
  instance, applied to a railway company the provisions in the Schedule to the Development and Road Improvements Act of 1901, under which the owner of land is deprived of the 10 per cent. allowance for compulsory purchase. In several cases that has already been done. I only quote that to show that this is not a revolutionary proposal which has been surreptitiously introduced into what appears to be a harmless Bill. I would also remind your Lordships that considerable trouble has been taken with this Bill so as to get the approval of the various parties interested, not only railway companies, but various other statutory undertakers who are necessarily interested in this particular clause which, I may also remind your Lordships, has been passed through the House of Commons without any comment whatsoever.
  It is not a matter of favouring any particular company that is trading for profit. The object of this Bill is to expedite procedure, to make schemes for the relief of unemployment more numerous and more rapidly brought into execution, and there is no question that in this particular case, as the Bill stands, these various statutory undertakers will be more likely to be encouraged to go forward than if this Amendment is put in. Moreover, I should like to put this case to the noble Viscount. We desire to get simplicity and, so far as possible, uniformity. You might have a light railway, for instance, that was partly municipally-owned, and you might have a light railway that was not owned by a local authority but belonged to a company. It seems unreasonable that the light railway that belonged to a municipal authority should have an advantage over the other light railway. That is still more frequently the case with electricity undertakings. It seems rather unreasonable that an electricity undertaking that is municipalised should be in a preferential position to an electricity undertaking which is not.
  Your Lordships will excuse me if I look at this question not so much from the point of view of a landowner as from the point of view of the necessity of getting work for the unemployed, of the necessity of giving all assistance possible to these various great enterprises which

  1103
  are anxious to bring forward schemes. The Railway Rates Tribunal is responsible for fixing the rates of railways, and if any extra expense falls on the railways they must go before the Railway Rates Tribunal and the rates may be raised by that Tribunal. Although I quite appreciate the point which the noble and learned Viscount, with his usual lucidity, has brought before your Lordships, I must say that the Government, having got the Bill through in this form in the House of Commons without any sort of opposition, and having consulted so many interests concerned, and feeling that it is an agreed measure, cannot at this last moment withdraw from the position they have taken up. I regret therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD STRACHIE: If the noble and learned Viscount had not put down his Amendment, I had been asked by the Central Landowners Association to put down a similar Amendment, and should have done so. I need not trouble your Lordships with any arguments, as the noble and learned Viscount has so fully and clearly, as he always does, put the matter before your Lordships. I should, however, like to say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who has just spoken. He said this Amendment would not expedite the purpose of the Bill. I cannot see any argument at all in that. What is the whole discussion between us? It is whether we are, or whether we are not, to do an injustice to landowners when land is taken compulsorily for the benefit of some private company by which its dividends will be increased at the expense of the landowner.
  I am aware that in cases where the national interest is concerned landowners do suffer by having their land taken away. On the other hand, I strongly object to the proposal of the Government by which a body trading for profit is to be able to buy its land compulsorily in order to increase its profits. The noble Lord talked about light railways. We know that light railways are not built now because the services are given much more cheaply by motor traffic. Then the question of electricity undertakings was introduced. An electricity supply company is simply a trading concern, and as far as I am aware most electricity companies are making very large profits at the present
  1104
  moment. The only argument that holds water—and I consider that a very leaky one—is that this will stop any one putting into force these facilities. It will do nothing of the kind. I only hope, as a matter of justice and fairness to landowners, who are suffering very heavily indeed—and not least from the Budget of the present Government—that the noble and learned Viscount will press the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I said that I was unwilling to press a previous Amendment to a Division because I wanted to give the Government whatever powers, in reason, they asked for, but I really cannot accept the answer of the noble Lord opposite. He says the object is to expedite procedure. Nobody can suggest that procedure will be any quicker whether a man gets the compensation he is entitled to or something less. The argument really amounts to this, that it is hoped by putting in this provision that probably statutory undertakers would embark upon work which they otherwise would not undertake because they would be getting land cheaper than they would be entitled to get it without this Bill. That is not an argument which can be seriously put before this House. As to the arguments about simplicity and uniformity, whether light railways or electricity undertakings are concerned, the position will be the same. I am not asking that the law should be altered. I am merely asking that the law should not be altered, but that your Lordships should preserve the existing position and preserve to people the rights they now have, so that they should get exactly the same sum as they would get if the ordinary and more cumbersome procedure had been followed. If the Government will not accept the Amendment, I must ask your Lordships to insist upon it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The next Amendment is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 2, after ("order") insert ("made with respect only to a local authority").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, in the proviso to paragraph 1 of Part II, to leave out "thirty-two" and insert "thirty-three." The noble Lord

  1105
  said: This is an Amendment put down on behalf of the London County Council, and I understand the Government are disposed to accept it. I do not know whether it is necessary in those circumstances to say more than that the London County Council, when promoting Bills under the existing practice of Parliament, have almost always succeeded in getting inserted in their Bills a clause excluding Section 133 of the Land Clauses Act. That is a section which deals with deficiency rating. It is a somewhat complicated matter and probably I need not trouble your Lordships by explaining it at this moment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 3, leave out ("thirty-two") and insert ("thirty-three").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE The Government will accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 4, after ("1845") insert ("or any of those sections").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to add to Part III:
  "6. Until rules of court are made regulating the procedure on applications to the High Court under this Part of this Schedule, the following temporary rules shall have effect with respect thereto—

  (i) The application shall be made by an originating notice of motion to a Judge of the High Court selected for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor:

  (ii) The notice of motion shall state the grounds for the application, and the date mentioned in the notice for the hearing of the application shall be not less than eight days after the service of the notice:

  (iii) The notice of motion shall be served before the expiration of twenty-one days after the publication of the notice of confirmation of the order to which the application relates on the local authority or statutory undertakers by whom the order was made and on the Minister, and shall be entered at the Crown Office within the same period:

  (iv) 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:

  1106

  (v) 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."

  The noble Lord said: This Bill comes into operation the moment it receives the Royal Assent, and the temporary rules contained in this Amendment will be effective until rules are made by the Rule Committee after the long vacation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 39, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There are two consequential Amendments to this Schedule. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 15, line 7, after ("bridge") insert ("and the approaches thereto").
  Page 15, line 15, after ("the") insert ("scheme or").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Amendments reported, Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the !louse that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, on the last occasion when I moved the Second Reading of a Bill of this sort—and regret to say that I again have to replace my noble friend Lord Arnold who is much more competent to deal with this subject—I was accused of making a speech which was very jejune. I am bound to say that I do not propose at this

1107
hour to trouble your Lordships with any long speech unless you desire it. I have material here for a good deal of discourse. The Bill is one with which, unfortunately, we are far too familiar. It gives power for another loan of £10,000,000 to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The only figures that I think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with are arithmetical calculations for what they are worth showing how long this further money will last. Of course, as your Lordships know, since I moved the last Bill, the fund has swollen in an extraordinary manner from week to week and conditions have become worse and worse. Assuming that the average number on the live register is 1,700,000, the average amount by which the weekly out-goings would exceed the revenue is £285,000, and the Fund would be exhausted by June, 1931. Assuming a figure of 1,900,000, the deficiency would be £445,000 a week and the Fund would be exhausted by March, 1931. I have many other figures, but I think perhaps your Lordships will not desire me to trouble you with them. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2£.—(Earl Russell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I hardly think your Lordships will desire me at this late hour to go very deeply into this question, but I am sorry that the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, has merely treated it as if it were a customary measure to bring before your Lordships' House instead of something which is really of very grave importance.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This is the Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill, and I have no doubt the noble Earl had the same speech to make which was made by myself some short time ago. I had the melancholy duty of performing the same task before the noble Earl, and I was made the target of an attack from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in a speech intended to show how a Socialist Government, when they came into power, would deal with unemployment in a manner far better than the way we were able to deal with it. The sad figures which the noble Earl has just touched upon have hardly realised the
1108
hopes which Lord Arnold put forward. It seems to me, as I am sure it must seem to your Lordships, that it is very unfortunate that the noble Earl in introducing the Bill gave us no indication as to the steps which His Majesty's Government are contemplating, if they are contemplating steps, to remedy the state of affairs which exists at the present moment. I do not know for how long legislation of this kind is contemplated or when the Government are proposing to deal with the whole of this subject from beginning to end. I have heard rumours that the Government are proposing to look into the matter. Surely, it is the duty of any Government to do everything in their power to put the insurance system on a sound and proper footing instead of mixing it up, as they do now, with permanent relief?
I was hoping that in the few remarks which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships he would be able to say that the Government were dealing with this matter either by Royal Commission or Committee at some very early date. Instead of that I was only able to gather from him—I know that he did not want to delay the proceedings of the House—that this provision would carry us over a certain time and that probably by that time whatever Government was in power would have to introduce exactly the same Bill in probably the same speech. The Fund is increasing in bankruptcy and we have no indication from the Government as to how this money is to be paid and when in future it may, by some steps which can be taken, be brought into a solvent condition. This is a matter of very great importance. The system which we are employing now is a very dangerous one. It is to a very large extent demoralising the population of this country, and I should like to have heard from the Government that they had some plans in their mind or that they were proposing to take some steps to deal with this very dangerous situation. It is not for me to go into this matter or to make suggestions, but I earnestly press the Government to make up their minds in a short space of time. Probably they anticipate that they will not be sitting on that Bench and that we shall have to deal with the matter. But I feel that it is their duty while they are in power to deal with this matter as soon and as well as they can.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not quite know what useful purpose is served by our both making the same speeches alternately. I did press the noble Marquess to know what his Government was going to do in this matter when the borrowings were very much smaller, and how long they contemplated that they would continue. I am sorry that I cannot give him any answer to-night because he did not tell me that he was going to raise this question. I am not, of course, any more than a spokesman for the Ministry of Labour and I do not know what plans are in contemplation. The noble Marquess must not think because I thought it wise not to detain your Lordships too long that I regard this as a light matter. I agree with him that it is a very serious matter and a very deplorable matter. Unfortunately, we are so familiar with it now and your Lordships are so familiar with all the facts connected with it, that I thought it hardly necessary to dwell on them. I cannot follow the noble Marquess into the discussion he has raised. We might perfectly well have a discussion which would last for some time, but I hardly think we can discuss it now at the fag end of this sitting. I think the noble Marquess will agree with me. If there are any more figures I can give him I shall be glad to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, may I correct one thing which the noble Earl said? When I moved the same Bill I based the system we were then pursuing, which we did not agree with at all, on the fact that we were likely to see an improvement in trade. The advent of a Socialist Government destroyed our hopes entirely in that direction.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reason for insisting on one of their Amendments.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 72.]
After Clause 88, page 66, insert the following new clause:
Wages and conditions of employment of persons employed in connection with public service vehicles.
("(1) The wages paid by the holder of any road-service licence to persons employed by him in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle and the conditions of their employment shall not be less favourable to them than the wages which would be payable and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with the requirement of any Resolution of the House of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts with Government departments.
(2) Any organisation representative of the persons engaged in the road transport industry may snake representations to the Commissioners to the effect that the wages paid to, or the conditions of employment of, any persons employed by the holder of any road-service licence are not in accordance with the requirements of the preceding subsection, and if the matter in dispute is not otherwise disposed of it shall be referred by the Minister of Labour to the Industrial Court for settlement.
(3) If it is decided by the Industrial Court that any person has been guilty of a breach of the provisions of this section he shall be liable to be dealt with in all respects as if he had failed to comply with a condition attached to his road service licence.")
The Commons insist on this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because on grounds of public safety, of efficiency and of fair competition between operators of public service vehicles it is necessary that fair wages and conditions of employment should obtain in the industry, and the application of the Fair Wages Resolution, which is generally understood and is already widely enforced, affords the most suitable and effective means of attaining this end.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is only one Amendment of those your Lordships made which the Commons have disagreed with and that is the one dealing with the Fair Wages Clause. I think I should like to read to your Lordships what was said by the late Minister of Transport, the Conservative Minister of Transport, on this clause in another place. He said:
"I am glad that the Minister has moved to disagree with the Lords in this respect. Undoubtedly, there has been in the past, and still is, a great deal of labour engaged

1111
in this transportation work which it underpaid, and this Amendment will not harm the good employer but simply bring up the bad employer.
The Amendment was unanimously agreed to in another place, and I am glad to learn that it is likely to be accepted in your Lordships' House to-night. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, it is true that my colleagues in another place agreed to accept this Amendment. I feel myself bound, of course, by the decision which they have arrived at,
1112
though I do not agree with them and I think the speech of the late Minister of Transport was entirely uncalled for and quite wrong.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor has asked me to say that it is proposed that the House shall meet at half-past three to-morrow and that the first business should be the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Housing (No. 2) Bill.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.