Sitting of 7 October 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill. (By Order.)
Second Reading deferred until Tomorrow.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCE DURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Address for
"Return of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1930–31 have been reported on by the Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the Sittings of each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved:
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1930–31 have been dealt with."—[Sir A. Sinclair.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  AIRCRAFT INSURANCE (THIRD PARTY RISKS).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, if his attention has been called to the dangerously low flying of certain aircraft over villages; and whether consideration has been given to compulsory insurance against third-party risks, such as is the case with motor vehicles, for both private and Royal Air Force aircraft?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir, occasional complaints of the kind referred to have been received, although none are of very recent date. The question of compulsory insurance against third-party risks in respect of civil aircraft is under active consideration by an international committee of jurists, on which this country is represented, in connection with the preparation of an international convention as to liability for damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the ground. Any damage by Royal Air Force aircraft would be dealt with under the ordinary procedure for cases of claims for compensation against the Crown.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SWEETS (IMPORTED INGREDIENTS).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount and value of liquid glucose imported from Russia during the last 12 months; whether he is aware that sweets made wholly with this foreign material have to be marked as such, whereas sweets which contain a large proportion of this material are being marketed as of British manufacture; and whether, in the interests of British consumers, he will take steps to see that any sweets which contain a proportion of foreign material shall be clearly marked as such, and that only such sweets as contain ingredients which are wholly manufactured in this country shall be sold as British sweets?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): During the 12 months ended the 31st August, 1931, the imports of liquid glucose into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from the Soviet Union amounted to 192,599 cwts. of a declared value of £104,704. As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware of any specific requirement that sweets made wholly of foreign material must be marked accordingly.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a marking order made, so that consumers may know whether the sweets are entirely of British manufacture?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is open to the sweet manufacturers in this country to make application for a marking order under the Merchandise Marks Act, and, if such an application were made, it would be referred to the committee.

    BRITISH GOODS (NATIONAL ORGANISATION).
    Major CARVERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have yet been taken to establish a national organisation to popularise the need for buying British goods as against foreign imported articles?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the Prime Minister has given his approval to the institution of national organisation to promote both wise spending and the voluntary purchase of British goods. The formation of the organisation is almost complete, and it is hoped that a further announcement will be made with regard to it within the next few days.
    Major CARVER: Will the new organisation be entirely separate from the Empire Marketing Board?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I think so. I hope to meet, the day after to-morrow, a number of the people who are going to organise it, but I think it is very important that in any movement of this kind all the agencies which can do some good work should be co-ordinated.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is that the function of a national party?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The function of a national party is to promote the national well-being.

    GRAIN CONTRACTS (PAYMENT IN STERLING).
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that foreign importers have intimated to the London Corn Trade Association that they will not carry out their contracts for delivery of grain to this country made prior to 20th September unless they are promised payment in gold sterling or other money of gold parity; and what steps he proposes taking to protect consumers by insuring the fulfilment of contract in this supply?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that such an intimation was re-
    1074
    ceived by the London Corn Trade Association from some foreign suppliers and that the association made the necessary representations to the parties concerned. I am now advised that practically all shippers of grain have agreed to carry out their obligations under their contracts and have accepted, since the 20th September, payment in sterling without demur.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Russian Government gave notice, through their sole agents in this country, that they were prepared to fulfil all their contracts exactly as they were made, irrespective of the date on which they were made?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should not like it to be supposed that paying their obligations in due season was confined to any one country. The great bulk of vendors to this country, of all nationalities, were at once prepared to accept our sterling obligations in sterling.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLORDid the right hon. Gentleman say that the nationals of all countries have agreed to fulfil their contracts entered into in sterling?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that practically all have agreed. There may be a few outstanding cases where Borne contracts are still in dispute, but, broadly, the contracts are all being carried out, and it is fair to say that the great bulk of these contracts were carried out in the proper way from the start.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are these outstanding questions French contracts?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No; I am speaking without notice, but I do not think any question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    RUSSIA.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a comparison of the chief articles exported by this country to Russia in 1913, with the amounts we exported in 1930 to Soviet Russia?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I will circulate the desired information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander BELLAIRS: With regard to the figures, do they generally show that a system of virtual prohibition is in force against goods that we might desire to sell to Russia?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are two pages of figures, and I do not think I could do the mental arithmetic sum necessary to give the answer.

    The following table shows the total quantity and declared value of merchandise exported from the United Kingdom and consigned to Russia in 1913 and to the Soviet Union in 1930, distinguishing the principal commodities.

    —

    Unit of Quantity.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    1913.

    1930.

    1913.

    1930.

    Exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures.

    £

    £

    Herrings—cured or salted, not canned.

    Cwt.

    3,566,155

    182,295

    1,988,177

    121,531

    Margarine

    Cwt.

    10

    59,324

    33

    194,891

    Sugar, refined

    Cwt.

    35

    2,597,011

    40

    1,408,826

    Coal

    Ton

    5,998,434

    39,428

    4,336,582

    29,286

    Wool raw—sheeps' and lambs'.

    Cental of 100 lbs.

    41,614

    11,597

    307,014

    106,933

    Wool noils

    Cwt.

    46,624

    3,049

    338,405

    26,302

    Woollen rags

    Cwt.

    22,518

    36,963

    77,224

    118,952

    Ammonium sulphate

    Ton

    (a)

    68,197

    (a)

    500,623

    Cotton yarns

    Lb.

    2,447,100

    189,490

    261,518

    50,572

    Cotton manufactures (except apparel and embroidery).

    Value

    —

    —

    523,755

    1,069

    Implements, tools, etc.

    Value

    —

    —

    252,789

    (a)

    Machinery and parts thereof

    Ton

    71,203

    27,779

    3,926,530

    2,692,660

    Iron and Steel and manufactures thereof.

    Ton

    84,373

    5,972

    1,017,891

    374,715

    Nickel in pellets, cubes, etc.

    Ton

    (a)

    640

    (a)

    108,800

    Tin Blocks, Ingots, Bars and Slabs.

    Ton

    1,415

    39

    295,038

    5,400

    Aeroplanes and parts thereof

    Value

    —

    —

    54

    43,974

    Ships and Boats (New) complete.

    Gross ton

    24,768

    (a)

    643,466

    (a)

    Wool tops (other than merino).

    Cental of 100 lbs.

    11,763

    25,716

    103,903

    320,867

    Woollen and Worsted yarns

    Lb.

    2,932,000

    24,971

    469,977

    2,931

    Linear yds.

    Sq.yds.

    Woollen and Worsted tissues.

    883,700

    79,914

    331,840

    20,716

    Arms and Ammunition and military and naval stores.

    Value

    —

    —

    40,459

    41,919

    All other articles

    Value

    —

    —

    3,187,988

    600,979

    Total Domestic Exports

    Value

    —

    —

    18,102,683

    6,771,946

    (a) Included in "All other articles."

    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring these figures more up to date, and give the first eight months of this year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman wants these figures, per he will put a question on the Paper.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Do you think the kind of question that we have been getting will help us to get what we want from Russia?
    Following is the reply:

    —

    Unit of Quantity.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    1913.

    1930.

    1913.

    1930.

    Exports of Imported Merchandise.

    £

    £

    Tea

    Lb.

    10,160,656

    7,525,019

    414,766

    406,556

    Cocoa, raw

    Cwt.

    16,827

    3,017

    59,274

    5,172

    Coffee, not kiln-dried, not roasted or ground.

    Cwt.

    15,672

    (a)

    64,139

    (a)

    Bacon

    Cwt.

    17,705

    (a)

    63,034

    (a)

    Fruit and nuts, raw

    Value

    —

    —

    54,659

    (a)

    Cotton, raw (except linters)

    Cental of 100 lbs.

    1,108,999

    31,866

    3,832,221

    134,331

    Hemp, not dressed

    Ton

    —

    2,180

    (a)

    64,325

    Rubber, crude

    Cental of 100 lbs.

    142,326

    170,546

    2,205,205

    623,380

    Castor seed

    Ton

    11,179

    (a)

    134,934

    (a)

    Nuts and kernels for expressing oil therefrom.

    Ton

    11,285

    (a)

    327,663

    (a)

    Wool, raw—sheeps' and lambs'.

    Cental of 100 lbs.

    3,837

    202

    33,064

    1,021

    Palm and palm kernel oil, unrefined.

    Ton

    2,679

    (a)

    77,045

    (a)

    Tallow, unrefined

    Ton

    20,888

    (a)

    726,409

    (a)

    Jute, raw

    Ton

    3,485

    (a)

    110,620

    (a)

    Leather, dressed and undressed.

    Cwt.

    1,408

    (a)

    39,360

    (a)

    Copper bars, blocks, slabs, ingots and cakes.

    Ton

    (a)

    625

    (a)

    34,515

    Lead, pig and sheet

    Ton

    6,604

    29,988

    118,528

    558,103

    Tin, blocks, ingots, bars and slabs

    Ton

    338

    2,637

    70,620

    489,501

    Zinc, crude

    Ton

    (a)

    2,970

    (a)

    55,246

    Machinery and parts thereof

    Ton

    11,298

    (a)

    415,746

    (a)

    Wood and timber manufactures.

    Value

    —

    —

    237,743

    (a)

    All other articles

    Value

    —

    —

    606,240

    147,205

    Total Re-exports

    Value

    —

    —

    9,591,270

    2,519,365

    (a) Included in "All other articles."

    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the general terms of the decree issued in May, 1931, regulating trade of foreigners with Soviet Russia and of Soviet State and co-operative organisations with foreigners; and whether those orders have been in any way altered since then?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The decree to which my hon. and gallant Friend no doubt refers is that issued on 11th March, which was supplemented by regulations issued on 23rd April. The decree was substantially a re-enactment of existing legislation and the regulations prescribed the procedure to be followed by foreign firms in applying for permission to carry on trading operations in
    1078
    Soviet territory, such procedure not differing in any important respect from that hitherto in force. A full summary of Soviet law on the subject, which has not, so far as I am aware, been amended since, will be found in paragraph 17 of the Report on the Organisation of the Foreign Trade of the Soviet Union, by the Commercial Counsellor to His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow, issued in June last (Cmd. 3904), copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the sums outstanding to date that have been guaranteed to Russia and to all other countries, respectively, under the Export Credits scheme?
    Sir HILTON YOUNG (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The total amount of credits which the Department had up to the 3rd October contracted to guarantee in respect of exports to Russia and to all other countries was £10,893,106 and £15,787,612, respectively. The total liability assumed under these contracts was £6,906,240 and £10,946,362, respectively.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the cost of the cheapest stand obtainable at the textile section of the British Industries Fair, exclusive of the cost of certain fittings, compared with the cost of a corresponding stand at Olympia in 1931; whether he can make arrangements for some cheaper stands to be available; and whether the nature of the contracts entered into between exhibitors and Exhibition Organisers, Limited, precludes his Department from effecting any reduction in the charges for space?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The cheapest stand in the textile section at the White City in 1932 will cost £50. This includes charges for space, stand construction, stand lighting and the mannequin parade. At Olympia in 1931 a stand of the same dimensions could have been obtained for £33 under the Department's inclusive scheme for space, stand construction and lighting, but the stand and lighting would not have been of the high standard adopted at the White City at the special request of the textile industry.
    The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    I do not understand the third part. The Department has no power to vary existing contracts.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the cheapness of the material and the cheapness in other directions with regard to construction, can nothing be done by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to prevail on these people to charge a lower price than and, with regard to the last part, cannot the Department make some recommendations to these people for a reduction in the charges?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will be aware that I answered that question
    1080
    on a previous occasion. The answer was that the business has to be self-supporting, and, in view of that circumstance, it is not possible to make any reductions in charges.

    BLIND PERSONS, MIDDLESEX (GRANTS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health, whether he is aware that the Blind Persons Sub-Committee of the Middlesex County Council has passed a recommendation to reduce their grants to the unemployable blind by 2s. 6d. per week; and whether the Ministry has indicated to local authorities that economy should be exercised in this direction?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and, to the second part in the negative. The advice tendered by the Government to local authorities on the question of the reduction of local expenditure is contained in Circular 1222, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform the local authorities? It surely ought not to be necessary to ask the unemployable blind to tighten their belts in this crisis?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Circular I have already issued to the local authorities deals with the matter as far as it is possible.
    Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his consent will be necessary to a reduction by the Middlesex County Council?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

  HOUSING.

    NON-PARLOUR HOUSES.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health the average superficial area of A-type non-parlour houses in direct labour schemes and in contracts let by local authorities in England and Wales during the period January-June, 1931?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 758 square feet in contracts and 759 square feet in direct labour schemes.

    REPAIRS.
    Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. MACLEAN)asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many houses are becoming uninhabitable through the neglect of the owners to repair them; and whether he will consider the issuing of instructions to local authorities to compel owners to spend the percentage increase of rents for repairs upon the necessary repairs of these houses and thereby increase employment in the building trades?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The issue of certificates on the application of tenants under the Rent Restrictions Acts is within the discretion of local authorities and I am not empowered to issue such instructions as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take steps under the Emergency Powers Act to reduce rents in view of the hardships of the people at the present time?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question on the Paper has nothing to do with the reduction of rents.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EDUCATION (ECONOMIES).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education the total amount of the economies he now anticipates making as a result of the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): It is now estimated that as a result of the Government's proposals, there will be a saving of £7,123,000 in the first full year, as compared with the figure of £9,400,000 given on page 5 of the White Paper (Cmd. 3952).
    Mr. EDE: Are we to understand, then, that, as the result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, the Budget has become unbalanced again?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Nothing of the kind.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Are there any offsets against these economies; is there any increase in the obligations of the Government which will come into the Budget?

    MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (SALARIES AND FEES).
    Mr. O. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum total paid by way of salaries and fees to the Ministers of the Crown from 5th June, 1929, to 24th August, 1931, or the nearest convenient dates?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I am having the information prepared and will send it to my hon. Friend.

    ASSISTANT PAYMASTER-GENERAL (SALARY).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for what reason the basic salary of the Assistant Paymaster-General, which was shown in 1924–25 Estimates as £1,000, has since been increased, to £1,500; and whether, in connection with the economy proposals now in contemplation, it is intended to reduce the salary to the original amount?
    Major ELLIOT: Prior to his appointment as Assistant Paymaster-General the officer in question had from 1920 to 1922 been Assistant Controller and Auditor-General and he continued to draw the rate of salary which he already had. I am not in a position to say whether on the occurrence of a vacancy, the remuneration of the post should or should not be revised.
    Mr. KELLY: I did not ask in regard to what will happen when a vacancy arises; but whether anything is to be done in regard to the salary of the present occupant of the office?
    Major ELLIOT: The ordinary steps will apply, of course; if the question is whether any special steps will be taken, the answer is in the negative.

  EDUCATION.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS (FEES).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education the cost of educating a boy at English public residential schools which are state-aided and in comparable establishments in France, Germany and Italy?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The majority of the public schools, as that term is generally understood, are not state-aided. Of the schools represented on. the Head-

    1083
    masters' Conference which are mainly residential, 11 are state-aided, and at these the tuition and boarding fees combined average about £103. I have no information in regard to comparable establishments in other countries.

    STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many State scholarships it is proposed to award in 1932?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: It is proposed that the number of State scholarships to be offered shall be 300, as in recent years.

    BEER (DUTY AND PRICE).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the present tax on beer would be altered if it were calculated on the same rate per unit of alcohol as the present tax on whiskey?
    Major ELLIOT: It would be increased approximately two and a-half times.
    Mr. MARLEY (for Mr. MORLEY)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that brewers are increasing the price of bottled beer to publicans by 9d. per dozen half-pints, and that Messrs. Arthur Guinness and Company have increased their price by 28s. 3d. per 32-gallon barrel; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will let me have the full facts in the cases he has in mind, I will consider them.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (PAY).
    Major NATHANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will institute an inquiry into the rates of pay of the lower ranges of the ex-service post-War entrants to the Civil Service?
    Major ELLIOT: As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the Royal Commission on the Civil Service made recommendations as to the future of the un-established ex-service clerical personnel. These recommendations will be taken
    1084
    into consideration by His Majesty's Government as soon as circumstances allow.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to carry out any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service dealing with the ex-service post-War entrants in view of the rates of pay that most of them are receiving?
    Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government proposes to take any and, if so, what action upon the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service in respect of post-War entrants?
    Major ELLIOT: The course of events since the publication of the report at the end of July last has prevented the Government from giving the report of the Commission the attention which it requires, but the Government propose to take it into consideration as soon as circumstances allow.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the hon. and gallant Member realise that some of these persons have less than a living wage, and will he see whether something cannot be done for them?
    Mr. WALLACE: Is it proposed also to consult the organisations concerned, while the Government are considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission?

    TAX OFFICE, SOUTHAMPTON.
    Mr. MARLEY (for Mr. MORLEY)asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the present offices of His Majesty's inspectors of taxes and their staffs at Southampton are inadequate for the increased staff; and whether it is proposed to secure alternative and less crowded accommodation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; endeavours are at present being made to secure additional accommodation with a view to relieving existing congestion.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour whether any fresh instructions or regulations have yet been issued to the Employment Exchanges in connection with the administration of unemployment insurance benefit under the National Economy Bill?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The only instructions of this nature that have so far been issued to the Employment Exchanges are those relating to the changes in rates of contributions and benefit made by the Unemployment Insurance (No. 1) Order, 1931.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Are the regulations under the Economy Bill completed, and, if not, will they be issued during the Recess?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The intention is to issue them as soon as possible after the Order-in-Council has been made.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will it be in order for the regulations to be put into operation without the consent of the House?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Oh, yes.
    Mr. TAYLOR: You can do anything you like?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are the regulations subject to the Rules Publication Act?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman had better put that question down. I have no power to make them until the Order-in-Council is made.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour whether in determining the reference of claims for transitional benefit, under the National Economy Bill, to the Poor Law authorities, the test will be whether or not 26 weeks' benefit has been paid in the individual benefit year?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring only to the operation of the restriction on insurance benefit to 26 weeks in the benefit year, the answer to his question is in the affirmative. As he no doubt knows, a number of persons are at present on transitional benefit and others will come on
    1086
    to transitional payment in future on account of failure to satisfy the 30 contributions qualification, and not on account of the restriction above referred to.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will not this system of selecting the individual benefit year operate very unfairly?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, I do not think so. This matter has been discussed at some length; the policy of the Government is known, and I have nothing to add.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this point; it is very important because it will operate very unfairly against different classes of claimants?
    Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman who sits for one of the divisions of Dorset in order in making grunting noises?
    Mr. COCKS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position of a miner who works habitually three days a week?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think that that arises out of the answer. The question asked if the test will be whether or not 26 weeks' benefit has been paid in the individual benefit year, arid I have answered that. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt on any particular point, and he cares to write to me, I will give him a reply.
    Captain CROOKSHANK(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed that applicants for transitional payments will be interviewed by the Public Assistance Authorities in a Poor Law institution?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. Such interviews will not take place in a Poor Law institution. Exceptions to this rule will only be allowed with the express permission of the Minister.
    Mr. WINTERTON: Will these interviews take place in Poor Law offices?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have just said that they will not take place in Poor Law institutions.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that these interviews will take place at the Employment

    1087
    Exchanges or premises which are not normally used by the Poor Law authorities?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is the intention of the Ministry that these interviews shall not take place in Poor Law institutions. Exceptions will be allowed only with the express permission of the Ministry. I think that is an assurance which might very well be taken.
    Mr. MARLEY: In cases where the ordinary examination takes place at a casual ward, can we be assured that these interviews will not take place there?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Oh, yes, I can certainly give the hon. Member that assurance.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the Minister aware that many Poor Law authorities have had to take special premises to deal with unemployed persons seeking relief under the Poor Law? Do I understand that his answer applies only to Poor Law institutions; and will the men be sent to the same premises when they are not Poor Law institutions as ordinary applicants?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As regards the first point, if the hon. Member will put down that question, I will answer it. I have given the hon. Member an express assurance that interviews will not take place in a Poor Law institution without special permission from the Ministry.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it intended that the public assistance committees shall sit at the Employment Exchanges?

    TRAINING CENTRE, DUDLEY.
    Mr. OLIVER BALDWINasked the Minister of Labour for what reasons it has been decided to close down the national factory training centre at Dudley?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: For reasons explained in the reply to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Mr. Culverwell) on 28th September, it has been decided that it is necessary to close certain training and transfer instruction centres. Among the reasons why the Dudley Centre was selected as one of the centres to be closed for the time being, was the fact that it has been particularly difficult to find employment for the men in this area, and there is a training centre at Birmingham which will
    1088
    remain open. Moreover, the buildings at Dudley are Government property and this may make it easier to retain the accommodation in readiness for re-opening later, should circumstances become more favourable.
    Mr. DAY: How many centres have been closed down?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That does not arise out of the answer, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put it down.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this centre has been closed down by the National Government because it is a national factory?

    INDIA (MEERUT CONSPIRACY TRIAL).
    Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. W. J. BROWN)asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Meerut conspiracy case trial is shortly to be adjourned for 10 or 12 days for the Hindu religious festival of Deshara; and whether he will state the number of days the proceedings against the Meerut accused have been adjourned on religious grounds since their arrest in March, 1929?
    Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): My right hon. Friend has no information regarding this adjournment. It is the usual practice for the courts in India to make short adjournments during certain religious festivals, but my right hon. Friend cannot supply the details asked for in the second part of the question.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the reasonableness of stopping this trial altogether?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    GERMAN MINERS (WAGES).
    Mr. HAYCOCK (for Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement regarding the emergency decree issued by the German Government and the declaration by the German Ministry of Labour of a 7 per cent. wage reduction in the Ruhr coalfields with a

    1089
    view to cheapening German coal as a counter to the expected revival of British trade competition?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): Under Emergency decrees, dated 27th September and 30th September, the German Minister of Labour has declared binding an arbitration award reducing wages in the Ruhr coalfield by 7 per cent. for the period 1st October, 1931, to 30th November, 1931. While this award follows shortly after the abandonment in this country of the Gold Standard, I would point out to the hon. Member that, in anticipation of the expiry in September of the wages agreement, negotiations in which the owners pressed for a reduction in wages, had been in progress since June last.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Does the hon. Member think there is very much hope for the workers of the world if this kind of thing continues?

    AUTOMATIC GAS ALARMS.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON (for Mr. TOM SMITH)asked the Secretary for Mines whether the inquiry into the use of automatic gas alarms has been completed, and, if so, the nature of the report; and whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the matter?
    Mr. FOOT: I have received a report from the Safety in Mines Research Board on the recent series of pit trials with a modified form of firedamp detector, and certain inquiries are now being made at the colliery concerned to complete the information I require for a full review of the position.
    Mr. WINTERTON: Have not inquiries on this subject been proceeding now for something like 18 months or two years and is there any possibility of early attention being given to this question during the Recess, considering the terrible loss of life caused through the lack of these detectors?
    Mr. FOOT: I answered a question bearing on that point a few days ago, and then stated that investigations and experiments had been proceeding. We have completed those experiments, and I hope that we shall be able to come to a conclusion very shortly.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Have any of these gas detectors been tried at Churt?

    PIT-HEAD PRICES.
    Mr. HAYCOCK (for Mr. R. RICHARDSON)asked the Secretary for Mines what were the average pit-head prices for coal for the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September; and if any district has announced a rise of 2s. per ton in household coal for October?
    Mr. FOOT: The estimated average proceeds per ton disposable commercially in Great Britain were as follow:

    s.

    d.

    April

    …

    …

    …

    …

    14

    0

    May

    …

    …

    …

    …

    13

    9

    June

    …

    …

    …

    …

    13

    8

    July

    …

    …

    …

    …

    13

    9

    (provisional)

    Information for later months is not yet available. In reply to the latter part of the question, I am advised that there has been an increase of 2s. per tan in the pit-head prices of household coal in those districts supplying the bulk of the household coal consumed in London.

    LAND CULTIVATION.
    Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. MACLEAN)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any action is being taken by his Department to increase the number of areas which are to be placed under cultivation?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): Practically all the activities of my Department are designed to encourage and increase agricultural productivity.

    WOMAN'S DEATH, MARYLEBONE ROAD.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Annie Haughney, who was killed by falling out of a window at a private hotel in Marylebone Road; and if he will instruct the police to make full inquiries into this case?
    Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has seen Press reports. The police make the necessary inquiries in cases of this kind in normal course.

    "DAILY WORKER" NEWSPAPER.
    Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. W. J. BROWN)asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make any statement as to the raiding of the offices of the "Daily Worker" and the Utopia Press on 13th September and the censoring of the contents of the issue for the following day?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. The position remains as indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member's question of Wednesday last.

    BROADCASTING FACILITIES (POLITICAL PARTIES).
    Mr. THURTLE(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that strong feeling exists that broadcasting facilities are being used in a partisan manner so far as political broadcasts are concerned, and whether he will take steps to see that the Labour party as the main opposition to the present Government is provided with a reasonable opportunity of stating its case over the wireless.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I understand that negotiations are taking place with a view to arriving at an agreed allocation of broadcasting facilities between the various parties.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the country as a whole does not accept for a moment the fiction that this is a National Government?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Mosley party be given reasonable facilities?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should like to make it clear that I am in no sense empowered to interfere in any way with what the British Broadcasting Corporation do or do not do.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is it a fact that Sir John Simon has staked a claim for this purpose?

    PROCEDURE ON PUBLIC BUSINESS.
    Special Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence,
    1092
    brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
    Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
  That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution:
  "That any notices published or served and any deposits made in respect of the London Passenger Transport Bill in the present Session, as also the Proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to have been published, served, and made, and to have effect, respectively, for the Bill if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of £20,700,000 out of the Consolidated Fund.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask a further question about transitional benefit. Although quite a number of questions have been put, some dubiety still exists as to whether the people who apply for transitional benefit will be examined as to their means test in a Poor Law institution. The Minister of Labour—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see that that question arises on this Clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power for the Treasury to borrow.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am still not quite clear, in spite of the answers that have been given relating to transitional benefit, as to whether applicants for transitional benefit will be examined in Poor Law institutions, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Appropriation of sums voted for supply services.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. STEPHEN: I would like some Member of the Government to explain the meaning of the word "institution"—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No such question arises on this Clause.
  Mr. KELLY: As the First Lord of the admiralty is present—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No question arises on this Clause affecting the Board of Admiralty.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 4 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. STEPHEN: I want to make a few observations upon the Third Reading of this Measure. The House has agreed to Estimates providing a certain amount of Supply, and those Estimates are covered by this Bill. I understand that part of the money dealt with in this Bill is connected with the administration of the Ministry of Labour, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to tell me how the Ministry intend to work the arrangements for paying out the money provided for in this Bill in connection with the testing of applicants for transitional benefit. I want to know whether the word "institution" includes offices of Poor Law authorities. The word "institution" may be taken in a more limited sense, and I would like to be clear as to the assurance that has been given by the Minister on this point.
  Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I think hon. Members are in a difficulty as to the last line in the Schedule, and that we should have some more information upon it. We want to know how the money is to be expended. It is important that more light should be thrown upon the question as to the amount of additional expense which will be entailed by the proposition to make inquiries into the case of men whose transitional benefit is in jeopardy. As far as I can understand the policy of the National Government during its period of office, it has consisted in making attempts to limit the opportunities of employment for practically all classes of the community. It is clear that there will have to be new premises erected in which the applicants

  1113
  for transitional benefit may be examined as to their needs. It is also clear that there will be a great many additional clerks needed to conduct the investigations required under the legislation already passed by the National Government. If I were advising anybody who was looking for a job, I should say that the likeliest possibility of getting one at this moment is to apply for a clerkship to examine the unemployed as to whether they should have their unemployment benefit considered or not. As far as I can see, that is the only contribution that has been made by this Government to the unemployment problem as we see it to-day, and I make a present of it to all the supporters of the National Government. When they go to the polls they will be able to say that the Government have at least done this one thing, that the very last moments of the present House of Commons were spent in providing money for the opening of new offices for the purpose of inquisitorial examination into the means of the unemployed, and for providing additional clerkships and inquiries so that those unemployed people may unbosom themselves in order that economies may be effected in the national income.
  I want, however, to get from the Minister, if possible, some precise information on these two points: Does this Bill make provision for any approximate number of new clerks, and if so how many; and does it provide for any considerable addition of new premises? If we understand the answers of the Minister of Labour at Question Time, these men are not to be examined Poor Law institutions, which we know familiarly as workhouses. I was rather sorry that the Minister of Labour rode away from my supplementary question as to whether they were to be examined in Poor Law offices, because the administrative office of the Poor Law may not be the workhouse, but may just as easily and just as rightly be regarded as—
  Mr. BEAUMONT: On a point of Order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members to read newspapers in the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; there is a very well understood rule that it is not in order.
  Mr. WINTERTON: I am sorry that, on a matter which affects very vitally a great number of unemployed men and women in this country, and when an effort is being made to discover what provision there will be for the examination of these men and women and whether they are to be spared from the pauper taint, the only contribution that comes from the opposite benches is a frivolous interrup-tion—
  Mr. BEAUMONT: On a point of Order. Is it in order, if a question is raised in defence of the Rules of this House, for it to be referred to as a frivolous interruption?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter of opinion. Hon. Members may always raise, on a point of Order, anything that they think it is important to put to me.
  Mr. WINTERTON: All I can say is—and you would, of course, have called me to order had I been out of order—that in my opinion, if it was not a frivolous interruption, it was a very unseemly interruption, considering the importance and seriousness of this issue to large numbers of unemployed people in this country. I want to press my hon. Friend on Ole Government Bench on these two specific points: What is the estimate of the additional aceommodation that will be required for these inquisitorial investigations into means; and, secondly, has he made any estimate of the number of additional staff that will be required in order to carry out the purpose of the Bill? Obviously, the Rear relieving officers are simply going to be crushed by the burden of work that will be imposed upon them by the Measures of the National Government, and I hope that they are going to be adequately relieved of that great burden by proper and effective assistance being granted to them. I take it that the Ministry has gone into that point, and will be able to tell the House how much of this money it is contemplated can be ear-marked for that purpose, and also what is the estimated cost of the renting of new offices or buildings for the special work which is entailed by the Measures which have been adopted by the National Government.
  Mr. EDE: I want to put the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) definitely

  1115
  before the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to my own constituency. Applicants for out-relief have their circumstances investigated at four separate points. One is the old Poor Law institution, which consists of the infirmary, the casual wards, and so on. I understand that applicants for transitional benefit will not have their circumstances investigated there. In addition to that place, there are three other places. One is the office of the defunct board of guardians, where a relief committee meets. That is not an institution; it is more than a mile and a half away; but, of course, the investigations there have hitherto been solely concerned with Poor Law cases. There are two other relief stations in other parts of the borough, where relief committees meet and investigate cases. As I understand the Minister's answer, it merely amounts to this, that the first place I have mentioned, namely, the institution, may not be used, but there is nothing in the answers given by the Minister that would preclude the use of the other three places for the purpose of investigating these cases. I wish to say nothing more than that. It puts the point quite specifically before the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope we may get a perfectly plain answer to what I think is a perfectly plain question, straightly put.
  Mr. MARLEY: I want to follow up the point which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I put a supplementary question, in answer to which the Minister assured me that, where the offices and casual ward were in the same building, that place would not be used. I want a definite assurance upon that point, because in my Division that is the only place where investigation takes place at the moment. There is one entrance on the left-hand side into the casual ward, and the other leads into a yard where the offices of the Poor Law authority and the investigation committee are. I want the assurance made doubly sure that that place will not be used for the investigation. of the claims of these men. It is no use attempting to take away the taint of the Poor Law if you send these people to the very place which is known as the Poor Law institution and the outdoor relief place; and the Ministry ought to be careful, in congested areas like my
  1116
  own, if they are going to take other premises, to see that they are covered by the Supplementary Estimate. All over London, as far as I have been able to observe, outdoor relief is investigated at the present moment at offices which are next to the casual wards or the institution, and, if premises are going to be taken at a distance from those places, it will involve a much heavier expenditure upon premises and rent than I imagine is covered in the Supplementary Estimate. I hope we shall have a definite assurance that these people will not be examined at these out-relief stations which are commonly known as Poor Law relief stations in practically all the boroughs of London, and are right on top of the casual ward.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Before the House disperses, I hope the hon. Gentleman representing the Ministry of Labour will be able to give us some much better information than we have had up to the present, because before the House reassembles there is going to be considerable confusion in the constituencies and among the local authorities. Public assistance committees to-day are not only faced with all this additional work which is being thrown upon them, but the lead given by the National Government quite recently has been taken up with acclamation by many reactionary public bodies throughout the country. I gave an example at Question Time to-day that is going to mean additional work for some of the sub-committees of public assistance committees. The Middlesex County Council, the wealthiest in the Kingdom, thought they would be patriotic and follow the lead of the National Government, and they set up an economy committee of seven persons, who have now commenced to make drastic cuts in all directions. The blind persons sub-committee is recommending that half-a-crown a week be cut off the allowances. That will make additional work for the public assistance committee. In addition, the public assistance committees throughout Middlesex—and I expect the same thing is happening in other counties—yesterday found that they had instructions to reduce the scale of unemployment relief by 2s. 9d. a week. That means that all cases of unemployment relief will have to be reviewed and the circumstances gone into again and reductions made. On top of all this,

  1117
  probably within three months nearly 1,000,000 unemployed men are going to be brought before the public assistance committees to have their conditions investigated and have a Poor Law test put upon them. It does not seem to be a matter of great importance to me whether the Poor Law test is put upon them in a Poor Law institution or anywhere else. It is what actually happens that matters, and not the place in which it takes place.
  The question I endeavoured to put at Question Time was whether it was intended that public assistance committees should hold meetings in the Employment Exchanges. Has any arrangement been made, or have any negotiations taken place between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health in order that public assistance committees should hold their meetings and examine applicants inside the Employment Exchanges? I hope that before we rise, the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some clear understanding as to what is going to take place. These members of public assistance committees work in a voluntary capacity. They give a great deal of time to a very thankless job. It was bad enough before the National Government came, and now they are to add to it the question of cutting down the allowances of blind people and cutting down outdoor relief allowances to unemployed people; and on top of that they are going to be asked to deal with the ordinary unemployed.
  I can scarcely believe that the Government are going to rush into this thing and risk a breakdown of the whole machinery. We certainly have had no information that adequate arrangements have been made. Several things have happened within the last few weeks which have not happened in the lifetime of the oldest Member of the House. The British Navy has refused to do its duty, and there have been riots of unemployed men in many of the large towns. The teachers are in a state of discontent that has never been equalled in my lifetime. If that is going to take place before the Actual work of cutting down the unemployment benefit has really commenced, I am afraid there is going to be even more confusion when the job is tackled within the next few weeks. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to
  1118
  reassure us that the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, have really made adequate arrangements to carry out this very difficult job, otherwise the responsibility for any disturbances that may happen will rest upon them.
  Mr.. LO GAN: I am most anxious to see that some kind of genuine working arrangement is arrived 'at, knowing the difficulty, in view of the Dissolution, that you may be rushed into doing things that may be wrong from the point of view of administration. There is a conflict of opinion, or rather, to be quite correct about it, there is no opinion at all. Neither the Ministry of Labour nor the Ministry of Health has any idea in regard to how this thing is to be managed. No man living knows what you intend to do, and no body of guardians knows what the instructions are in respect of the Orders that you are going to issue. I should imagine, in view of the great gatherings of unemployed that we have had in the large cities, that one of the most deplorable sights would be an organised body of people having no definite place to go to, with no one able to tell them where they have to go. It is useless to talk about granting money when we do not know what we are granting it for. We have done many things in the House without knowing what we have been doing, and we have seen the result of it on those benches.
  We see it to-day. We have to face the people and tell them what you mean, and we do not know what you mean yet. If there is any time when you ought to know your minds, it is to-day. We have been long enough trying to find out whether you know your mind. Now there is a doubt, and we are entitled to know. To what board are applicants for assistance to go? Where will their claims be tried? We are told that it will not be in a Poor Law institution and not at the Ministry of Labour. What offices are you going to set up where these people are to be dealt with? I do not know any in Liverpool which will come under any designation in accordance with the answer we have had given us to-day. Surely we are not going to use the banks to deal with these cases. Surely we are not going to have a concentration of banking houses where the committees will hold their meetings.

  1119
  I do not want to tax your brains too much by asking pertinent questions. It is not wise at this moment to put too many pertinent questions to you, but the people whom I represent will be more pertinent than I have been, and they want to know. I am going back to Liverpool, and I do not want to get the information in the newspapers. That is where I have got most of my political information from. I am face to face with the Minister now. Will he tell me what Department it is to be in? Rather than set up establishments, would it not be wiser that these boards of guardians and members of public assistance committees, co-opted and elected, should go to the Ministry of Labour to deal with these cases, from the point of view of expense and from the point of view of the stigma of the Poor Law We shall relieve your anxiety, which I want to protect, and see that you come back again. I am most anxious about that. I am most anxious that the taint of pauperism shall not be placed upon our people. Can we have a plain answer as to whether you are going to use the present buildings either of the Poor Law institutions or of the Ministry of Labour, or whether you are going to use the Ministry of Labour offices only, so that the members of public assistance committees will deal with those cases inside the Ministry of Labour offices?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Milner Gray): The speeches which have been addressed to the House have shown a genuine anxiety on the part of Members of the House to know exactly what will take place with regard to this matter. I will try to explain the procedure as far as it can be explained, for Members will realise that we are having to carry out an entirely new service as far as the Ministry of Labour are concerned. The unemployed who will become applicants for transitional payments will remain essentially under the care of the Ministry of Labour. We are not turning them over either to the Poor Law or to anything else. They remain in our care, and under the Acts that have been passed their needs have to be ascertained before they can receive transitional payment. Therefore, what we have to do is to make arrangements for the assessing of their needs.
  1120
  It has been decided—I am not going to discuss here whether it is right or wrong—that it is better to use the existing machinery for the purpose. Although it is used by other bodies and for a different class of persons, it is better to use the machinery which exists. Therefore, we are using the Poor Law assistance committees, who, acting as our agents, will assess the claims and the amounts to be received. As a result of that, we have had to negotiate with the Ministry of Health, and in conjunction with the Ministry of Health we are trying to arrange the most satisfactory arid effective method of carrying out the task.
  I do not know that I can add in detail very much more to what the Minister said in reply to a question at Question Time to-day. Our desire is to keep this class of applicant as distinct and as remote as possible from what may be regarded as the ordinary administration of the Poor Law. That is why we have at least gone as far as saying that we do not propose, and will riot consent, except in very exceptional circumstances, to their going to a Poor Law institution. Arising out of that, a number of specific questions have been put. to me in regard to a specific city as to whether a place which is being used for dealing with Poor Law cases at the present time is part of an institution. I submit to hon. Members that it is impossible for me to give a detailed answer on a specific case as to what will be done in a specific city when this procedure is being carried out. All that the House can expect from me, I think, is that we should be quite open and plain—and I always try to be that in this House—and say what we intend to try to carry out. Our object is to get the assessment of these claims made with the minimum of friction, annoyance, and discomfort.
  We know quite as well as hon. Members opposite that none of the applicants is likely to like this procedure, but we have to find some means of assessing the claims. I can assure the House that at the Ministry of Labour we shall do our utmost to remove the stigma of the Poor Law as far as possible. We do not regard that as applying to these cases at all. You have to remember that we are acting in conjunction with a public authority

  1121
  which is not the Ministry of Labour. The public assistance committees are public bodies. We shall use the Employment Exchanges where there is accommodation in the Exchanges, and where the public assistance committees find that they can work in that way. The intention of the Ministry of Labour is to do all that we possibly can to remove sources of friction which can be avoided, and, as regards taking fresh buildings, where it is necessary and where it is the most satisfactory and economical way of dealing with the matter, the Ministry have decided that we shall not resist the extra cost which may be involved of taking new and fresh premises where the taking of fresh premises is justified. The House must realise that we ourselves are having to explore a new situation and to work out a new procedure, and I do not think the House would ask me to do more than I have done in saying that we will do our very utmost to avoid any discomfort or friction which we can possibly help.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third Time, and passed.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that a Royal Commission is -to be held at Four o'Clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill,
Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Bill,
Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Bill, without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER(standing in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission, under the Great Seal, was read, authorising the Royal Assent to—

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1931.

1122

2. Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act, 1931.

3. Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1931.

4. Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1931.

5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe) Act, 1931.

6. London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Act, 1931.

PROROGATION.
  HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of His Majesty's Command as followeth:

  MY LORDS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
  MY relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
  I have been following with interest and sympathy the resumed deliberations of the Round Table Conference. I trust that joint endeavour may produce an agreement on a plan which will commend itself to the judgment of wise statesmanship.

  MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
  I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.

  MY LORDS AND MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS,
  In the last few weeks My people have been called upon to face a financial and economic crisis which continues to give cause for anxiety. The measures taken by My Ministers, with the support of Parliament, to meet this emergency, involve sacrifices from every member of the community. I am confident that, as on former occasions in the history of the Country, every citizen will cooperate to the utmost of his power in restoring prosperity to the Nation.
  I have given My assent to Measures necessary to balance the National Budget.
  An Act has been passed to amend the law relating to the Gold Standard.
  My assent has also been given to a Measure to ensure the public against exploitation in regard to the supply or price of certain articles of general consumption.
  In bidding you farewell, I earnestly commend you to the merciful protection and guidance of Almighty God.
  Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords:
  After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.— By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords
  1124
  directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the Twenty-seventh day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued until Tuesday, the Twenty-seventh day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one.
  End of the Second Session (opened Tuesday, 28th October, 1930) of the Thirty-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Twenty-second year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Fifth.

MANCHURIA.
  ARMS, IMPORTATION.
  ARMS, IMPORTATION.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS DISCUSSIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS DISCUSSIONS.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  MOTOR COACHES, KENT (SPEED).
  MOTOR COACHES, KENT (SPEED).
  AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).
  AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).
  LIGHT-HORSE BREEDING GRANT.
  LIGHT-HORSE BREEDING GRANT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ALLOTMENTS, SCOTLAND.
  ALLOTMENTS, SCOTLAND.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  NORTH KENT.
  NORTH KENT.
  ROYAL NAVY (CREOSOTE OIL).
  ROYAL NAVY (CREOSOTE OIL).
  WATER-POWER SCHEME, GALLOWAY.
  WATER-POWER SCHEME, GALLOWAY.
EDUCATION.
  CHILD'S DEATH, WOLVERHAMPTON.
  CHILD'S DEATH, WOLVERHAMPTON.
  DEFICIENCY GRANTS.
  DEFICIENCY GRANTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (TEXTILE SECTION).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (TEXTILE SECTION).
  MEN'S AND BOYS' SUITS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  MEN'S AND BOYS' SUITS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  BRITISH SHIPPING.
  BRITISH SHIPPING.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  POLICE SALARIES, WALES.
  POLICE SALARIES, WALES.
  IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURES AND MACHINERY.
  IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURES AND MACHINERY.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  DEATH DUTIES (ESTATE COMPANIES).
  DEATH DUTIES (ESTATE COMPANIES).
  TAXATION (FOOD, DRINK, AND TOBACCO).
  TAXATION (FOOD, DRINK, AND TOBACCO).
  ENEMY DEBTS CLEARING OFFICE (STAFF).
  ENEMY DEBTS CLEARING OFFICE (STAFF).
  FOREIGN PARCEL POST CHARGES.
  FOREIGN PARCEL POST CHARGES.
  HOUSING (PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BOARD ADVANCES).
  HOUSING (PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BOARD ADVANCES).
  WINE AND BEER (CONSUMPTION).
  WINE AND BEER (CONSUMPTION).
  ZAMBESI BRIDGE.
  ZAMBESI BRIDGE.
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have come to the following Resolution: That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be suspended till the next Session of Parliament.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, after the Message which we have just heard read I beg to move the Resolution which is printed on the Order Paper—namely, That any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of the Bill in the present Session, as also the proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to have been published, served and made and to have effect respectively for the Bill if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament. In moving this Resolution, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that we are not discussing the merits of the Bill. That will be done when the Bill is sent to this House from the Commons, and there will be full opportunity then for all stages of the Bill to be dealt with.
It will be within the recollection of the House that Lord Hailsham, when he was Leader of the House and when the proposal to appoint five of your Lordships upon the Joint Committee was before this House, laid it down emphatically that, in appointing members to that Committee, your Lordships retained full power to deal with the Bill in this House, and were not committed in any way. Your Lordships will also have noticed that this Resolution passed unanimously through the House of Commons last night, and I noticed that Sir Basil Peto, who was one of the members of the House of Commons who sat on the Joint Committee, strongly approved of the Prime Minister's proposal to carry this Bill over. The chief reason which actuated the Government
276
in proposing to carry it over was the great expense that has been involved, and that would be wasted if the Bill died now. It is calculated that something like £40,000 would be charged to the Treasury for expenditure for counsel and other matters during the thirty-five or thirty-six days in which the Bill was considered before the Joint Committee. In the case of the Bill passing, that charge would fall on the new Transport Board, but if the Bill is dropped now the Transport Board will not come into existence, and the large sum of £40,000, which I have mentioned, would fall upon the Treasury. That was one of the Government's chief reasons for asking for a Resolution to carry the Bill over.
As regards the question of precedent, which my noble friend Lord Hanworth and other noble Lords raised yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted a precedent last night in the House of Commons—the occasion when Mr. Balfour moved that the Port of London Authority Bill, which was a Private Bill, should be carried over from one Session to another. I grant that this is not quite the same case. That Bill was not carried over a Dissolution but only over a Prorogation. I also said yesterday—and this was taken exception to—that this Bill is a hybrid Bill. Although it was started by the Government, there were a lot of private interests concerned. It became a hybrid Bill, and thus differed to some extent from what is usually described as a Public Bill. As your Lordships know, by a Motion which the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, moved last week, all Private Bills are carried over. This being a Public Bill, or a hybrid Bill, whichever you like to call it, does not come in the same category, but I hope that, for the reasons I have given, your Lordships will decide to pass this Resolution. The Resolution passed in another place secures that the Bill will be considered again next Session in the House of Commons, and I again remind your Lordships that it is open to you to do exactly what you like with the Bill when it comes up to you. It will be brought here from the House of Commons, and will have to go through Second Reading and Committee in this House. I hope, therefore, that in moving this Resolution I shall meet with your Lordships'

277
support, and that you will agree to it, as it was agreed to in the House of Commons last night. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of the Bill in the present Session, as also the proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to have been published, served and made and to have effect respectively for the Bill if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament. —(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Resolution moved by the noble Earl, if I understand its terms rightly, is in the precise form that is applied to an ordinary Private Bill where it is proposed to carry it over from Session to Session, or from Parliament to Parliament. Of course, our Private Bill legislation is of a quasi-judicial character and that procedure has long been adopted and is followed as being prudent and just to the parties concerned; the reason being that, in private legislation, we are really dealing with matters that arise between private bodies, and the matters are referred to a Committee as a matter of course for judicial decision. I think there is no doubt about what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, the other night that, so far as Public Bills are concerned, no such procedure has ever been followed. There is no precedent that I have been able to find anywhere. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will bear in mind that various members have, from time to time, brought forward in another place the question of carrying a Public Bill over from Session to Session, though I am not aware that it was ever proposed to carry it over from Parliament to Parliament.
EARL PEEL: The Port of London Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not put that Bill in the category for a moment. I am talking of the general principle. It is not a matter upon which we need have any contention. So far as I understand the fact that we have to give a decision is agreed all round. What I am putting to the noble Earl is that those members of the other House who desired that
278
matters should stand over from Session to Session were opposed by people who thought that legislation was easy enough anyhow, and that it was just as well not to give additional facilities for it. I may mention this curiosity of the present decision, that if I had stood up and made the proposal which the noble Earl has brought forward uproar might have taken place. It is suggested that there is a precedent in the Port of London Bill. I do not think that that ever was a precedent. Certainly, it never came to be tested as a precedent in any form, and I agreed with the Chairman of Committees when he said that it is quite a mistake to suggest that that was a precedent for what is being proposed in the present case.
The strength of the Motion as brought forward by the noble Earl is, no doubt, that there has been a large expenditure of time and money and it is a pity that it should be thrown away. We shall all sympathise with that, and although I do not want to go into the merits of the question I am strongly in favour of the proposals of the Bill as they at present, stand, and of the arguments with which it was supported by the then Traffic Minister, Mr. Morrison. It is, however, important in these matters that precedent should be carefully considered. Just as it is said that what is meant by security is certainty of expectation, so what is meant by protection of our free decision is the certainty that our procedure shall be maintained.
I am not going to oppose the Motion of the noble Earl, because I understand that it is supported by the present Leader of the House, Lord Peel, which in my opinion is a very strong matter when this sort of question has to be considered. But why should you have this as a precedent? This Resolution, if we adopt it, and it is adopted by the House of Commons, will not be binding upon another Parliament. You cannot in one Parliament put any restriction whatever upon what is known as the sovereignty of Parliament. Therefore when the next Parliament meets, if it is desired and thought right that the Bill should be taken up and carried on from the stage which it has already reached, it will be within the power of that Parliament to do so, and that is where the question will arise. On the other hand, if the new Parliament adopted the view put

279
forward by some members that considering all the conditions under which the Bill has arrived at its present stage it would not be right to go on without beginning the procedure over again, that, of course, can be done.
Whatever you do now is in the hands of the next Parliament, and whatever you do does not fetter their power or discretion, one way or the other. I dislike what has been called by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, unprecedented procedure. I do not think there is any precedent for a proposal of this kind, but I certainly should not oppose it if the Government in power think it necessary and right, and are prepared to support it. At the same time I hope my opinion will go forward, for what it is worth, that these changes in procedure of an exceptional kind ought not to be adopted, except in very exceptional circumstances, and I doubt whether the present circumstances have that exceptional nature. Subject to that, I have no doubt that the noble Earl will succeed in passing his Motion.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, I think it is important that you should fully appreciate that what we are discussing is a Resolution relating to a Public Bill. It is of no use saying that it is in the nature of a Private Bill. It is a Public Bill. A Private Bill is initiated and has its birth by very different procedure from that by which a Public Bill is brought forward in this House. This Bill was introduced as a Public Bill and it remains a Public Bill. The mere fact that it has opposed to it some particular interests involved does not alter the character and nature given to it at the time when it was introduced as a Public Bill. You are being asked to carry over that Bill not only to a new Session but to a new Parliament. I think it is very important indeed to make it quite plain that we are talking about a Public Bill, for it would be very unfortunate if any doubt were cast upon the procedure which has been adopted, time and again, in reference to Private Bills, relating to railways, water, electric lighting, and so forth, numbers of which will be found in the authoritative text book of Parliamentary procedure by Sir Erskine May to have been carried over from Session to Session.
280
You are now asked to deal with this Public Bill and to carry it over not only to a new Session, but to a new Parliament. Yesterday I quoted to your Lordships the fact that on two occasions where proceedings had been commenced by way of impeachment it was found necessary in both cases to pass an Act of Parliament to enable them to be continued, in the case of an adjournment by Dissolution. There is another case to which I think I ought to call attention. In divorce proceedings in respect of misconduct committed in India it was found to be impossible for the evidence to come from India to be dealt with in the same Session or in the same Parliament, and in 1820 the matter was dealt with by Statute, and it was dealt with to enable those proceedings to be carried on in spite of a new Session or a new Parliament. The recital to that Act is as follows:
"Whereas by the usage and custom of Parliament no proceedings by Bill in Parliament have continuance from one Session to another."
The Act was passed.
The matter does not rest there. In 1890, at the instance of Mr. Balfour, a Committee was set up to deal with the rule that at the end of the Session all Bills only partly discussed lapsed completely. The Committee sat. Mr. Balfour was Chairman, and there was a sharp contest upon the Committee. The proposal to carry over the Bills to a new Session—not to a new Parliament—was strongly opposed, and particularly by a minority headed by Mr. Gladstone, who embodied his objections in a Minority Report. The Majority Report was only that of a bare majority. Looking at an authoritative book on the procedure of Parliament I read this:
"The recommendation was only adopted in the Committee after a close Division, and was strongly opposed by a minority headed by Mr. Gladstone.… As a matter of fact the House has never, to this day, adopted the idea."
That is in reference to Public Bills, and reasons are given, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, for saying that it would be a difficult procedure to adopt to the convenience of both Houses of Parliament. But I think I have indicated, from the precedents to which I have referred and from the Report of that Committee, that your Lordships are now being asked to take a step which is

281
doing some violence to the custom of Parliament as so far understood.
The present case is one in which it is said much money would be lost to the promoters. It may be, and indeed I personally think that the procedure of carrying over Bilk from one Session to another might be a useful procedure to adopt. It would, in fact, relieve your Lordships of what is a very embarrassing situation which occurs from time to time at the end of the Session, when a great number of Bills are brought to your Lordships' House, and no adequate discussion is possible. If it were possible to carry over such measures to another Session your Lordships' House would probably have an opportunity of doing extremely good work in amending those Bills. If I may give an illustration of the sort of difficulty in which your Lordships are placed, let me refer to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which was before this House when the late Lord Cave sat oil the Woolsack. I think it was the Lord Chancellor who, at the end of December, withdrew a whole batch of clauses, agreeing that as they stood they were quite incomprehensible, unworkable, and unwise. Next day he produced another batch of clauses which your Lordships had to take. They were better than the previous ones, and your Lordships accepted them. If it had been possible to carry that Bill over to a new Session, I have no doubt that more mature thought and a better opportunity would have been given to it, and better work would have been done.
I speak, therefore, as in no sense hostile to a considered procedure for the carrying over of a Bill to a new Session. But here we are asked to go even further, we are asked to carry over a Bill to a new Parliament. I do not think there is any real precedent for carrying over a Bill of this sort to a new Parliament—the case of the Port of London Authority is really no case governing the present—and I have intervened only to offer to your Lordships some information which I happened to have the opportunity of finding, and to point out that your Lordships are now being asked to do something which has never been done before. It might be wise to have the procedure, and if it were done after consideration, well and good. I say nothing about that, but I do think it is important that these matters should be placed before your Lordships in debate, in order that they
282
may be made quite plain, and when a new Parliament comes into being that it may recognise that its hands are completely free to do what it likes with a Bill. All that will happen is that the evidence taken before the Committee so far will stand good, if and so far as a new Committee seeks to make use of it. As a matter of fact, the Bill, as I understand, was introduced and carried through, not by the present Government but by the previous Government. The present Government have, so to speak, accepted it filially from the old Government, and now they are going to hand it on to the grandchildren of the originators of the Bill. I hope that these grandchildren will understand that they are as free and unfettered as the younger generation feel themselves always to be to-day.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition., because he is quite right in saying what a storm there would have been if he had proposed such a Motion from the Government Benches when he was Leader of the House. As regards this particular procedure, I should like the Chairman of Committees to tell us a little more. I am not quite confident yet that I thoroughly understood that the procedure as regards Private Bills applies not from one Session to another, but from one Parliament to another. Because, to my mind, that makes the whole difference. If that is so, there may be something to be said for saving expense, as this is a hybrid Bill, for, though it is a Public Bill, it is not exactly of the same nature as an ordinary Public Bill. I am sure your Lordships are greatly indebted to Lord Hanworth for the case he stated and pressed. I am afraid I cannot possibly agree with him that it would be a good thing for Public Bills to be carried on from one Session to another. There would be no finality at all. And, as regards carrying over from one Parliament to another, it is unthinkable.
It has been said that this is not a precedent, but may I call your Lordships' attention to what Mr. Alexander, lately First Lord of the Admiralty, said in the House of Commons last night? He welcomed the decision of the Government, but thought it a pity that other Bills on

283
which there had been a large expenditure of time and money, like the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and the Consumers' Council Bill, were also carried forward. What a horrible blister that is for the future if such a procedure were to be adopted. As regards this Bill, I quite agree with what previous speakers have said that the case of the Port of London Authority Bill is no precedent at all. That was more or less an agreed Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL PEEL): No.
LORD JESSEL: The noble Earl says "No," and I understand that he will answer that. At all events, this is a most contentious Bill, and, so far from there being agreement, I understand that, although we were told that the railway companies had agreed upon it, the Metropolitan Railway Company are very dissatisfied. The London County Council certainly is not agreed upon this Bill, and other local authorities with which I am acquainted are not agreed upon it. Therefore, there is a great deal of difference of opinion upon this important Bill. But I quite recognise that a great deal of money has been spent upon it, and, whatever Government is in power—I hope it will be the National Government—will have to bring in some sort of Bill dealing with London traffic next Session. Therefore, as I said originally when I put a Question on the subject, I am not going to oppose this Motion. At the same time, I wish to place on record my strong dissent from any proposals that this should be regarded as a precedent for carrying over from one Parliament to another—not only from one Session to another—Public Bills brought in by any Government. Therefore I am very glad that such expressions of opinion have come forth not only from myself but from other noble Lords in regard to the procedure adopted in this case.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I say at once that I entirely and absolutely agree with what has fallen from noble Lords in regard to the extreme undesirability of considering this procedure which is proposed to your Lordships to-day in the light of a precedent
284
for the future. I think the analogy, I hardly like to call it the precedent, of the Port of London Bill need not have any great stress laid upon it. I think the real argument for carrying this proposal through lies in the merits of the case, the saving of the money which will otherwise be put to the charge both of the promoters and the opponents of the Bill, because the petitioners will suffer considerably in pocket. It is perfectly true that this is a Public Bill; strictly speaking it is a Public Bill. Like any other Bill introduced by the Government it is a Public Bill. But it is a hybrid Bill, as I said yesterday, and a hybrid Bill is a Public Bill which is in the nature of a Private Bill. But that does not alter the situation and does not bring it under the consideration of Private Bill procedure.
My noble friend behind me put a specific question to me in regard to what has been done in the past at the time of a Dissolution of Parliament in the matter of carrying over Private Bills. I have in my hand the Minutes of May 9, 1929, which I think was the day before the Dissolution. A Resolution was moved then in regard to Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. It is at page 791 of the Minutes and your Lordships can find it there. I will not read it out as it is very long indeed, but I might read one paragraph which is at the bottom of the page:
"That the proceedings on such Bills shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages."
LORD PARMOOR: There is no question as regards Private Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. That has been the procedure for a long time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, that is what I was saying to my noble friend behind me. I have informed him that the procedure had been in force for a long time. Then on May 10, an alphabetical list of Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills was printed. That, I think, answers the question of my noble friend in regard to Private Bill procedure. We are asked really to apply this Private Bill procedure to this particular hybrid Bill, and it might interest your Lordships if I were to say what I am told would happen if your Lordships

285
were not to agree with this Resolution. As your Lordships are aware, a Standing Order has been passed in another place and I imagine the result of that, will be that the Bill will be introduced in another place in the next Session, or It may be considered as having passed all its stages up to that which it has reached at present. If it goes forward it will come to your Lordships' House in the ordinary way as a "Bill brought from the Commons."
Then it would go before the Examiners to see whether it had complied with Standing Orders, and if they reported that Standing Orders had been complied with—I could not say and I do not suppose that the Examiners could say with-out going into the whole matter whether Standing Orders would have been complied with or not—the Bill would go forward. If they reported that Standing Orders had not been complied with, then the Bill would go before the Standing Orders Committee with that Report and the Committee would decide whether it should recommend your Lordships' House to dispense with Standing Orders or to insist upon them. If they decided that it was impossible to dispense with Standing Orders the Report of the Standing Orders Committee would come before your Lordships' House and your Lordships would decide whether to accept the Report or not. If you decided to accept the Report and not to dispense with Standing Orders then the Bill would fall. But really all that would happen in those circumstances would be that you would be rejecting the Bill in the same way as you would be able to reject it on Second Reading; so that the opponents of the Bill are not being put at a disadvantage—at least, that is my humble private opinion.
Your Lordships will observe that the Notice states that in the event of a Message being received from the Commons the Earl of Lucan would move to resolve
"that any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of the Bill in the present Session, as also the proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to hare been published "
and so forth. I am informed that your Lordships are in no way fettered by this Resolution in regard to what you may
286
wish to do in the next Parliament. You may say that having given the Bill a Second Reading you will refer it to a Select Committee for consideration. It is perfectly open to your Lordships to do that quite regardless of there having been a Joint Select Committee sitting on the Bill in this Parliament. You could appoint a new Committee if you wished to do so, or you could deal with the Bill in any other way that you thought proper. So I do not think your Lordships will bind yourselves in any way. If you saw fit to agree with the proposal, it would be a saving of the expense that has been incurred. If your Lordships take that course I earnestly hope that it may be the general opinion of your Lordships that this shall be in no case a precedent for the carrying over of a Public Bill, but that particularly in a time of crisis you are assisting the promoters and the opponents to fight this matter out—because I gather (I have no knowledge of the merits of the case) that it is a highly contentious Bill—with the least possible cost. That is all I have to say and I think I have answered the question of my noble friend behind me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I have very few observations to address to your Lordships' House. The only reason I have for inflicting any speech upon you is that I do not think I ought to remain silent on a question like this. Let me say at once that I agree with all the remarks that have been made by my noble friends the Master of the Rolls and the former Leader of the House. I particularly agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl and do not differ in a single sentence from what he said. In my view there is no precedent for this proposal. It is entirely unprecedented. But there is another thing which is entirely unprecedented—the time in which we live. I hope that the precedent will never be repeated. I hope even more that the crisis through which this country is passing at the present moment will never be repeated.
We are in great difficulties. Speaking with full responsibility as a member of the Govenment I ask your Lordships to pass this Resolution. I offer no opinion as to whether it will bind any future Parliament; but I will give this opinion

287
and give it to your Lordships quite bluntly—that your Lordships will be in the wrong if you fail to pass the Resolution. Its whole object is the endeavour to save expense. If it is not passed we shall have thrown away thousands of pounds to a quite useless purpose. By passing this Resolution your Lordships do not prejudice your rights with regard to this Bill when it comes before you in any single jot or tittle. What you will do is to prevent the throwing away of thousands of pounds of public money at a time of crisis like this when economy must be the order of the day. At any rate, by this gesture you will show that you intend to do all you can to help the country. I beg your Lordships to pass this Resolution.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, if I may add one word I would do so, though it is perhaps not necessary after what the Lord Chancellor has said. I listened with great interest to what was said about the precedent. When I was informed that there was a good precedent in August of 1903 in the case of the Port of London Bill I took it upon myself to say that it was a bad precedent and not a good one. I am rather pleased from a legal point of view to find that all the great lawyers in the House entirely agree with me as to that. Nevertheless, I think it is remarkable that a great Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Balfour, did contemplate, in his answer to a question that that Bill should be carried over not only for the Session but after the Dissolution. He was asked a question as to whether the Bill was carried over for a Session of the existing Parliament, or, in the event of a Dissolution, to a new Parliament, and he stated that the carrying over was quite irrespective of a Dissolution. No doubt, that is not a precedent, but it is rather remarkable that such a course seems to have been contemplated with equanimity by a great Conservative Prime Minister.
The only other point I should like to emphasise is this. Of course we do retain entire power over the Bill in this House. Our powers are not prejudiced in the least. We shall be able to amend it or throw it out on Second Reading when it comes up, or oppose anything in it which we do not like. Speaking for myself I wish to say that there is nothing I dislike more than setting up any prece-
288
dent for carrying over Public Bills. I cannot imagine anything more disturbing to the whole of our political and national economy than that that should be done. It is with the greatest relief that we see the end of a Bill at the end of a Parliament, and think that the matter is dead and buried for all time. The only reason really on which we base our action in this case arises from the necessities of the situation, and the desire, which is so imperative in these days, to avoid any waste of money. I think after the discussion that has taken place in this House, it must be patent to everybody, to the admirers as well as to the critics of your Lordships' House, that you are determined not to set any precedent for the carrying over of Public Bills, and that if it is done today in this case it is only done because of the extreme necessities of the situation. You are determined and have declared that in no other case will it apply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I desire now to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that this measure has been passed in another place without any controversial discussion. In fact, it passed its Second and Third Readings without a Division. When this country was forced off the gold standard in circumstances now familiar to your Lordships a depreciation of sterling as compared with many foreign countries was inevitable. The Government at once considered the effect which that would have on food prices. Obviously, in a country which imports no less than four-fifths of its cheese, lard, and even a larger proportion of its bacon, butter, and sugar, to mention only a few of the staple articles of food, prices must be affected by a fall in the sterling exchange. The position as regards supplies was satisfactory in itself. There was an abundance of the chief articles of food, and so long as normal trade was

289
carried on there was no reason to fear that the country would be likely to go short of food.
The one cause, and the only cause, of disturbance in that connection was the depreciation of sterling. The Government's endeavours were, therefore, concentrated so far as was possible upon seeing that the retail prices to consumers were not raised unreasonably—that is, that advantage was not taken of the position to exploit the consumer by an immediate increase in prices against the possible effects of variations in the exchange. On the Monday following the suspension of the gold standard the President of the Board of Trade saw representatives of the traders in wheat, flour, sugar, butter, cheese, bacon, meat, oils and fats and other essential commodities. He also saw representatives of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and other co-operative societies, of the provision exchanges and the association of grocers, also representatives of the large multiple shop concerns as well as others who play an important part in the food industry of the country. From them all he has received the greatest assistance possible, and with them all he has been in close consultation. While, from the purely business point a view, prices in this country would have at once risen to the replacement cost of the commodity concerned as the price of that commodity was raised by the fall in the value of sterling, in fact the co-operation of the interests concerned has avoided any general attempt to increase the price of foodstuffs in the country.
The efforts of the Government and the trade interests concerned have been successful, and there has so far been little appreciable change in retail prices. Food commodities which are brought from abroad and passed immediately into consumption, such as bacon and butter from the Continent, have risen in price, but only in proportion to the increased cost which has been actually paid for them; and while some brands of canned goods, for example, have risen so far as wholesale prices are concerned, others have not, and I would venture to suggest that consumers must, for their own protection, exercise care and vigilance when they desire to buy these commodities. It is now just over a fortnight since the gold standard was suspended, with the con-
290
sequent fall in sterling compared with other currencies throughout the world. I feel sure your Lordships will agree with me that no one, looking at food prices to-day, could possibly imagine that such a change had really occurred at all, and very great credit is due to the importers, the wholesalers and manufacturers, and also the retailers of food, for the levelheaded and public-spirited handling of the situation which has enabled me to make such a statement as that I have just made. The Government has no reason to think that this attitude will not be maintained, and this, coupled with vigilance on the part of the consumers, should ensure that, whatever consequences may follow from the suspension of the gold standard, they shall not be exaggerated by exploitation.
I want to make it quite clear that in taking the powers contemplated by this Bill there is certainly no criticism intended of the attitude of our food traders. We have in fact no evidence whatsoever of exploitation. On the contrary, the efforts of the Government and of the traders themselves have given the public a benefit which, from the strictly business point of view, they were not actually entitled to receive. The food traders have played the game and the Government fully appreciates what they have done; but, like the public itself, food traders should be protected against possible action by individuals who may be seeking an unreasonable advantage. In introducing this Bill I am able to say that the trade representatives who have been consulted agree fully that such a Bill as this should be introduced and it has their full support.
The Bill itself requires but little explanation. It is a short, simple measure which gives the Board of Trade wide powers to make such regulations as they may consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing a shortage or unreasonable increase in price of any article of food or drink of general consumption caused by the action of any person or persons who may be exploiting the present financial situation. There is no intention whatsoever of setting up a huge machinery of control of the kind with which we came to be familiar in the Great War, but it is necessary to take wide powers in order to be able to act promptly if any cases

291
of exploitation do arise. The powers, for example, would enable the Board of Trade, through persons whom the Board may authorise to do so, to take possession of stocks or contracts of any person who appears to be exploiting the situation. If it is necessary to use the powers they will be exercised in consultation with representatives of the trades concerned, and it will be possible if it is so desired to delegate powers to a trade association or to some other body, such as a municipality, so that they will be able to deal promptly and effectively with persons who are abusing the position. Penalties are provided for offences against the regulations and jurisdiction will be exercised by courts of summary jurisdiction.
The situation is, of course, entirely different from the situation which arose in the War. First of all there is no interruption of supplies. Supplies are continuing and we have every reason to expect and hope that the normal flow will continue. Apart from the financial question there is no obstacle to obtaining supplies. There is no difficulty in obtaining exchange for making food purchases and it is vital, as your Lordships will agree, that the ordinary processes of trade should continue. There is no intention to interrupt or to hamper those processes by the creation of a huge administrative machine of the food control type, but it is intended to prevent or if necessary to punish exploitation. After full discussion with the interests concerned the Government have formed the opinion that apart from the effect of falls in sterling there is no reason to anticipate higher food prices in general. There will be the usual seasonal variations, but the world position of supplies, as your Lordships are well aware, is satisfactory. In fact, in certain countries there is a glut in the market of certain food supplies. With the wholehearted co-operation of the food industries the Government will endeavour to see that any rise in price due to sterling decline is reasonable, and they will use their powers under the Bill to prevent and punish any exploitation of the situation at the expense of the people's food. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is not our intention to offer any opposition to the passing of this Bill, but inasmuch as it is a Bill of considerable importance it seems inadvisable that it should pass through your Lordships' House without a word of comment from this side. We recognise that it is a measure which is precautionary in its character and that it deals not with things that have already happened but with things that might happen under certain circumstances in the future. The justification for this measure is that it will help everybody concerned to remember what the community expects from them in the manner of fair dealing in the great crisis through which the nation is passing. If I expressed any doubt about this measure it would be rather in regard to the way in which it will be implemented. I very much hope that the vigilance of the Government will be keen and that they will really act as occasion seems to them to demand it.
One could criticise at length what seem to be omissions in the Bill, but that would not be helpful at this time. For instance, I cannot detect who is to prosecute or who is to decide on prosecution, nor can I find in regard, say, to a multiple company who is the person to be prosecuted, whether it is to be the secretary or the directors or whoever is concerned. Things of that kind really require some explanation but I do not intend to press them this afternoon. I hope, however, that the steps taken will really be adequate and will be immediate when the time comes. In the olden days I believe that persons of the kind the Government have in mind in this Bill were tied to a cart tail and whipped through the City of London. Being attached to humanitarian principles I do not desire to see that kind of punishment re-established, but I hope nevertheless that His Majesty's Government will take what action is necessary.
I cannot close my remarks on this Bill without reminding myself and your Lordships that during this Session of Parliament under the other Government there was an opportunity of getting this work done in another way, but every artifice of Parliamentary obstruction was indulged in by those now enthusiastic in promoting this measure to prevent the Consumers' Council Bill doing what it is now pro-

293
posed to do by this Bill. It is not that the Consumers' Council Bill outraged in unusual degree private liberty, because Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, speaking in the other House the other day, said that this Bill is, to use his own words, infinitely more drastic than the Consumers' Council Bill.
EARL PEEL: The late First Lord said it was eyewash.
LORD SNELL: It is sufficient to me to point to what Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said. I only wish to say in conclusion that I think that this measure may be necessary in the circumstances in which we are placed, but we must never forget that what we really require in the long run is adequate organisation of the distributive services throughout the country so that when a crisis of this kind comes, if it ever comes again, it will be more easy to regulate than it is at present. We shall assent to this Bill as an act of faith in the belief that His Majesty's Government in this matter, at least, will really do their best to protect the interests of the consumers.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I propose to address you for only one moment in support of the measure before the House. It is a measure which I think it is most essential to pass at this stage, and I am very glad that the powers contained in the Bill are very wide and drastic. The noble Lord who has just sat down referred to the attempts that were made under the previous Government to have some permanent arrangement of this kind, in order to provide a more satisfactory distribution of foodstuffs throughout the community, and to control prices. This question of prices is one of the most difficult that we have to face at the present time, and really nobody knows very much about it. We all talk a lot about food prices, but we are inclined to forget that one has to take the monetary value of wages into account in making calculations, and really this is a subject upon which very little is known. What is necessary is to try and control the monetary prices that we can see, so as to bring them into relation with the monetary wage that a man is receiving.
It is very interesting to see what the real course of wages and prices has been over the last fifteen years. A document has just been published by the Secre-
294
tariat of the League of Nations which gives some figures about this country that are so striking that I think it will be of interest to your Lordships to observe what has been discovered in the course of the work that they have done. In the fifteen years between 1913 and 1928, the annual consumption per head of various foodstuffs in this country has increased, in the case of butter—I am giving approximate figures—from 10 lbs. to 14½ lbs.; the consumption of margarine has decreased from 3¾ lbs. to 2¾ lbs., showing the steady progress towards a higher standard of living; the consumption of cheese has gone up from 5½ lbs. to 7½ lbs.; of coffee from ½ lb. to ¾ lb.; the number of eggs that the average person consumes has gone up from 56 to 69; the consumption of dried fruit has gone up from 4¾ lbs. to 6 lbs.; beef, which I think is the most remarkable of all, shows an increase in consumption by the average man and woman in this country from 22 lbs. in 1913 to 33 lbs. in 1928, an increase of 30 per cent.; the consumption of bacon and ham has gone up from an average of 13¾lbs. per head to 23 lbs.; of tea from 6¾lbs. to 9¼ lbs.; of tobacco from 2 lbs. to 3 lbs.; and the only article of consumption that really shows a big decline is beer, with a drop from 22 gallons to 16½ gallons. It is really an interesting observation that from these figures it is clear that there has been an increase of about 28 per cent. in the actual amount consumed per head in this country. That is quite apart from questions of currency or the value of prices or wages. The actual increase in the food consumed by the ordinary individual in this country over a period of 15 years rose by roughly 2 per cent. per annum.
That does show that we have made very substantial progress in the direction that noble Lords are so constantly urging. This Bill will help us to maintain the position that confronts us to-day, and I hope that the activities of those who will have to govern this country in the near future will help us to continue that increase. There is no greater mistake than to imagine that, because there is a slight increase in prices at a certain moment, it is necessarily going to diminish at all seriously the standard of living of the people of this country. There is still a very wide margin, for we have made great progress in past years, and a slight rise in prices, while it may be felt by housewives and others who have to make

295
purchases, will not seriously alter the progress that is being made by the population of this country from year to year. I hope that this Bill will be passed without any dissent, and will be used by the Government with all the force that they may feel to be necessary from time to time.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I do not feel that there is any necessity for me to add much to what I have already said on this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the speech which he has made, and also for that of the noble Lord behind me, with the very remarkable and interesting figures that he gave us. The noble Lord opposite referred to the Consumers' Council Bill. I think he will agree with me that the procedure under that Bill was not nearly so expeditious as that of the Bill of which I am venturing to move the Second Reading to-day. I think he referred also to the Emergency Powers Bill. That Bill has been in existence for a considerable number of years, and could only operate on an extensive scale. This Bill gives the Government power to deal practically with eases whether on an extensive scale or not. The noble Lord asked a question, which was asked in the House of Commons also, as to who will be prosecuted. I confine myself to the answer that was given by the Attorney-General, who said that he was aware of the hardships that might be imposed on small people, and his main desire was to see that the right people were hit, and that the bigger people should come under the penalties and jurisdiction of the Bill. He went on to say that it would be for the regulations to provide for this and that—
"the regulations will be administered with common sense, and against the men behind the scenes, the directing brains."
I do not think the noble Lord need have any anxiety as to who will be the prosecutor, and I have no doubt that this Bill, when it becomes law, will carry out the purpose for which it was framed.
LORD SNELL: There is no intention of making a poor salaried secretary a victim in a case where a big multiple company is concerned?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That was answered in the Attorney-General's words.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUNDAY PERFORMANCES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
THE PARLIAMENTARY AND FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, perhaps I may very briefly explain the situation which has arisen in regard to it. No doubt your Lordships have read in the public Press a good deal in regard to the Sunday Observance Bill and the Sunday Performances Bill earlier in the year. The Bill now before your Lordships is quite a different Bill from that described in the public Press. That Bill was brought in by the late Government, by Mr. Clynes the then Home Secretary, and raised a question of principle. It was a non-Party Bill, and was put to a free vote in another place, and then it had a very difficult career in Committee. That Bill was brought in to deal with a very curious situation that perhaps I might briefly describe to your Lordships. Concerts began to be held in London somewhere about 1899, or even earlier, and nobody objected to that at all until one day in 1897, when the London County Council's attitude was challenged in the Courts, and the London County Council's licensing of these concerts was upheld in the Courts. Things remained quiescent until cinemas began to come into use, and eventually they began to hold entertainments on Sundays from 1916 onwards. In addition to London there are 96 other areas in which cinemas are open on Sundays. Stage plays and music hall entertainments have never been permitted on Sundays. In London the licensing authority is the Lord Chamberlain, and elsewhere the justices, but neither have agreed to stage plays being performed on Sundays.
That was the situation which we desire to retain by this Bill. What has hap-

297
pened in the interval to make the Bill necessary is this. At the end of 1930 there was an action in the High Court under the Sunday Observance Act, 1780. In the course of the judgment it was decided by the Court that cinemas were illegal on Sundays, and doubt was even cast on Sunday concerts, and possibly on such harmless entertainments as the Zoological Gardens, debates and lectures, for which payment was demanded from those who came to attend them. Your Lordships will realise that the penalties are very material when I tell you that a common informer can obtain up to £200 for every Sunday on which there is a performance. Perhaps some of you may feel it is just as well if the common informer should be given those powers, and the local authorities be compelled to follow the law, but that is not the whole story, because undoubtedly, now that local authorities realise that they have no authority to control the character of performances, the cinemas are beginning to think about giving variety entertainments, which are a very different story from the ordinary picture performances.
The present Bill is merely a stop-gap measure. Its duration is limited to one year from the passing of the Act. It does not add to the number of performances which may be given on Sundays, because only those licensing authorities which have within a period of one year before the passing of this Bill allowed Sunday opening of places of entertainment may continue to do so. In those cases, and only in those cases, may the local authorities continue to license. Where entertainments have not been given on Sundays no power is given in this Bill to allow them to be held. In Clause 1, subsection (1), of the Bill there is a condition which I think your Lordships will approve, whatever your views may be with regard to these entertainments on Sundays, and that is that the licensing authorities can impose such conditions as they may think fit. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is very necessary that the licensing authorities should continue to exercise those powers.
As regards the entertainments which may be given there is a definition in subsection (2) of Clause 1, in which it is made quite clear that a cinematograph entertainment means merely the exhibition of pictures, with or without
298
mechanical reproduction of sound, and that it does not include a variety entertainment of any sort or kind, and that a musical entertainment means "a concert or similar entertainment consisting of the performance of music, with or without singing or recitation." The matter was raised in another place when the Bill was discussed two days ago, but I think that House was satisfied with the explanation given by the Attorney-General that the definition was quite clear and adequate to meet the case.
I may perhaps say a word or two with regard to Clause 2. The effect is merely this. There are a certain number of actions pending, and the Home Secretary has the power to rescind any penalties which are imposed when somebody brings a case in respect of a cinematograph entertainment, but the Home Secretary has no power to remit the costs of the action. It is felt that where a case has been brought subsequent to the introduction of the big Bill earlier in the year, the common informer had full notice that Parliament intended to deal with the subject, and therefore it was felt that it was only right that the Home Secretary should have power to remit the costs of the action as well as the penalty. Where, however, a case was brought before the Bill was introduced on April 2 last, there costs shall be levied, subject, of course, to the decision of the Court or Judge, and in those cases it shall be the Court or Judge who shall decide.
There are a few words at the end of Clause 2 which perhaps require a little explanation. There is no licensing authority for such entertainments as those to which I referred earlier—namely, the Zoo, lectures and so forth. Therefore it might be that a common informer might bring an action against them, and the Bill introduces words which prevent such an action from being brought without the approval of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. That would prevent proceedings from being taken in such harmless cases.
This Bill will not extend to Scotland, because the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, also did not apply to Scotland. As regards Northern Ireland, the Parliament there has sufficient power to take such action as may be considered necessary,

299
and therefore it is not necessary for this Parliament to deal with the situation. Wales is brought into the Bill, although I believe it is the case that there is only one place in Wales where cinematograph performances are given, although, the Welsh being a very musical people, there are a large number of places where concerts are given, and those might have been attacked. The duration of this Bill is limited to one year from the passing thereof, and therefore I hope I have given an accurate description when I say that it is merely a stop-gap Bill, until Parliament has more opportunity for dealing with the larger question and considering it on its merits. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, It is not my intention to offer any opposition to the Bill. On the contrary, I wish to give it every possible support, on the understanding, of course, that it is an emergency measure to see us through the present time, until the whole situation can be explored and properly dealt with. On that understanding we give the Bill our hearty support. I was interested to hear the noble Earl suggest that lectures take the form of an entertainment. I have always been afraid, when I have been a lecturer, that they were in the form of an infliction. But I am glad to feel that they are not to be made the subject of a prosecution. A point I wanted to clear up was this. I really do not understand what is the position of a cinema that has been open for eleven months, or nine months, or six months before the passing of this Bill. Is it not rather hard to make it depend upon that arbitrary date? Why should not all cinemas that have been opened be immune from prosecution? In a rapidly changing industry, such as the cinema industry, I can conceive that during the last twelve months there have been quite a lot of cinemas opened on Sundays, and it seems rather a pity to make them liable to prosecution.
EARL STANHOPE: It is not a question of cinemas having been open for a year; it is a question of whether a local authority has taken powers to license such entertainments within their area during the year.
LORD SNELL: It refers to the area, and not to the cinema?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes. There may be hard cases even under that provision, but, of course, we have to make a line somewhere, and that always entails hard eases wherever the line is drawn, as the noble Lord knows.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment:
Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2),

Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation),

Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation),

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation.

301

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chepping Wycombe),

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works).

HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
And afterwards His Majesty's most gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth:—
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"I have been following with interest and sympathy the resumed deliberations of the Round Table Conference. I trust that joint endeavour may produce an agreement on a plan which will commend itself to the judgment of wise statesmanship.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"In the last few weeks My people have been called upon to face a financial and economic crisis which continues to give cause for anxiety. The measures taken by My Ministers, with the support of Parliament, to meet this emergency, involve sacrifices from every member of the community. I am confident that, as on former occasions in the history of the country, every citizen will co-operate to the
302
utmost of his power in restoring prosperity to the nation.
"I have given My assent to measures necessary to balance the National Budget.
"An Act has been passed to amend the law relating to the gold standard.
"My assent has also been given to a measure to ensure the public against exploitation in regard to the supply or price of certain articles of general consumption.
"In bidding you farewell, I earnestly commend you to the merciful protection and guidance of Almighty God."
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS, AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE or COMMONS,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's name and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the twenty-seventh day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one.
End of the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the twenty-second year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.
The Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation issued on October 7