Sitting of 21 December 1932

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

  Adelphi Estate.

  Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water.

  Barking Corporation.

  Bootle Corporation.

  Calvinistic Methodist or Presbyterian Church of Wales.

  Cancer Hospital (Free).

  Canterbury Extension.

  Colne Corporation.

  Dearne District Traction.

  Dover Harbour.

  East Hull Gas.

  Essex County Council.

  London Overground Wires, etc.

  Lyme Regis District Water.

  Middlesbrough Corporation.

  Oxford Corporation.

  Rhondda Passenger Transport.

  Rugby Corporation.

  Salford Corporation.

  Samaritan Free Hospital for Women.

  South Metropolitan Gas.

  South Suburban Gas.

  Torquay and Paignton Traction.

  Wigan Corporation.

  Wimbledon Corporation.

  Worksop Corporation.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of The Petition for the following Bill, the
  1050
  Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
  Durham Corporation.
  Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it has been decided to invite the president of the Disarmament Conference to be present at any further meeting of the Five Powers on this subject; and whether the president will be invited to preside?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. Mr. Henderson has received such an invitation and has accepted it. The question of the chairman of any such meeting, if held, has not been considered.

  CHINA.

    RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the position of British bondholders in the Peking-Mukden Railway since the declaration of the independence of Manchuria; and whether they are receiving their interest?
    Mr. EDEN: So far as I am aware the position of British bondholders has not been affected, and they continue to receive interest.
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has obtained any reply to his representations to the Chinese Government in respect of the default of interest and amortisation on loans to Chinese railways?
    Mr. EDEN: The Chinese Government have replied to the numerous representations made to them in the general sense that the Ministry of Railways are engaged in devising means for liquidating the debts. A settlement must, however, wait until a definite scheme for their collective treatment has been drawn up.
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has discussed with His Majesty's Minister in China, recently on leave in this country, the question of the rights of British bondholders to priority in the distribution of the earnings of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway?
    Mr. EDEN: The general question of Chinese railway debts to British bondholders was discussed with His Majesty's Minister in China before his return to his post. I understand that the Tientsin-Pukow Railway recently arranged to pay monthly deposits into a special account in order to accumulate a fund to meet arrears of loan services. His Majesty's Minister will, of course, continue to make such representations to the. Chinese Government as may be necessary or desirable.

    BRITISH RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to numerous claims by former British employés of Chinese railways for money due to them under their agreements at the termination of their services; and whether he will exert all possible pressure on the Chinese Government to get these claims paid?
    Mr. EDEN: Representations have repeatedly been made to the Chinese Government in this matter. The Chinese Government have now put forward certain concrete proposals for a settlement of the claims, which have been communicated to individual claimants for acceptance.

  LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED (ARBITRAL AWARD).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House what further action has been taken by the Government with reference to the failure of the Russian Soviet Government to pay the arbitral award of the 22nd September, 1930, amounting to approximately £13,000,000, in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited; and whether he will assure the House that no new trade agreement will be entered into between Great Britain and the Russian Soviet Government so long as the Soviet Gov-
  1052
  ernment refuses to discharge this debt to this British company?
  Mr. EDEN: In the past few days this matter has been under consideration by my right hon. Friend. Owing to his recent illness, however, he has not been able to deal with it as he had intended. When the House next meets he will, I trust, be in a position to announce such action as has been taken in the meantime.
  Sir W. DAVISON: While I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, may I ask him if he will remind the Foreign Secretary to bear in mind the strong action which has been taken with regard to a threat to forfeit a similar concession in Persia, and that the House expects equal or similar action to be taken in Russia and the damages assessed by an international tribunal?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Under-Secretary send a copy of the Debate on the American Debt to the Russian Government?
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: How long is it since these negotiations were started?
  Mr. EDEN: That I cannot say without notice.

  RUMANIA (DISTURBANCES, CLUJ).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the recent disturbances against the Hungarian minority in Transylvania when Rumanian student demonstrators set fire to the Hungarian Consulate, hoisted the Rumanian flag on the building, and for two days terrorised the Hungarian population; whether he has any knowledge with regard to a petition on this matter sent to the League of Nations on 8th December, 1932, on behalf of the Hungarian League for the Peaceful Revision of the Treaties; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Full reports have been received from His Majesty's Representative in Rumania concerning the incident at Cluj on the 1st December, to which the hon. Member presumably refers. I am not aware that the population was subjected to terrorisation as is alleged by the hon. Member, nor have I

  1053
  received any information as to the petition to which he refers. The incident has, however, been the subject of diplomatic representations between Rumania and Hungary. On the evening after the outrage the Rumanian Foreign Minister expressed the regrets of his Government for what had happened, and the incident is now, I understand, considered closed. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no call for any action on the part of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that our own Foreign Office should not be aware of a petition received by the League of Nations on the 8th of December?
  Mr. EDEN: We are not aware of it, but I dare to presume that it has not arrived.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CUEACOA."
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the amount of maintenance and repairs expended on His Majesty's Ship "Curacoa" during the last two years; and whether she is still to be retained as an active unit of the British Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The expenditure on maintenance and repairs to His Majesty's Ship "Curacoa" between 1st April, 1931, and 3rd December, 1932, was £18,366. She has several more years of effective life before her, during which she will perform her normal turn of duty.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Has not this ship been kept in dock for the last six months and more or less examined; and has it not on two occasions been condemned, necessitating it going back for repairs, which will take a considerable time?

    PORT EDGAR (SALE).
    Sir ADRIAN BAILLIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the scheme for the amalgamation of collieries in the Lothians, he will consider the suitability of Port Edgar as a site for the erection of plant for the refining of oil from coal?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): The Admiralty property at Port Edgar which is surplus to naval requirements has been advertised for sale as suitable for commercial development, the precise nature of which would he a matter for the purchaser.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: Will the Admiralty bear in mind in advertising Port Edgar that it may be sold in lots and not necessarily as a whole?
    Captain WALLACE: The Admiralty have advertised it, and we are anxious to sell it to the best possible advantage. I will certainly bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has raised.

    FLAG OFFICERS (DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS).
    Lieut.-Commander BOWERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of flag officers on the active list who have served as admiral superintendent or captain of a dockyard and are at present not employed; and whether the present Director of Dockyards during his active career held either of these appointments?
    Lord STANLEY: There are at present on the active list two senior flag officers who have served as admiral superintendent of a dockyard. There are no flag officers who have served as captain of a dockyard. The present Director of Dockyards did not hold either of these appointments.
    Lieut.-Commander BOWER: While fully appreciating that it may be necessary for a retired officer to hold this appointment temporarily pending the appointment of an active officer, may I ask whether my Noble Friend does not consider it rather unfair to the large number of qualified active officers that this appointment should be held by a retired officer who draws the salary attached to the office and retired pay as well?
    Lord STANLEY: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this officer gets no extra pay during the period that he holds this particular appointment. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we get the best man we can for the job.
    Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Is not this retired officer depriving an active officer, and a more qualified active officer, of the job?
    Lord STANLEY: No, Sir. This is a highly technical job, and it is imperative to get the right man for it.
    Commander MARSDEN: Is it not a fact that, so far from this officer's pension being increased, it is actually reduced, while he gets a further emolument from the Government service? Is it not the case that it is not necessary that this post should be filled by either a retired officer or an officer on the active list, so that it would be quite open to the Admiralty to appoint a person in the commercial branch, possibly at a higher rate of salary?
    Lord STANLEY: That is quite correct.

  PALESTINE (EDUCATION).
  Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities exist in Palestine for higher education; what financial support does this form of education receive from the Government of Palestine; and what other sources of support are there in that respect?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The institutions engaged in the furtherance of post-secondary education in Palestine are the Palestine Board of

  Year.

  Total Expenditure on Education (a)

  Grants to Jewish Schools.

  Expenditure on Arab Education.

  Total Expenditure by Jewish bodies on Jewish Education.

  1922–3

  …

  …

  £P. 114,217

  £P. 3,084

  No information available (b).

  No information available.

  1923–4

  …

  …

  97,279

  2,995

  No information available (b).

  No information available.

  1924–5

  …

  …

  100,099

  3,065

  No information available (b).

  No information available.

  1925–6

  …

  …

  101,392

  3,879

  No information available (b).

  No information available.

  1926–7

  …

  …

  112,290

  10,664

  No information available (b).

  No information available.

  Last 9 months of

  1927

  …

  …

  £P. 100,039

  £P. 15,000

  No information available (b).

  No information available.

  1928

  …

  …

  138,000

  20,247

  No information available (b).

  28–29 £P. 96,572 (c)

  1929

  …

  …

  144,119

  20,295

  £P. 99,026

  29–30 £P. 106,195 (c)

  1930

  …

  …

  150,056

  20,361

  103,273

  30–31 £P. 110,253 (c)

  1931

  …

  …

  153,689

  20,472

  105,551

  31–32 no information available.

  (a) Estimates. These figures have been taken from the Annual Report of the Education Department for 1930–31. The remaining figures in this table have been taken from the Annual Reports for Palestine.

  (b) It can be assumed that the greater part of the balance was spent on Arab education.

  (c) Estimates.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    BOMBING PRACTICE, LINCOLNSHIRE.
    Mr. PICKERINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in
    1056
    Higher Studies, which receives a subsidy of £500 from the Government, the Jerusalem Girls' College and Scott's College at Safad, both of which are missionary institutions, and the Hebrew University. A number of Palestinians obtain their higher education at the American University of Beirut. The Government of Palestine grants scholarships to the value of about £1,600 a year for the higher education of Palestinians in Palestine and abroad. I am unable to state the amount of financial support which is forthcoming from voluntary sources.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the amount spent by the Palestine Government on education in each year between 1922 and 1931; what proportion of the expenditure in each of these years was devoted to Jewish education; what proportion to Arab education; and what amount was spent by Jewish bodies on Jewish education in Palestine in the corresponding years?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The reply to this question is rather long, and I will have it painted in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    view of the fact that land at Mablethorpe has been purchased and plans made for a new home to accommodate an increasing number of Leicester boys and girls and that the home will be

    1057
    disturbed by the proposed bombing station on the sand dunes, he will select another area for that purpose?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): No, Sir. I understand that the site of the new home is nearly a mile distant from the southern limit of the proposed range, and it is not anticipated that any disturbance will be caused.
    Mr. LYONS: Before proceeding further with this matter, will my right hon. Friend consider the representations of those responsible for the very excellent work of the Leicester boys' and girls' school?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. They have been considered.
    Mr. LYONS: I am much obliged.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether a further statement can be made to allay public apprehension arising from the contemplated use by the Air Ministry of the Lincolnshire sand hills for bombing and machine gunning during the holiday months?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir; the practices on the proposed ranges will be restricted as much as possible during the holiday months, and, in any event, the whole of the proposed southern range will be open to the public during the month of August. I may add that in the normal course only non-explosive practice bombs will be used.
    Mr. KNIGHT: May I take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very friendly assistance in this matter?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to assume that, because this question was not put by the Member for the district concerned, he has nothing to do with the matter?
    Mr. LYONS: Did not representations come in the first instance from those people who have done such excellent work in the erection and maintenance of homes for boys and girls from the city of Leicester?
    Mr. KNIGHT: Is not this area a popular resort of the people of Nottingham, on whose behalf I have the right to adduce some facts?
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Are we to understand, from my right hon. Friend's reply, that in the month of July the operations will be carried on as usual, and that it is only in the month of August that there will be a cessation? The month of July is concerned as much as August.
    Sir P. SASSOON: In the month of July the practice will be restricted as much as possible.

    AIR MARSHAL SIR G. SALMOND (SPEECH).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any further statement to make with reference to the speech of Air Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond on the 26th November?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I have already explained that the speech in question was made at a private service function, and that the distinguished officer named, who was a guest, had no reason to expect that his remarks would be reported. No one regrets more than the officer himself the fact that, owing to the presence of a representative of one of the Press organisations, phrases from his speech, isolated from their context, were broadcast in the newspapers in a way likely to convey an entirely misleading impression of his intentions, from which nothing was further than to say anything which could be misconstrued as criticism of the Government. Finally, in view of the misunderstandings which have arisen, I should like to add that my Noble Friend of course accepts fully the general principle which I understand the hon. Member to postulate, namely, that it is most undesirable that servants of the Crown should express, in circumstances which may lead to their remarks being widely circulated, opinions which are liable to be misinterpreted as at variance with the approved policy of His Majesty's Government.

    AIRCRAFT BRAKES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what tests of the new Palmer aircraft brake have been carried out by the Air Ministry; what results have been achieved; and how many machines of the Royal Air Force are fitted with the device or are to be fitted?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first two parts of the question, the Palmer

    1059
    brake is one of several types of British aircraft brakes which have been approved for use in the Royal Air Force after satisfactorily passing the necessary tests. As regards the last part of the question, my Noble Friend deprecates the publication of these particulars, as they might give rise to incorrect inferences affecting the firm referred to and other firms having similar devices.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many pilots think that these brakes are very effective; and will he see that there is no undue delay in their introduction?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As my hon. Friend will know, a great many of them are being used.

  AIR SERVICES (AUSTRALIA).
  Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the offer made by the Royal Dutch Indian Airways to provide an air-mail service to Australia pending the establishment of a British-Australian service a year hence; how soon a. reliable British-Australian air service can be put into operation; and whether he will ensure that no arrangements are made with any Dutch air line which will in any way delay or operate to the disadvantage of the future British service?
  Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. As regards the proposed United Kingdom-Australia service, it is impossible to give a definite forecast, but it should be in effective operation within a few months of a final decision being taken. The interim offer by the Dutch is under consideration by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in consultation with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that the fullest weight will be given to the considerations he mentions.
  Mr. PERKINS: Do I understand, from my right hon. Friend's answer, that Imperial Airways will be running a service to Australia within a few months?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I hope that in a very short time such a service will be started. I cannot give the full details.

  TRANSPORT

    COASTAL ROAD, KENT.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the importance to both London and the coastal towns of completing the coastal road between Faversham and Thanet to relieve the traffic congestion through Canterbury and to reduce unemployment, he will reconsider his decision, as money is now cheap, and give the necessary grants to complete the work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I regret that the financial position of the Road Fund does not at present warrant the promise of assistance towards the completion of the Kent coastal road.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Does not the Minister consider that it is time, in the existing easy money situation, to open the national purse-strings in order to complete these very necessary works, especially in view of the absorption of a certain number of unemployed men?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that, if this grant is made, it will be possible to reduce the Beer Duty?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As we do not borrow for road grants, the question of cheap money does not arise.

    ROAD AND RAIL INQUIRY (RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the importance of the British railways as a national asset, and seeing that there is invested therein approximately £800,000,000 of trustee funds, he will, with a view to conserving these interests, take such steps as are necessary to expedite the adoption of the recommendations of the Salter Report?
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an indication before the House rises for the Christmas Recess as to the policy he proposes to adopt as regards the Salter Report?
    Mr. O'CONNORasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the inten-

    1061
    tions of the Government regarding the recommendations of the Salter Conference on road and rail transport?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave on 19th December to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce), and of which I am sending them copies, and to my remarks in the course of the Debate that arose on the Adjournment of the House last night.
    Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. PRICE)asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, as a result of the Appendix showing increases in licence duties of passenger-carrying vehicles contained in the report of the Rail and Road Transport Committee, which was considered by the committee itself as outside the scope of their reference, many omnibus manufacturing firms are on short time, and that unemployment is being increased owing to municipalities and others holding up orders for motor omnibuses and trackless trolley vehicles; and what action he proposes to take on the report of that committee in this connection?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am aware that there has been some misunderstanding on this point. The members of the conference, however, in the letter over their signatures published in the Press on Monday last, have explained that the question of the licence duties to be paid by passenger-carrying vehicles was outside their terms of reference, arid that they have in fact made no recommendations in the matter. In view of the publicity which has already been given to their statement, I do not think that any further action on my part in this connection is necessary.

    COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES (COAL GAS).
    Sir A. BAILLIEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to give any information in regard to the new method of running commercial motor vehicles on coal gas instead of petrol?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for the Plaistow Division (Mr. Thorne), and of which I am sending him a copy.

    OMNIBUSES (LOST PROPERTY CHARGES).
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Transport whether,
    1062
    in view of the representations made to him from motor-omnibus companies operating throughout the country protesting against the charges which they are bound to make under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in connection with the recovery of property left in their vehicles, he will say what steps he proposes to take to alter the present arrangement?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend has already decided to amend the Regulations governing this matter, and to provide for a considerable reduction in the charges to be made in respect of articles of small value. The proposals have been circulated to the various bodies and associations concerned, for their final comments.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does that mean that there will not be a continuance of the practice of charging according to the value of the articles left?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I take it that that will be the result.

    BRIDGES (TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. WELLWOOD JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Transport whether the provisions of Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, have been brought into operation; whether he has prescribed a form of notice to enable bridge authorities to prohibit the use of bridges by vehicles weighing more than a specified weight; and, if not, whether he will make these provisions effectively operative in the immediate future?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This section has not yet been brought into operation owing to the unexpected difficulties which have arisen in settling a form of notice which would meet the views of the various interests affected. These difficulties are, I hope, now in process of being settled, and it should be possible to bring the section into force at an early date.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, as long ago as last April, the Minister said that the section would be brought into operation shortly; and, if "shortly "covers a period of more than eight months, may I ask what is meant by "at an early date"?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I hope it will be considerably shorter than eight month's.

    ROAD MATERIALS.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. PARKINSON)asked the Minister of Transport the quantity and value of non-British materials used on the repair and make-up of roads in this country which received grants from the Road Fund during the 12 months ended 31st October, 1932?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I regret that this information is not available, but as the hon. Member is Aware the Ministry of Transport has done everything in its power to encourage the use of home-produced materials.
    Mr. EVERARD: Cannot the Minister of Transport make it a condition of giving a grant that only home-produced granite is used? There is an enormous amount of unemployment at the present time in that trade.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister consider British tar at the same time?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will consider everything.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION, EAST LONDON.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to make a grant to the scheme for electrifying the suburban lines from Liverpool Street to the suburbs in the East of London; and will he give details?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The railway company have informed me that they have schemes of London suburban electrification under consideration, and that in the event of the London Passenger Transport Bill becoming law they will be prepared to submit proposals to the Standing Joint Committee of the Transport Board and the railway companies which the Bill proposes to set up, but I am not fully award of the details of the proposals which the company are likely to make. The Minister has no power to make a grant.
    Mr. CHALMERS: Will the Department consider the electrification of the lines to North London, and make representations to the railways?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have no doubt that all these matters will be considered when the board comes into existence.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. GROVES (for Mr. PARKINSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of casualties and accidents on public roads in England and Wales reported to his Department up to the latest available time?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the lion. Member to the return presented to this House on the 27th May last, from which he will see that in England and Wales, 6,031 persons were killed and 184,771 injured in 165,112 street accidents during the year 1931. Figures for 1932 are not yet available and I have no information as to accidents not resulting in death or personal injury.

  ELECTRICAL DEVELOPMENT (RURAL AREAS).
  Captain PEAKEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that electrical development in rural areas is being retarded as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of the West Midland Joint Electricity Authority v. Pitt and others; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation at an early date to deal with the situation that has arisen?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As my hon. Friend is aware, the decision to which he refers does not affect the rights of electricity supply undertakers to apply, if necessary, for consents to wayleaves required for electrical development in rural areas. It required an alteration in the procedure for determining any disputes as to the compensation to be paid for such wayleaves, and my hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, is aware that fears have been expressed that this alteration may involve certain difficulties. In his view, there has not yet been sufficient experience of the new procedure to indicate whether further legislation would be desirable.
  Sir W. WAYLAND: Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the bulk supply of electricity in rural areas has, so far, been a total failure?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think that that is a matter of opinion.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (INSPECTORS, WALES).
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Health whether on the staff of inspectors in the Ministry appointed for the purpose of making public inquiries there are any members with a knowledge of the Welsh language and, if so, how many; and whether, in the case of public inquiries in the Welsh-speaking parts of Wales, he will arrange that the inspector sent to conduct the inquiry shall be a person with a knowledge of the Welsh language?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir, five of the officials by whom inquiries are held have a knowledge of the Welsh language, and, where a knowledge of the Welsh language is required, use would be made of a Welsh-speaking inspector.

  HOUSING.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Mr. CHALMERSasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to take the opportunity afforded by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill, now under consideration, to abolish the rule that acceptance of rent after notice to quit waives the notice, at least in respect of dwellings decontrolled by this Bill?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The point raised by my hon. Friend is no doubt one which will come up for consideration at a later stage of the Bill at present before Parliament, and my right hon. Friend would prefer to reserve until then any statement on the point.

    TRING.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Health whether any subsidy is to be granted in respect of the four-roomed houses recently constructed by the Tring Council, and to be let at an inclusive rental of 4s. 7d. per week; and, if so, whether he can state the cost of constructing these houses, and whether
    1066
    the methods are such as could, with advantage, be copied by other local authorities?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to some houses which are being provided by private enterprise at Tring. Subsidy will be payable in respect of these houses and the estimated rents of 4s. 7d. per week are exclusive and not inclusive of rates. The estimated building cost is, I understand, about £295 per house, which is not lower than the present price of similar houses being erected by a number of local authorities.

    EX-SERVICE MEN, IRELAND.
    Mr. THORNE (for Mr. McENTEE)asked the Secretary of State for Dominon Affairs what action is being taken in the Irish Free State and in Northern Ireland to build houses for Irish ex-service men, under the Irish Land (Provision for Soldiers and Sailors) Act, and in fulfilment of the pledges made on behalf of the British Government by the late Sir H. McLaughlin, director-general of recruiting in Ireland; and whether any inquiry has been held into the working of the Irish Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As the reply is necessarily a somewhat long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Between 1919 and 1923, £1,900,000 was voted by Parliament and spent on various schemes for the provision of land and the erection of cottages in Ireland for ex-service men under the provisions of the Act to which the hon. Member refers. On the establishment of the Irish Free State the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust was set up to carry on the work, and in 1925 a Parliamentary Grant-in-Aid of £1,300,000 over and above the £1,900,000 already granted was made available to the Trust in full and final settlement of all claims on the United Kingdom taxpayer in respect of the pledges to which the hon. Member refers.
    Building operations are not yet complete, but at the end of last March the total number of cottages built and occupied in the whole of Ireland was

    1067
    3,646 and on the completion of the capital expenditure a year or two hence it is expected that this figure will be about 3,900. The reports of the Trustees, which they are required to submit annually, and which are published by the Stationery Office, afford full information as to the working of the Trust, and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are entirely satisfied as to the manner in which the Trustees are carrying out their duties.

  COUNTY COURTS.
  Mr. CHALMERSasked the Attorney-General whether he can now state what steps are being taken to cheapen and to expedite litigation in the county courts?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): Steps have recently been taken to cheapen litigation in county courts by reducing the percentage increase on solicitors' scale charges. I do not think that more can be done at the present time in this direction. I am not aware that county court litigation needs expediting. There are already facilities for cases to be heard promptly. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular cases of delay, my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, will be prepared to consider them.
  Mr. CHALMERS: Could not some steps be taken to fix the time of hearing, so that the time of litigants and witnesses may not be wasted?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Instructions have been given that that should be facilitated as much as possible by communications between the registrars and the parties, but my hon. Friend knows how difficult it is to form a just estimate of the time that cases will take, and, particularly the case which comes on before that in which one happens to be engaged.
  Mr. CHALMERS: In considering this matter, will the Solicitor-General consider that the time of the public is of even more importance, in view of the number engaged in giving evidence and in the conduct of the case, than that of the learned Judge?
  Mr. CAPORN: Will the Solicitor-General take steps to compare the practice at a county court like that at Watford with that of West London, where the practice is to have a time-table, whereas at other places it is the practice to summon everyone concerned at half-past ten?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As regards the class of instances referred to in the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as I have said, the Lord Chancellor is responsible, and, if my hon. Friend will bring instances of that sort to his notice, the matter will, doubtless, be dealt with.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the advice he recently received from the various chambers of commerce throughout the country, he will now enter upon a policy designed for the abrogation of existing treaties which will enable all the Colonies to give effective preference to Great Britain?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware of the views expressed by certain chambers of commerce on the matter and it is proposed to consult organisations representative of trade generally as soon as all the relevant facts can be put before them.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May we take it that a definite policy is now being pursued whereby in a reasonable time the Government will have made up their mind in respect of this very important matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Government regard the matter as of importance, but complicated legal issues are involved.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Is it not a fact, in spite of the complicated nature of the considerations involved, that these representations have been made to the Government for a very large number of months, and have the Government not all the information they require?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is so, but details will have to be examined.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Do we gather that, in fact, the Government are going to come to a decision on this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think the hon. Member will recognise that the decision must be one which will be helpful to trade, and therefore we are consulting trade interests.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can we have the assurance of the Minister that he will not be rushed in this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Government have every desire to take proper action and to pursue a proper course.

    SAND AND BALLAST INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions still prevailing in cartage and delivery in the sand and ballast industry, he can give any information with regard to making regulations for the protection of the consumer by a system of standardised measurement in the industry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Investigations are being made, with the assistance of the British Standards Institution, in regard to the methods of measuring sand and ballast. Until these are completed I cannot say what action will be required, but it appears doubtful whether the matter can be dealt with adequately without an amendment of the Weights and Measures Acts.

  AGRICULTURE.

    WHEAT DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Agriculture what amount of quota subsidy has been or will be paid to wheat-growing farmers during the current financial year; and the number of registered wheat-growing farmers and the total number who are qualified to receive the subsidy?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I am informed by the Wheat Commission that approximately £1,250,000 will be paid to registered growers at the end of December as an advance on account of the deficiency payment for the present cereal year. It is
    1070
    not possible for the Wheat Commission to estimate, at the present time, what further sum may be paid, by way of an advance, before the end of the current financial year. The number of registered growers is at present 86,645; this figure is, however, subject to revision. All registered growers who sell millable wheat may qualify to receive the deficiency payment.

    FAT STOCK (MARKETING REORGANISATION COMMISSION).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to make a further statement in regard to the setting up of a reorganisation commission for fat stock in England and Wales?
    Major ELLIOT: I have to-day constituted the Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commission for Fat Stock. The duty of the commission will be to prepare, in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, a scheme or schemes, applicable in England and Wales, for regulating the marketing of fat stock, and, in the course of preparing any scheme as aforesaid, to investigate and report on any matter which appears to them to affect its operation and in particular to investigate and report on the manner in which its operation could be facilitated.

    (a) By co-operation between the board administering the scheme, and

    (i) any corresponding board in Scotland or Northern Ireland,

    (ii) any board that may be constituted in Great Britain or Northern Ireland for regulating the marketing of pigs or of bacon, and

    (iii) any organisation concerned with the marketing in the United Kingdom of fat stock or meat produced in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and

    (b) by the regulation of imports of live stock or meat or any products thereof;

    (c) by improvement of the facilities for the slaughter of fat stock and for the production of commodities there from; and

    (d) by use of the provisions of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Acts, 1928–31.

    1071
    As I have already informed the House, the Government has been fortunate in securing the services of Colonel the Right Hon. G. R. Lane Fox, P.C., J.P., D.L., as Chairman of the Commission. The other members are:

    H. G. Howitt, Esq., D.S.O., M.C., F.C.A.

    Sir John Buck Lloyd.

    John Boyd Orr, Esq., D.S.O., M.C., M.A., M.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.

    The Hon. Jasper Ridley.

    In conjunction with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, arrangements will be made for consultation between the respective chairmen of this commission and of the committee recently vested with the powers and duties of an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission under the Agricultural Marketing (Fat Stock Scheme) (Scotland) Order, 1932, so far as may be necessary to facilitate the consideration of matters of mutual interest, for which purpose liaison will also be arranged with the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The commission is holding its first meeting this afternoon.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that one workers' representative thoroughly versed in all questions pertaining to agriculture might have been of use on such a committee?
    Major ELLIOT: As the hon. Member knows, it is not desired to have representation of interests but to have jurymen who will come to decisions on the evidence submitted to them. No doubt, there are many representatives of all sections of the community who would be suitable as such jurymen. I have done the best in the circumstances in which I found myself.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reconsider the wisdom, from a constructive and positive point of view, of making such a selection as the one indicated? Further, is he not aware that we appreciate his point in avoiding representatives in the sense he suggested?
    Sir P. HURD: If sectional interests are to be involved in this way, will it not be an illimitable business?
    Major ELLIOT: I deprecate the suggestion that representatives more especially conversant with Labour interests would be sectional representatives. I am sure many Labour representatives could be found who would take an unprejudiced view, but I ask the hon. Member to consider that I have done my best to choose personnel who have served on the previous Commission, with a view to expedition, which is of such great importance.

    NORFOLK AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the reason why the Norfolk farmers are withdrawing from the county agricultural wages committee?
    Major ELLIOT: I have no official information, but I understand that the reason for the withdrawal of the representatives of employers is as a protest against the decision of the committee to continue the present minimum rate of wages of 30s. per week.
    Mr. THORNE: Is there any Borstal institution to which defaulting farmers could be sent?

    LABOURERS, NORFOLK (DISMISSAL).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the members of the Norfolk Farmers' Union to dismiss 6,000 agricultural workers on 1st January, 1933; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Major ELLIOT: My attention has been drawn to the decision referred to by the hon. Member. I am advised that the figure mentioned is an estimate which is not likely to be realised even if the suggested action is taken, which I earnestly trust will not be the case. The hon. Member will be aware that the Lord Lieutenant of the county and the six Norfolk Members of Parliament have appealed to the farmers to reconsider their decision, and that the National Farmers' Union headquarters have issued a statement to the Press on the subject. I am keeping in close touch with the situation, and I sincerely hope that wiser counsels will prevail.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's personal influence been brought to bear for the purpose of dissuading farmers?
    Major ELLIOT: I have indicated that I am perfectly ready to receive representations from the Farmers' Union and from the employés on the subject.

    LAND DRAINAGE (GRANTS).
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the grants in aid of land-drainage schemes which were made prior to September, 1931, will be renewed, so as to provide employment for agricultural workers?
    Major ELLIOT: I regret that owing to the continued necessity for the utmost economy in national expenditure the Ministry's Vote for this year contains provision only for grants in respect of schemes rendered necessary by serious emergency and schemes approved prior to the date referred to.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) ACT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture the nature of the reply given to the representations he has received on the question of local authorities making use of Sections 14 and 16 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931?
    Major ELLIOT: I have received from the National Land and Unemployment Council copy of a resolution passed at conferences organised recently by that body urging that funds should be provided for the purposes of Sections 14 and 16 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931. The Council have been informed in reply that the views they have put forward will receive my careful consideration.

    POTATO CROP, SCOTLAND.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average yield per acre of the potato crop in Scotland in each of the years 1923 to 1932, inclusive?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer involves a tabular statement I propose, with my noble Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Yield per acre.

    Year.

    Tons.

    1923

    6.0

    1924

    6.1

    1925

    7.0

    1926

    6.3

    1927

    5.4

    1928

    7.2

    1929

    8.0

    1930

    7.0

    1931

    5.5

    1932

    7.7

    RASPBERRY MARKETING SCHEME, SCOTLAND.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the report of the commissioner on the proposed Scottish raspberry marketing scheme has been communicated in whole or in part to the promoters or opponents of the scheme?
    Mr. SKELTON: No part of the report has been communicated either to the promoters or to the objectors, but, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Statute, the promoters have been informed of modifications proposed to be made in the scheme.

  REGENT'S PARK.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to safeguard the character of the Regency period houses in Regent's Park in view of the permitted alteration of the scheme of architecture in Carlton House Terrace?
  Major ELLIOT: I assume that my lion. and gallant Friend refers to the houses in the terraces surrounding Regent's Park. The Commissioners of Crown Lands have no reason to think that these houses will have to be reconstructed for many years to come, and my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it would not be possible for me to bind the commissioners who may then be in office by any pledge regarding the style of architecture to be adopted.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the fear that we have is that the excuses which have been advanced to justify the dismemberment of Carlton House Gardens may be used also in regard to breaking up houses in Regent's Park—that is, inability to

  1075
  let? Does he also realise that in times of financial depression big houses are constantly to let because people cannot afford to keep them up?
  Major ELLIOT: I cannot undertake to bind my successors, but I shall certainly keep in mind what my hon. and gallant Friend says if any decision of the kind has to be come to by myself.

  ORIGINS OF THE WAR (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS).
  Mr. BUCHANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the publication of the minutes of permanent officials of the Civil Service in British Documents on the Origins of the War; and whether it is his intention that this practice should be extended to cover the War period and after?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir; I consider that the circumstances leading up to the Great War, like the Great War itself, were unique in history, and the publication of the relevant documents should therefore be entrusted to independent editors, and should he absolutely complete. I think it, however, most undesirable that the minutes of permanent officials should, in normal circumstances, be published.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the necessity for examining all schemes for increasing the volume of employment, he will state the reasons which operate against the construction of a tunnel beneath the English Channel?
  Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir. But I would refer my hon. Friend to the Debate which took place on this question on 30th June, 1930.

  CARLTON GARDENS AND TERRACE.
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that valuable historic and aesthetic fittings were left in 4, Carlton Gardens to be disposed of by the housebreaker or the incoming tenant and had to be repurchased by the Victoria and Albert
  1076
  Museum; and what arrangements he has made in the future for the protection and preservation of such fittings?
  Major ELLIOT: I am informed that two marble fireplaces which were formerly in No. 4, Carlton Gardens, were purchased after the demolition of the house and presented to the Victoria and Albert Museum out of a private fund. The Commissioners of Crown Lands have no record of the history of these fireplaces, which were presumably tenant's fixtures. In future the museum will be afforded an opportunity of inspecting and purchasing any similar fixtures in houses proposed for demolition.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that these fixtures were purchased by the Art Collections Fund at the request of the South Kensington Museum, as they were most anxious to obtain them, and has no action been taken in regard to this very careless piece of administration of private property?
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether these tenant's fixtures did not revert to the Crown as ground landlords; and is this not evidence, if not of stupidity, of a lack of aesthetic perception?
  Mr. MOLSON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, as representing the Commissioners of Crown Lands, on what date they were informed of the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the proposed new building at 4, Carlton Gardens; on what date those views had been intimated to Sir Reginald Blomfield; and on what date the Commissioners of Crown Lands entered into a building agreement for the erection of the new building?
  Major ELLIOT: The report of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the proposed new building on the site of 4, Carlton Gardens, was received by the Commissioners of Crown Lands through the architect on 29th July last. I am informed that the architect received this report on the preceding day. The building agreement was completed on 9th September.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask whether the information submitted by Lord Crawford to the archi-

  1077
  tect was passed on to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, that is, the information contained in his letter of the 28th of July?
  Major ELLIOT: I have only information as to the terms of the report to the Commissioners, and in paragraph I it, simply says that the Royal Fine Arts Commission approves of the proposed building submitted by Messrs. Pinchin Johnson.
  Sir W, DAVISON: A similar case occurred some years ago with regard Lo Crown Lands in Regent's Park, where, in consideration of a payment to the persons who had obtained a building lease, they agreed to give up the bargain. Will the Minister of Agriculture press forward his negotiations with Messrs. Pinchin Johnson, in order to see whether, if suitable compensation was given, they would release the Crown from the agreement?
  Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that does not arise out of the question.
  Captain CROOKSHANK; Is the right hon. and gallant Member now aware that the whole thing is a great scandal?

  NUMBER of HORSES shipped from Great Britain to Continental Europe during the years 1930 and 1931 showing countries of destination.

  Year.

  Belgium.

  Denmark.

  France.

  Germany.

  Holland.

  Italy.

  Switzerland.

  Other Countries.

  Total.

  1930

  …

  1,511

  —

  2,489

  —

  4,668

  —

  —

  395

  9,063

  1931

  …

  872

  283

  526

  53

  2,875

  164

  1,368

  37*

  6,178

  NOTE.—The figures for 1930 refer to the countries of immediate landing while those for 1931 refer to the countries of ultimate destination so far as they could be ascertained.

  * Comprising Sweden 22, Danzig 9, Norway 4, Gibraltar 2.

  According to information obtained by the Ministry's port inspectors, the numbers shipped for the purpose of immediate slaughter were approximately:

  In 1930

  …

  3,983 (3,875 to Holland and 108 to France).

  In 1931

  …

  2,174 (all to Holland).

  INDIA.
    CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
    Sir GERALD HURSTasked the Secretary of State for India what is the yearly sum at present required to pay pensions due to retired servants of the Crown, their widows and orphans, on account of the Indian Civil Service; whether such sums are at present secured by the existence of any capital assets appropriated to meet this charge; add if the need for such appropriation will be among the matters considered in framing a new Indian constitution?

    HORSES (EXPORT).
    Mr. SMITH-CARINGTONasked the Minister of Agriculture how many horses were exported during the years 1930 and 1931, respectively, to the several European countries, and their declared values; and whether he can state how many were exported for slaughter?
    Major ELLIOT: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such information as is available as to the numbers of horses exported from Great Britain to the various European countries in 1930 and 1931, and the numbers shipped during those years for the purpose of immediate slaughter. I regret that there are no separate figures available showing the declared value of exports from Great Britain to the several European countries.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that of the 6,000 horses which were exported in 1931 from this country to the Continent, 2,400, according to Dutch statistics, were earmarked for immediate slaughter?
    Following is the statement:
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): For the Indian Civil Service the estimated sum for the year ending 31st March, 1933, is just over £1,000,000. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. With respect to the third part, appropriation of capital assets to meet pensionary charges is not contemplated, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the need for including in the new constitution the strongest possible safeguards for such charges is fully recognised, and in this connection I would

    1079
    refer him to the answer given to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirk-patrick) on the 7th March last.
    Mr. RHYS: Can my hon. Friend say whether, if the safeguards should fail, any provision will be made for the pensioners?
    Mr. BUTLER: I am convinced that the safeguards will be adequate to meet this very important charge.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me whether there is any definite rule which prohibits retired Indian civil servants from writing libellous and offensive articles concerning the administration?
    Mr. BUTLER: That matter does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Seeing that these people, while so doing, are being paid out of Government funds, should not there be some control?
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Does my hon. Friend consider that retired Indian civil servants should be satisfied with this guarantee?
    Mr. BUTLER: I think, if my hon. and gallant Friend will wait and see the guarantee, he will be perfectly satisfied.

    BOMBAY BULLION MARKET (PICKETING).
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement as to the action taken by the Government of Bombay in connection with the closing of the bullion market in that city as had been asked for by the Congress party; and, particularly, what action has been taken against those responsible for the intimidation of brokers to prevent their dealing with the British banks?
    Mr. BUTLER: Picketing of brokers and others in Bombay in connection with the bullion market has occurred at times and many picketers have been arrested. I have no information regarding a request by the Congress party to close the market.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, if information to that effect reaches the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, he will
    1080
    see to it that action is taken to imprison those people?
    Mr. BUTLER: We shall be very glad to receive any information upon this point.

    JOURNAL, "UNITED INDIA."
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for India the reason why the monthly journal, "United India," published in London, is interfered with by the authorities in India in its transmission to subscribers in India?
    Mr. BUTLER: Any interference with copies of the journal, "United India," has no doubt been on the ground that they contained matter, the publication of which constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Authority to detain such literature is provided by the Indian Post Office Act.

    PRISONERS (DEPORTATIONS).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian prisoners have been deported to the penal settlement on the Andaman Islands in recent months, and why the Government continues such deportations in view of the decision to close this settlement on the ground of the unhealthy character of the place?
    Mr. BUTLER: About 75 convicts serving sentences for offences connected with terrorism have been or are being transferred to the cellular gaol in the Andamans. Most of these transfers are from Bengal gaols. In connection with the decision 10 years ago to close down the penal settlement as rapidly as possible, the Government of India, acting in fact on a recommendation of the gaols Committee itself, specifically retained discretion to transfer to the Andamans convicts whose removal from British India was considered to be in the public interest. The area of the gaol where these convicts will be lodged is now free from malaria, and there is no longer any objection to it on the grounds of health.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COLLIERIES (TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT).
    Mr. R. T. EVANSasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that men not in possession of colliery managers' certificates have recently been made re-

    1081
    sponsible for the technical management of collieries; and whether, as this is a contravention of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, he will take steps to put an end to this practice?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am not aware of any instance of such a contravention of the Act, but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to furnish me with information I will, have full inquiries made.

    EXPORTS (SWEDEN).
    Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. PRICE)asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to the efforts being made by German coal interests to obtain control of the Swedish coal market; and whether steps are being taken to protect British interests in Sweden?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir, I have seen a statement in the Press and I am having inquiries made as to its accuracy.
    Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Member say whether our exports to Sweden have increased or decreased during the last 12 months, and whether Germany's exports have been increased?
    Mr. BROWN: That does not arise on this question, but, if the hon. Member will put the question down, I will give him an answer.

  BROADCASTING.
  Mr. DORANasked the Postmaster-General what instructions were given to the English delegates to the Madrid Radio Conference with particular reference to the questions of propaganda and programme aspects of broadcasting?
  Sir FREDERICK THOMSON (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The delegates were instructed that the discussion of propaganda was beyond the competence of the conference, which was primarily a technical conference. No occasion arose to give any instructions on the subject of broadcast programmes.
  Mr. DORAN: In view of the many unsatisfactory replies which I have been given in answer to my questions on this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment.

  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now make a statement to the House with regard to the forfeiture or partial forfeiture of national savings certificates held by nominees of the committee of Addison Gardens, Kensington?
  Sir F. THOMSON: My right hon. Friend regrets the delay in this matter, and is sorry that he is not yet in a position to make a statement. He hopes to be able to communicate with my hon. Friend early in the New Year.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the Postmaster-General that this matter has now been going on for many months, and that my constituents who have been damnified are very anxious to have the matter settled?

  "TOTE" CLUBS.
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the rapid increase in the tote clubs, he will take an early opportunity of declaring the intentions of the Government in regard to the opportunities for gambling which such clubs afford; and what action, if any, will be taken?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement I made on the 19th instant at the end of Questions.
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman speed up legislation?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if in the meantime those interests are to be subject to the carrying out of the law the same as any other persons; and whether the statement in the Press this morning that the Home Office and the police will not enforce the law in the same way as it is enforced against anybody else is correct?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not responsible for the statements made in the Press. I made a statement to the House. I think that it is very clear, and I have nothing to add.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Has there been no modification of that statement owing to deputations that the right hon. Gentleman has received since?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly not.
  Mr. KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the law will be fully supported and carried out as laid down by the judges, and, secondly, has he seen reports which go to show that certain newspapers yesterday published misleading and malicious reports which tend to pervert the course of justice?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I have made my position clear in this House, and I am not responsible for anything else.

  WOMEN PRISONERS, HOLLOWAY (RECREATION).
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement as to the recent changes in the recreation of women prisoners at Holloway?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The only recent addition to the recreation of women prisoners at Holloway has been the institution, under supervision, of associated recreation on Sunday evenings for women who have completed 12 months of their sentences with good conduct. During this period they read approved periodicals, play games, listen to suitable gramophone records under the control of the Chaplain, and do special sewing work. This period of association was introduced following the transfer of women convicts from Liverpool and has proved beneficial.
  Sir A. KNOX: Is there any truth in the statement that the warders have been giving these ladies lessons in dancing? Is a hard tennis court being constructed for their benefit?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: A hard court, I understand, is provided, or is being provided, solely for the officers of the prison, and not for any of the prisoners. As regards the dances, I understand that this is no innovation. There have been certain classes for folk dances instituted—it has been of long-standing now—in some of these prisons.
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the chaplain a, good judge of music?
  Sir W. DAVISON: What is the name of this recreation centre, and what are the conditions of admission?

  BRITISH TRAWLER "BRACENMORE" (PROSECUTION, ICELAND).
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which the skipper of an Aberdeen trawler "Bracenmore," taken within the three-mile limit, was sentenced by the Icelandic courts to a fine of £1,000 and the confiscation of all gear to the value of £400 to £500 in addition; and will he make representations to the Icelandic Government?
  Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am unable to make any statement until the documents relating to the legal proceedings in this case have been examined by the competent authorities here.
  Mr. BURNETT: Will the Under-Secretary take into account the fact that for an exactly similar offence at Peterhead a fine of £30 was imposed?
  Mr. EDEN: We are waiting for the papers in the "Bracemnore" case.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange for the Library being supplied with the official reports of debates in the Senate and Congress of the United States of America on the subject of War Debts?
  Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir, the necessary arrangements are being made.
  Mr. LEVYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when and in what form he intends to reopen the debt discussions with the United States of America; and whether representatives of Great Britain will go to Washington?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement upon this matter.
  Mr. LEVY: When will my hon. Friend b in a position to make a statement?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot give a date.

  BEER DUTY.
  Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of standard barrels of beer charged with duty in the month of November 1932; the amount of duty charged thereon; and the number of bulk barrels on which rebate was allowed in the same month?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it ill the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The number of standard barrels of home made beer assessed to duty in November 1932, the amount of duty SO assessed and the number of bulk barrels on which rebate was allowed in the same month were as follows:
  Standard Barrels, 1,002,000.
  Net Duty, £15,331,000.
  Bulk Barrels, 1,385,000.
  These figures are provisional.

  CIDER (DUTY).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made by his Department as to the probable revenue to be obtained by the imposition upon cider of a duty equivalent to the Beer Duty and the extent to which the Beer Duty could be thereby reduced?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Materials for a close estimate are not available, but I am advised that the yield of such a duty as my hon. Friend has in mind could not in itself suffice to provide for any appreciable reduction in the Beer Duty.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS), WALSALL.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the salary and emoluments of the commissioner appointed to take over the duties of the Walsall Public Assistance Committee; and if he will state the reason given him by the committee for
  1086
  their refusal to administer the means test?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. Member is misinformed. No commissioner has been appointed at Walsall.
  Mr. THORNE: Is it true to say that the Walsall Public Assistance Committee have refused to function? If so, what is happening? How are the people getting their pay?
  Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall be very glad to answer it.

  FOREIGN ARTISTS (ENTRY PERMITS).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that in a new musical comedy shortly to be produced in London four of the leading parts are to be played by foreign artists; whether permits have yet been granted for these artists to perform in England; and, if not, whether he will withhold his consent in order to assist British artists?
  Mr. HUDSON: Application has been made for three foreign artists to take leading parts in a musical play in London. Having regard to the standing of the artists, permits have been issued.
  Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the hon. Member consider utilising the same tests in regard to artists that he has taken in regard to other workers in this country, namely, that no suitable substitute can be found in this country, before he gives his permit?
  Mr. HUDSON: That course was followed, I gather, in this particular instance.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement recently made by His Majesty King Fuad of Egypt implying that negotiations for a treaty between Great Britain and Egypt would be renewed at an early date; and whether he will give the House an assurance that no agreement will be entered into which would entail the

  1087
  evacuation of Cairo by British troops until Parliament has an opportunity of debating the question?
  Mr. EDEN: I have seen reports of this in the Press but the official text of the speech has not yet been received. My right hon. Friend will, however, appreciate that, so long as our policy towards Egypt is based on the Declaration of 1922, the Egyptian Government are entitled to anticipate a resumption of negotiations. I have not seen any version of the speech which does not recognise that the consent of both parties is required before negotiations can be begun. No agreement with Egypt will be ratified until it has been submitted to Parliament.

  KENYA (NATIVE LAND TRUST ORDINANCE).
  Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why lands which had been scheduled for African occupation in Kenya for ever, as stated in the Native Land Trust Ordinance, 1930, are now being taken from the natives without an equivalent area being provided in exchange?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would invite reference to the full reply which I returned yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton).

  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE DISPENSARY (REPORT).
  Mr. GROVES (for Mr. LAWSON)asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the report of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Dispensary, in which it is reported that the committee are gravely concerned about the great increase in poverty, sickness, and malnutrition among the poorest classes of the city; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The report relates to the year ended the 31st December, 1931. My right hon. Friend has thought it well to bring the report to the notice of the City Council and to invite their observations upon it. The nature of the evidence upon which the report in question is based needs careful consideration and scrutiny.

  EDUCATION (ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, COLWYN BAY).
  Mr. R. T. EVANS (for Mr. HAYDN JONES)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state what is the number of pupils for whom provision has been made at the new Roman Catholic school at Colwyn Bay and how many of its pupils are outside the county of Denbigh; whether notice was given to the outside authorities that the cost of those children is to be charged to them; and, if not, at whose cost are such outside pupils to be educated and how is the cost to be recovered?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The number of pupils for whom provision has been made at the new Roman Catholic school at Colwyn Bay is 110. The school has not yet been opened, and the remaining parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

  MR. P. GRAZADO.
  Mr. LIDDALL (for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE)asked the Home Secretary if he will have inquiries made into the case of Mr. Patrick Grazado, who served with the British forces from 1915 to 1919 and subsequently went to Canada and the United States, from whence he was deported on 7th May, 1930, not being a naturalised subject, and has now been ordered by the Home Office to leave this country by the 22nd December; and whether, in view of the fact that Mrs. Grazado in America has applied to the Minister of Labour, Washington, for permission for her husband to enter America, he will postpone this man's deportation until the decision of the Minister of Labour at Washington is known?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This Italian subject came to this country from Italy in May last and was allowed to land on his express statement that he was only coming to visit relatives and that his visit would not extend beyond two months. He was subsequently discovered to have settled down in South Shields and started a barber's business. On the 13th September last he was convicted at South Shields Petty Sessional Court of contravening the Aliens Order and recommended by the court for deportation. A Deportation Order was made on the 7th October and successive extensions of time have been

  1089
  granted to him to enable him to apply to the American authorities to be allowed to join his wife in the United States. Ample time has been allowed for this purpose, and as he has not succeeded in his effort, he must now return to Italy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House tell us what business will be taken when the House reassembles, and whether it is proposed to make the necessary arrangements for recalling Parliament together if necessary?
Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the last point put by the right hon. Gentleman, pertinent words will be embodied in the Motion to be submitted to the House to-morrow. They will be in the form which has been used before, to the effect that the House may be called together, if necessary. The business of the House during the first week after Parliament reassembles will be:
Tuesday, 7th February: Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Money Resolution; and Second Reading of the Austrian Loan (Guarantee) Bill; Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Bill [Lords]; and of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, if received from another place.
Wednesday, 8th February: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday, 9th February: Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday, 10th February: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that I have not been able to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of this question, but, in regard to the Visiting Forces Bill, is it the case that the opposition on the Government side has been squared, or does it mean that we shall be called upon to sit all night when we reassemble?
Mr. BALDWIN: I think I shall be able to answer that question when we return.
Mr. LAMBERT: If the French Parliament does not ratify their portion of the Austrian Loan, are we to be asked to proceed with the Second Reading of the Austrian Loan Bill on the 9th of February?
Mr. BALDWIN: I could not possibly answer that question without notice.
Mr. MAXTON: There are two questions which I desire to ask. In making the arrangements for Business for the first day after the Recess, I take it that the Government do not contemplate starting with the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. The other point is a matter for the convenience of the House. Will the Ballot for Motions be taken in the first week after we reassemble?
Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. With regard to the Business on the first day, we always try to whet rather than satiate the appetite.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any further information to give us with regard to negotiations in connection with the American debt?
Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir.
Mr. MASON: And whether, during the Recess, he contemplates taking the initiative in regard to bringing this question up for review?
Mr. BALDWIN: If no steps have been taken, perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down when we return. If steps are taken, due notice will be given to the House.
Mr. BUCHANAN: There is a question of some importance to Scotland, and that is the appointment of a new judge, possibly the appointment of the Lord Advocate to the position. Before we adjourn will the Leader of the House be in a position to make a Government announcement on that subject, as it is important that there should be continuity of the office. If he is not in a position to make an announcement to-day, I will raise the matter tomorrow in the hope that some statement can be made.
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee us legislation with regard to the tote before next March?
Mr. BALDWIN: No, I cannot guarantee anything at the moment, but I hope when the House meets again that we shall be able to advise them as to the decision the Government have come to on the points raised by the decision of the court.
Sir W. DAVISON: When will the interim report of the Lotteries Commission be received?

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved,
"That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker at Five of the clock shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for contributions by rubber manufacturers in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers for the collection and application of such contributions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
A similar Bill was read a Second time in this House on 30th March, 1928, and was committed to a Standing Committee on 10th July of the same year. Again a similar Bill was read a Second time in this House on 30th January, 1931. The Bill which I now beg leave to introduce, although redrafted and altered in form, is similar to the two Bills referred to, except that the definitions of "rubber" and "manufacturer" have been amended with a view to meeting some objections which were raised during the Debate on the Second Reading of the earlier Bill in January, 1931. An Amendment has also been made to the proviso of the original Clause 7, now Clause 4, to meet a point which was raised before the Standing Committee in 1928. I will not take up the time of the House beyond briefly explaining that the object of the Bill is to secure the continuance and development of scientific and industrial research into the problems arising in the manufacture of rubber.
1092
This work is being, and has been, carried out since 1920 by the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers. This well-equipped organisation and this Bill have the support of such widely known and nationally important, industrial, trading and commercial bodies as the Rubber Growers' Association, the India-Rubber Manufacturers' Association, the Institution of the Rubber Industry, the Rubber Trade Association, the Rubber Research Association of British Manufacturers, and a great majority of the public interested in and engaged in the production and manufacture of rubber and of the increasing number of articles in which rubber is a constituent part.
Hitherto the Research Association of Rubber Manufacturers has been supported by voluntary contributions from industrial manufacturers, and by grants from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The latter grants were from the £1,000,000 fund provided by Parliament in 1917 for the encouragement of co-operative industrial research. This practical support by the most important organisation and industrial concerns in this country interested in the rubber industry, and by the Government, has been given with a view to create and maintain what is indeed in these times, more than ever, essentially work of national urgency and importance. These contributions, both State and voluntary, have established what my Bill will regularize. The Bill is intended to put rubber research on a sound and practical basis, in line and comparable with that of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, and the Ceylon Rubber Research scheme, both of which within my knowledge most effectively and efficiently provide for the scientific needs of the plantation rubber industry.
The proposals in this Bill are based on the Cotton Industry Act of 1923, which provides for the maintenance of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, and on the same principle involves a payment of a contribution by all rubber manufacturers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Bill provides that this contribution shall not exceed one twenty-fifth of a penny per pound in respect of all rubber used in the processes of manufacture, as such, and in the form of latex. On the basis of

1093
present consumption, say 75,000 tons of rubber per annum, the contribution would represent one forty-fifth of a penny per pound. The Bill limits the aggregate contributions to an average sum of £15,000 per annum. The operation of the Bill is in itself limited to five years.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kirkpatrick, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hacking, Sir John Wardlaw-Milne, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Dr. Worthington, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Captain Cazalet, and Sir Charles Barrie.

RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL,
"to provide for contributions by rubber manufacturers in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers for the collection and application of such contributions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
WORKS COUNCILS BILL,
"to provide for the establishment of consultative works councils in factories and workshops for the consideration of various matters of mutual concern to employers and employed persons; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Bernays, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Sir Percy Harris, Major Nathan, and Mr. Graham White; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th February; and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with respect to forces of His Majesty from other parts of the British Commonwealth when visiting the United Kingdom or a Colony; with respect to the exercise of command and discipline when forces of His Majesty from different parts of the Commonwealth are serving together; with
1094
respect to the attachment of members of one such force to another such force; and with respect to deserters from such forces." Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill [Lords.]

EVIDENCE (FOREIGN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL DOCUMENTS) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

LAW REFORM.
Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I beg to move,
"That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that steps be taken to inquire into the defects in the system of law and legal procedure in England and Wales and into the measures for removing these defects."
3.57 p.m.
In rising to speak to this Motion I feel a good deal of hesitancy and nervousness, having regard to the importance of the terms of the Motion. A few days ago I received an anonymous pamphlet containing the following statement alleged to have been made by an eminent County Court Judge:
"I never was in Parliament and I never wanted to be there. If I were there and pointed out the futilities and absurdities of legislation I should be howled down or ignored."
I do not know which of the two fates suggested by this learned County Court Judge is awaiting me on this occasion. My age is probably greater than the average age of Members of this House, and it is only comparatively a short time since I entered the House. The experience of 40 years in a small country town as a county solicitor may not be regarded by many as qualifying me to speak upon this matter. The reason why I selected this subject when I was successful in the ballot was that I remembered that in this year we are celebrating the centenary of the death of Jeremy Bentham, and I need hardly say here that, Although of recent years the work of Jeremy Bentham has perhaps been depreciated in many quarters, yet there can be no doubt that it is to him we owe the suggestion for Many of the reforms in the law of this country which were enacted by Parliament in the course of the last century. This year is also the Jubilee of the opening of the Law Courts by her late Majesty Queen Victoria.
When I put down my Notice a few weeks ago, I was in ignorance that any steps were going to be taken by the Lord Chancellor to refer the question of the reform of legal procedure to a committee, but, After all, I think that the fact that such committee has been appointed, may add considerable interest to the discussion of this Motion in the House of Com-
1104
mons. It is not the first time, of course, that the problem of Law Reform has been brought before the House of Commons. I find that as far back as the year 1651, in the Long Parliament, A resolution on lines not essentially different from the terms of my Motion to-day was moved, and in 1654 a committee was appointed. The two outstanding members - of that committee were the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, and also Sir Matthew Hale, who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice. Again, in 1828, in the House of Commons Mr. Henry Brougham, who afterwards became Lord Chancellor, in a speech of six hours' length, dealt with what he regarded as glaring defects and anomalies in the laws of England, and pointed out to the House of Commons the lines along which he suggested reform should come. Many of the reforms which he advocated did not come in the early days while he sat in this House, or even after he went to the House of Lords, but the great majority of the reforms which he advocated have since been placed upon the Statute Book of this country.
During the century which has passed since then there has been great progress. The criminal law of our country has been humanized, and the substance of the Common Law has been purged of its grosser faults. I think we are prepared to admit to-day that the hulk of English substantive law is rational and well-adapted to current needs. On the other hand, I am quite certain that hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members who are associated with one branch or other of the legal profession, will agree with me that there are still outstanding serious defects which require remedy, and that while these defects are allowed to exist, the prestige of the law of this country is in jeopardy. There are indications of growing discontent in widely different quarters. I believe I am right when I say that the responsibility for this state of affairs must be shared between, first, our substantive law; secondly, the mould or form in which it is cast; and, thirdly, the law of procedure, using that term in its very widest sense.
With regard to the substance of the law of our country, I made the statement that the bulk of English law was rational; but there are still grave abuses,

1105
and the judiciary from time to time have called attention to many of them. In one case, that of Ward v. Van Loeff, in 1924, Lord Blanesburgh said
"his decision was manifestly absurd, but he was powerless to do aught but follow precedent."
In the case of Leonard and Others v. Casey, Lord Justice Greer made this remark:
"No more unpleasant duty has to be per-'formed by a judge than the duty of deciding a casein accordance with a previous decision of courts which are binding on him, which he thinks, as applied to the facts of the case before him, is both unreasonable and unjust."
Let me illustrate the position by referring to a small number of instances, which, I believe, are simply typical of a very large number which might be quoted to this House. Take, for example, a point which is frequently referred to—the liability of the husband for the torts of his wife. When the Married Women's Property Act, 1883, was passed, it was evidently contemplated by the Legislature at that time, that, having given the married woman full control of her estate, making her absolutely liable for her own contracts, she would also become liable for her torts, and that the husband would be relieved from that liability. I believe that in the last few years this question was considered in a case in the House of Lords, but the House of Lords, having regard to the interpretation placed upon the Act in previous cases, were unable to alter this rule.
Take another instance. The maxim Actio personalis cum persona moritur governed the Common Law of England. However, in the course of last century legislation brought remedies in respect of certain cases, but, unfortunately, there are still some very hard cases which arise as the result of the application of this maxim. Take a case to which I bad occasion to refer when the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was under consideration. In the case of a road accident, where a negligent driver, who may be responsible for maiming, or even for causing the death of one or more persons, himself dies before action is taken, the persons who are injured or the representatives of the persons who die as the result of that accident, have no remedy whatsoever against the estate of the negligent driver who dies, although
1106
he may be a very wealthy man. Unfortunately, under the Road Traffic Act, the insurer of the deceased person would also be free from any liability.
There is another point which at one time created considerable interest in this House. One of the greatest statesmen that this country has ever seen had his character maligned after his death by an unknown, malicious pressman. There was no remedy whatsoever open to the children or other relatives of that deceased statesman. I think the House will agree with me that it is monstrous that such a state of affairs should exist. Take just one other matter which, perhaps, may not strictly come within the scope of the substantive law, and that is Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds which requires certain contracts to be evidenced by a memorandum in writing. When that Act was enacted, as far back as the reign of Charles II, there were probably at that time good reasons for an Act of the kind, because parties to an action were not competent witnesses if the contract had to be submitted to the consideration of the courts; but during the greater part of the time which has elapsed since that Act became law, the judges have endeavoured to get round the Statute in every possible way, and anyone who takes the trouble to look through the vast volumes of reports in which the Common Law of England is found, will discover an enormous mass of Case Law upon this subject. I see that one writer a few years ago estimated that at the time he was writing fully £250,000 had been expended in litigation in connection with Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds. Another writer makes this statement:
"Most eases in which the lack of writing was set up as a defence represent a good deal more dishonesty on the part of the defendant in trying to get out of his bargain than fraud or perjury on the part of the plaintiff who had relied upon an oral agreement."
Unfortunately, there is no recognised machinery for dealing with these defects in the substantive law. Judges are constantly calling attention to these and other defects in the law, but nothing in the way of legislation is introduced to deal with them. I observe in the appointment of the Lord Chancellor's committee that there is a possibility that the question of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords

1107
may be considered, and I conceive it is quite possible that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords may be abolished as the result of recommendations of that committee. If that be so, I venture to make the suggestion that, although the judicial functions of the Law Lords would cease under such an enactment, here is work which could be done by the Law Lords generally in connection with the improvement of the substantive law and in improving the form of the law, to which matter I now wish to refer.
Law Reform has always been taken to include improvement of the form of the law, and to-day, having regard to the fact that the grosser faults of English law have been removed I believe that our most important concern ought to be the reduction of the law to a more orderly and systematic shape. Lord Bryce in one of his "Studies in History and Jurisprudence" suggests two outstanding questions. First, how are we to frame out of the chaotic mass of our reported cases and Statutes an organised body of rules—a digest or a code? Secondly, how can Acts of Parliament be drawn more concisely and symmetrically? I am reminded of Tennyson's description of the Common Law of England:
"The lawless science of our law.
The codeless myriad of precedent,
The wilderness of single instances,
Through which a few, by wit or fortune led,
May beat a pathway out to wealth and fame."
Is it not time that our legislature, assisted by the ripe experience of our higher judiciary and eminent jurists should do something to meet this reproach? I need hardly say that the ultimate aim of every law reformer in this country has been the codification of our law and it may be well, at this point, to refer to a passage written by one of the most eminent jurists of the British Empire who has now passed away, Sir John Salmond, formerly Attorney-General and afterwards judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. This is what he said with regard to codification:
"The advantages of enacted law so greatly outweigh its defects that there can be no doubt as to the ultimate issue of its rivalry with the other forms of legal development and expression. The whole tendency in modern times is towards a process which,
1108
since the days of Bentham, has been known as codification, that is to say, the reduction of the whole corpus juris, so far as practicable, to the form of enacted law. In this respect England lags far behind the Continent. Since the middle of the eighteenth century the process has been going on in European countries and is now all but complete. Nearly everywhere the old medley of civil, canon, customary and enacted law has given place to codes constructed with more or less skill and success. Even in England and the other countries to which English law has spread, tentative steps are being taken on the same road. Certain isolated and well-developed portions of the common law such as the law of hills of exchange, of partnership and of sale, have been selected for transformation into statutory form. The process is one of exceeding difficulty, owing to the complexity and elaboration of English legal doctrine. Many portions of the law are not yet ripe for it, and premature codification is worse than none at all. But the final result is not doubtful."
I see that a year ago at the Guildhall banquet, the Attorney-General replying on behalf of the Bar of England, expressed the hope that one task would not be overlooked, namely, the consideration of the possibility of codifying or simplifying some topics of the law. I quite realise that general codification might not be practicable at present but a good deal of partial codification might be undertaken by the Government. I would suggest particularly the possibility of the reduction of our criminal law and the law of criminal procedure to a code. Last year His Majesty's Stationery Office printed a translation of the new Italian penal code. It is a comparatively small volume. I do not think it has more than 200 pages but the whole of the criminal code of Italy is comprised in it. Here is an indication to our legislators as to what can be done.
Within the last few days the importance of codifying our criminal law has been brought prominently to our notice. In referring to the cases which I am about to mention I must not be taken as expressing any opinion on the merits of those cases. In a case of Rex. v. Manley in the Court of Criminal Appeal last week the defendant was indicted for a common law misdemeanour namely "doing an act tending to effect a public mischief." Apparently, the prosecution was based upon a rule in the case of Rex. v. Higgins of the year 1801. Briefly, that rule provides for dealing with

1109
"All offences of a public nature, i.e., all such acts or attempts as tend to the prejudice of the community."
One can easily see that such a wide description of an offence might be an instrument in the hands of the Executive for purposes for which it was never intended. Then, take the prosecutions, here in London on Saturday and in a London suburb on Monday last undertaken under an Act of 1817, and procedure following largely a Statute of Edward III. I do not wish to comment upon the cases for the defence in those prosecutions, but I say that we ought not to find in the twentieth century our courts having to deal with cases based on old rules of common law or founded upon statutes 600 years old. Surely it is time to consolidate and modernise our criminal law.
With regard to Statute Law generally, as I have said, codification is practically unattainable at the moment, but I plead for consolidation of the Statutes. That is practicable, and, indeed during the past few years there has been considerable progress in this direction. Anyone who refers to the Annual Statutes of 1925 for instance will find that a large number of important Acts have been consolidated. There are Lord Birkenhead's Statutes dealing with the Law of Property, and then in 1929 we had the Company Act. But I suggest that when consolidation takes place, steps should be taken, as far as possible, for the amendment as well as the consolidation of the law. I am not oblivious of the fact that a former eminent Clerk to this House in a work on the machinery of legislation has dealt with the difficulty of introducing amendments into consolidating Bills.
To take one special case in which I think Statutes could be consolidated with immense advantage, I would refer to the Public Health Acts which are now of such vast importance to local authorities, local administrators, owners and occupiers of property and their advisers. The Public Health Act of 1875 contains 343 Sections and five Schedules. The Act of 1907 which amends it in various particulars, contains 95 Sections and two Schedules. The Act of 1925 contains 87 Sections and five Schedules. These Acts and the other Public Health legislation and the decisions of the High Court on public health and kindred matters are
1110
now contained in three immense volumes to which every public authority has constantly to refer. To indicate the advantage which accrues from the consolidation of Statutes of this kind, I may mention that the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act of 1925 repeals the whole or part of 109 previous Statutes, starting with an Act of Edward III and coming down, practically, to the year 1925. One can easily realise the immense boon which the consolidation of those Statutes has been. Instead of having to wade through 109 Statutes the whole of the law with regard to the Supreme Court is contained in one Act.
I should like now to deal with what are regarded as the outstanding defects of our present legislative machinery. I think the first point which will occur to hon. Members and one which is con stantly mentioned in this House, is the objection to legislation by reference. I have scarcely ever known of an important Bill being introduced without the criticism coming, from one side of the House or the other, that it contained too many references to other Acts, and that this is an increasing difficulty to those who have to administer or interpret Acts of Parliament.
To take some recent examples, last Session the House dealt with certain problems of National Health Insurance. The National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act was introduced in June or July. This is legislation which affects 15,000,000 of the population of this country. It is to be administered largely by men and women who have no knowledge whatsoever as to the intricacies of Statute Law. Officials of approved societies and of insurance committees have to administer the various National Health Insurance Acts. When the Minister of Health introduced that last Measure in this House he had to occupy himself at considerable length to explain its provisions and its relation to the previous Acts of Parliament, and I am afraid that many of us, even after hearing his very lucid interpretation of the Bill, were still in considerable doubt as to its effects. It would be very much better if a consolidation Bill had been introduced, including the Amendments which appeared in that Bill. It is only last week that a similar case arose, when the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Bill

1111
was introduced. More than one Member pleaded with the Government to take steps to consolidate the legislation on that subject, and I hope the Government will keep this important consideration before them.
There is another matter, which has been discussed very much more widely, and that is the question of delegated legislation. There can be no doubt that in recent years the encroachments of the central departments on the powers of Parliament have become positively alarming. Regulations and Orders with the force of law are issued almost daily by one Department or another, and they vastly exceed in number and bulk the Acts of Parliament for any year. One is almost tempted to say that civil servants are usurping in many connections the position and functions of Parliament.
Even more objectionable still is the increasing tendency to vest the Ministers of the Crown, or in effect the permanent central departments, with judicial powers, and to withdraw from the Courts of Justice in this country the decision of matters which come within the purview of certain Acts of Parliament. There is a marked growth of a new administrative law in this country, and it is not to be marvelled at that the Lord Chief Justice two years ago published a book, "The New Despotism," which is an indictment of the tendency in this connection.
The second part of the Motion deals with the defects of legal procedure in England and Wales, and I think this aspect of the Motion may be regarded as including roughly two points: first, the constitution and organisation of our courts, and, secondly, the actual steps which have to be taken by litigants who resort to our courts and the methods of presenting their case to the tribunals. Good laws, and these laws in a form easily accessible to the citizens of a State, are valueless unless adequate provision is made whereby persons can enforce, with expedition and without unnecessary expense, the rights to which they are entitled under these laws. I think we can congratulate ourselves on the high character of the British Judiciary. Judges of the High Court and of the County Court justly merit the entire confidence of their fellow citizens in their
1112
outstanding ability, their absolute integrity, and their determination to do justice as between suitors, whether poor or rich.
But our complaint is that the road along which a litigant has to travel from the time he commences his action until he finds himself before the High Court, is a long road, often a circuitous road, and almost always a very costly road. Where a poor man has a rich opponent against him, that opponent can block his progress and throw obstacles in his way with a view to deterring him from proceeding with his action. Compare the position of a wealthy litigant or a large firm with that of a comparatively poor man. To the wealthy man and to the man in the big way of business, a lawsuit is merely an incident, an episode, out of many similar episodes and incidents. If it is decided against him, it simply means that when his balance-sheet is made up for the year he has to put on one side of that balance-sheet the amount that he has lost in connection with the suit. But take the position of the poor man, the small man. A lawsuit is often a matter where his honour is at stake; he is fighting for all that he has, for all that is dear to him, and loss and expense in a lawsuit of that character often mean absolute ruin.
I believe that neither members of the Judiciary nor members of the Bar can realise the situation in the same way as a small country-town solicitor can do. He sees the small litigant calling at his office, often day by day, to know the progress of his litigation, and disappointed because it has been blocked here or impeded there, with the result that in many cases in my own experience one has had to appeal to litigants, to persons who have quite good claims, not to go on with those claims but to realise that whether they won their suit or lost it, it would often mean great financial loss or ruin to them. This is not a position of which we, as Englishmen or Welshmen, can be proud, and it is no wonder that a recent writer refers to our legal procedure
"as that utterly effete, wasteful, and ponderous system, which needs the most drastic revision."
It is not surprising that the growing scandals connected with lawsuit delays and costs induced the London Chamber of Commerce to appoint a committee to take

1113
up the matter. A report was prepared, and the main features of this report met with the approval of the representative bodies of both branches of the legal profession. The main objections raised to the present system—and I think these summarise very largely the whole position—are these: The length and complexity of pleadings, the necessity for strict proof of all documents and facts by personal attendance of witnesses, facilities afforded for unnecessary interlocutory proceedings, the calling of unnecessary expert witnesses, the unnecessary prolongation of trials, and the uncertainty as to when actions will be heard.
One aspect of this matter has already been referred to during Question Time to-day. Various recommendations were made by that Committee, and most of them were subsequently embodied in what is now known as the New Procedure. This has been decidedly a forward step, and from an answer which was given by the learned Attorney in this House on the 2nd November, it is understood that the New Procedure rules are working smoothly and effectively. At present resort to the New Procedure is optional, but it is urged by those who have interested themselves in the matter that after further experience of their working they should be made compulsory.
The public announcement which the Lord Chancellor made about 10 days ago of the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry to deal with the problem of business in the courts would not come as a surprise to those who were acquainted with his public declarations. Speaking at King's College, London, in March, 1928, after referring to some of the defects of our legal system and deploring the increasing cost of litigation, Lord Justice Sankey, as he then was, used the following language:
"It was time that an inquiry should be made into legal procedure on the civil side, an inquiry conducted not merely by lawyers, but by lawyers and business men."
May I venture to regret here that the Committee which was set up did not contain a number of business men? Lord Justice Sankey added:
"What was wanted was some reform of interlocutory proceedings and mode and place of trial which would lower the cost of litigation and provide some quicker and more convenient method of achieving results."
1114
The Committee which has been appointed is clearly to make the inquiry which he then had in mind. Its scope is in some respects wider than what was contemplated by the present Lord Chancellor five years ago. It is to consider the state of business in the Supreme Court, that is, on the civil side, and also to apply itself to the question of the administration of business on the criminal side in the Central Criminal Court and at assizes. In both departments the objects to be kept in view are greater expedition in the despatch of business and greater economy in administration. The terms of reference clearly contemplate a very full and searching inquiry into the judicial machinery of the Supreme Court. The heads of the inquiry correspond roughly to Parts I, II, and III of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
One is naturally disposed to ask certain questions arising out of the terms of reference, and perhaps the learned Solicitor-General may deal with one or two of these questions. Will the Committee be empowered to inquire and examine into any defects which may appear to exist in the system of procedure, using this term in its narrower sense, or the administration of the law in the High Court or the Court of Appeal? I am not clear whether that is included in the terms of reference. The second point is, Does the reference contemplate the continuance of the present circuit system 7 This is what is assumed from the words:
"Due regard being had to the maintenance of the present circuit system."
The other point to which reference has already been made is this. I presume that an invitation will be sent out to various bodies who are interested in the scope of the inquiry to give evidence. At the same time, I am not certain whether there is not a sense of disappointment that the scope of the inquiry is not far wider than it is. Let me indicate one or two directions which one had hoped such an inquiry would take. In the first place, I believe that outside London there is a very strong opinion, both in legal and business circles, in favour of a wide extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts, but no inquiry of that sort is embraced in the reference to the committee. It is within the knowledge of most of us that there is at the moment

1115
a good deal of dissatisfaction, and a growing dissatisfaction, with the assize system. It is not regarded as entirely meeting normal requirements for speedy and inexpensive justice. I believe that the demand which is heard from time to time for greater decentralisation in the administration of justice is one which ought to be considered. In a Debate in the House of Lords in July, 1911, Lord Gorell made the following statement:
"It is interesting to point out how much England is behind in facilities for bringing cases rapidly, economically and locally. In France there are 375 tribunals of the High Court covering the whole country. In Holland there are 23 local High Courts."
In such a scheme for England and Wales the district High Courts would not merely be courts of first instance, but could be empowered to hear appeals from justices, quarter sessions and the local county courts within their areas. At this point may I be permitted to make a slight digression? I am certain that the House, knowing what part of the country I represent, will forgive me making it. I trust that when the time comes to give effect to what I regard as the important matter of decentralisation of the judicial system, the claim of Wales to be treated as a unit, to be constituted as one of the great judicial districts, will not be disregarded. Wales, with its population of 2,500,000, with its marked national characteristics and ideals, is surely entitled to be accorded the same status as the six counties of Northern Ireland with a population barely half that of Wales. I would remind the House that it is but two years more than a century since Wales was deprived by Parliament of her separate judicial organisation. This organisation had been set up by the Tudors, and it met with the commendation of such jurists as Lord Coke and Lord Bacon. Welshmen may not demand the revival of the Courts of Great Session, but in any scheme of decentralisation she will certainly ask to be constituted into a judicial unit.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer, but my time has gone, and they will probably be dealt with by other Members who take part in the Debate. Such matters are the administration of the local justices, the relations between the two branches of the profession, the question of fusion, and
1116
last, but not least, the question of the establishment of a ministry of justice. I have attempted—I fear at too great length—to survey the broad expanse of our system of law and legal procedure. I have dealt with some of the outstanding and salient features in that system which have attracted my attention. I have had to overlook many others and leave them to some of my colleagues who will follow me. It can scarcely be expected that the House will agree with all or even most of what I have said. To many what I have described as defects may appear as merits. Others may regard our legal system almost with superstitious veneration and resent as sacrilege the attempt to subject to hostile criticism the ancient institutions of this realm. If any such there be here, I would merely ask them to listen to the words of Sir Mathew Hale, one of the greatest of the many great Chief Justices of England, in his treatise, "Of the Amendment of the Law." He said:
"By long use and custom men, especially that are aged and have been long educated to the profession and practice of the law, contract a kind of superstitious veneration of it beyond what is just and reasonable. They tenaciously and rigorously maintain those very forms and proceedings and practices which, though possibly at first they were seasonable and useful, yet by the very change of matters they become not only useless and impertinent, but burthensome and inconvenient, and prejudicial to the common justice and the common good of mankind; and considering the forms and prescripts of laws were not introduced for their own sakes, but for the use of public justice; and therefore, when they become insipid, useless, impertinent, and possibly derogatory to the end, they may and must be removed."
With confidence I commend my Motion to the House. The assent of the House will not imply that hon. Members accept all my statements or agree with all my suggestions. But it will certainly place on record the opinion of the House that a case for inquiry and investigation has been made out. It will also be the recognition by this House that the recent action of the Lord Chancellor is necessary and timely. To-day there is ample scope for legal reform, and I respectfully appeal to the Government to implement the terms of my Motion. They have an unrivalled opportunity to deal with a great national problem and by so doing to remove a vast amount of dissatisfaction and discontent and to restore and

1117
strengthen the confidence of the people of this realm in the administration of justice.
Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Motion.
4.53 p.m.
It has been very ably moved by my hon. Friend, who has dealt with a wide and extensive series of objections which ought to receive the attention of everybody who has any interest in the procedure and practice of legislation of this country. I do not propose more than I can help to cover matters similar to those to which he has referred. There are two matters of extreme importance which the House ought to consider very carefully and deal with as quickly as possible. They affect the whole population of the country. The first is legislation by reference. Already a Joint Committee of both Houses exists for the purpose of codifying the laws and of removing a large number of Statutes by consolidating them into one comprehensive whole. It would probably surprise hon. Members that in the whole of this Parliament only one set of Measures, the Solicitors Acts, has been referred to that Committee, although there are innumerable Statutes which could be dealt with in this manner. The one set of enactments which has been referred to that Committee has resulted in a large number of Acts being consolidated into one. Strange to relate, they are Acts which refer to solicitors, who are presumed to know a little more than the man in the street about the contents of the Acts that exist.
Where does the unfortunate individual who is presumed to have a full knowledge of the law stand with regard to the elaborate system of uncodified laws? Is he in a position to say that he is acting within the law, that he is not committing an offence? Does it not happen on innumerable occasions that the layman, even when he consults a lawyer on a particular matter, is uncertain as to the position, and that the lawyer has to delve into a long and intricate series of enactments in order to decide what the position is? The idea of long and intricate Statutes, particularly in criminal matters, and the idea that a man is presumed to have a knowledge of the law, do not go well together, and I think it will be the general opinion of all hon.
1118
Members that the sooner the codifying of those enactments is taken in hand the better it will be for the people of this country.
There is one important section of legal procedure and practice which my hon. Friend left alone. The most generally known courts are the courts of summary jurisdiction, particularly now that motoring offences and similar offences have become common. These courts in 1931 dealt with 665,332 persons. Some of them were charged with more than one offence. It is clear, therefore, that any difficulty which appears to exist in the administration of justice in those courts, whether it be in respect of procedure, practice or legislation which they have to administer, should be carefully examined, and corrected if they are found to be existent. The person who goes into a court, particularly a police court, usually finds himself in a strange atmosphere and in circumstances which naturally have the result of creating a position for him which is unusual and which he is not easily able to grasp. There are many petitioners who are unaccustomed to any of our courts and who feel themselves in a nervous and anxious state of mind when they go into them.
What is the position with regard to a person who may have committed a very small offence, or who may be charged with having committed an offence, who is described as a prisoner and put into the dock, and, when it comes to giving evidence, is put into a box which terrifies him? He is asked to stand in a box, and is examined by more or less experienced petitioners. He is told he is not answering questions but it making statements, and is asked why he does not appreciate the difference between making a statement and asking a question. In those circumstances how can it be expected that a man, whether he be a defendant or a witness, will be capable of expressing fully all that is in his mind. It may he a small matter, but it is suggested that it might be well to have the witness seated on a chair, and, as is the case in some countries, allow the prisoner to be seated by the side of his legal adviser instead of his having to lean over the side of the dock to whisper in his ear such instructions as may be necessary while evidence is being given by a witness. In a large number of courts lay magistrates sit. It

1119
may be held that there is a large and important body of public people who are quite competent to understand all that comes before them in the large variety of cases which are dealt with in a police court.
Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Of a minor character.
Mr. JANNER: Whether they be of a minor character or not, they are of major importance to the individuals concerned. It has already been said by the hon. Member who moved this Motion that the gravity of the offence is not really the most important matter when considering the individual who is charged.
Mr. KNIGHT: I made that comment on the tribunal—on the members of the tribunal.
Mr. JANNER: I am sure there was no intention on the part of my hon. and learned Friend to interrupt my train of thought, and I am sorry that I took the matter up in that way. What I wanted to point out was that in these courts, where such a large variety of offences is dealt with, the position should be so clarified that the individuals who appear before them may understand what the position is, and not be brought into an atmosphere which leaves them at a great disadvantage. In the view of many people, the present system of appointing magistrates is not the best that could be devised. The political bias of a potential magistrate should not be taken into consideration when it becomes a question of appointing him to the bench. Magistrates ought to be appointed for their knowledge and experience—in addition, of course, to their character and the public work they have performed—and their ability to understand the various matters which are likely to come before them.
Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Member also apply that to recorderships and judgeships?
Mr. JANNER: There will be ample opportunity in the course of the Debate for my hon. Friend to make his comments on any difficulties which may exist in that respect, and I am sure the House will give him a careful hearing. I want to make one other point with reference to
1120
procedure in police courts before coming to my main complaint in respect of a matter which emanates from decisions in police courts. Many people feel that the evidence taken in courts of summary jurisdiction in cases which may have to go to a higher court should not be published at that time, but that publication should be deferred until the trial at the assizes or quarter sessions. It is generally felt that the chances of an accused person getting a completely fair trial are minimised if the various statements made in evidence are published so that they may be read by laymen. It is the view of a large number of people who practised in the courts, and have observed very carefully the results of the publication of evidence, that such publication should be stopped; the evidence should only be published at that time if the accused person is not committed to trial.
There are many other difficulties, but I will not refer to them now, because I wish to come to the question of appeal from the courts of summary jurisdiction to the higher courts. It is quite clear that on many occasions those who sit in judgment in the lower courts have prejudices. They are quite honest in their views, and are anxious to see that justice is done, but, all the same, they are people in such a position in life as not to be able fully to understand either the matters which come before them or the penalties which ought to be inflicted. Sometimes there are aged men sitting on the bench who can hardly hear what is being said. Everyone who has had experience in the courts knows that well. Sometimes there are persons who, if I may use a vulgarism, are "a bit crotchety," who do not quite appreciate that a man's future may depend upon even the smallest conviction recorded against him, and who magnify certain offences to such an extent that one would almost imagine that murder had been committed if a case of obstruction comes before them. That, again, is within the knowledge of anyone who has had any experience in the courts. Therefore, the right of appeal ought to be most carefully and jealously preserved. If the defects to which I have referred, and there are many others, are removed, perhaps the right of appeal may not be a matter of so much importance, but as things stand at present it is not right that the doors of any court of appeal should either be jammed against the individual

1121
who wants to open them or should be definitely closed as a matter of fact if not as a matter of law.
This matter of appeals provides one of the most striking examples of the necessity for immediate reform. In 1931, as I have said, 665,332 persons were charged before the courts of summary jurisdiction, and I think I am correct in saying that there were only some 200 or 300 appeals. It may be said that the reason why there were not more appeals is that the course of justice runs so smoothly that out of all that number of cases no more than 200 or 300 persons felt themselves aggrieved. I respectfully submit that that is an entirely wrong view of the position. The explanation has to be sought in a, very different quarter. A rich person who appears before a court is in a very different position from a. man who has to watch very carefully every penny he spends. He has available to him the very best legal advice, and can find whatever money may be necessary for recognisances or sureties, and the doors of the court of appeal are wide open to him. No matter what the difficulties may be in the way of appeal, he can overcome them, because he can go to the people who know and pay for advice, and, believe me, there are not. very many people even in the law who know all the technical steps which have to be taken in order to carry through an appeal from the courts of summary jurisdiction. I have dealt with hundreds of cases in the police courts, and in the course of that experience—which I am sure must be similar to that of others who have practised in the courts—I do not think I have advised more than three people to appeal. That was not because there was no cause for appeal in more of the cases but for very different reasons, to which I will refer later.
We shall be told that among the cases which come before the petty courts are thousands concerning unlighted bicycle lamps And minor motoring offences, but the truth is that nobody who is charged with such a simple offence as not having a lighted lamp on his bicycle will trouble his head about appealing. He feels that no stigma attaches to him, he does not very much care what happens, and he will pay his fine. Nobody is going to trouble very much about minor offences, those which leave no stain on the name of the individual concerned. Now as to the
1122
procedure in entering an appeal. I am not at all sure that every leader who practises at the bar would be able to say off-hand, without having to look in the book, and look very carefully, what steps have to be taken in an appeal—how many days' notice has to be given, what the notice has to contain, on whom it has to be served, why it has to be served, why it is necessary to rush the service of the notice, and the hundred and one other points involved. I have noted them down, because otherwise I was not at all sure that I should be setting them out in proper detail when relating them to the House, although myself a lawyer and having gone through them recently.
Seven days are allowed for giving notice of appeal. The man finds himself in the police court; he knows nothing at all about the procedure—he has probably never been in a court before—and it takes him seven days to appreciate what has happened. When the seven days have gone, or it may be after 14 days, be consults a lawyer, and says, "I have been convicted of such-and-such an offence. I did not realise that it was such a serious thing as far as my character was concerned, but I have been threatened with the loss of my employment. I did not dream that a petty offence of this description would have such serious consequences, and I want you to give me an idea of what it is best to do." The lawyer says, "I am sorry, but you have not come in time." The man goes to his lawyer 14 days afterwards, and puts his position before him; or, being a poor man, he may go to the magistrates' clerk, or to some friend; but he is told that he is too late, that he has not given his notice of appeal within seven days. Even assuming that he goes to the lawyer after three days, and says that he wants to appeal, the lawyer, on going into the facts, may say that he is not satisfied, and must examine the magistrate's notes, and he is probably unable to give notice within the time allowed for that purpose.
That, however, is not the end of the story. Within three days of giving notice of appeal, the individual who wants to appeal has to go before a petty sessional court and to enter into recognisances, with or without sureties, for the purpose of proceeding with his appeal. His whole effects may perhaps be worth of fur-

1123
niture in his home, if so much as that; indeed, he may be in debt, so that mathematically he may be worth a minus amount; but he is told that, before he can proceed with his appeal, he must enter into recognisances. In the first place, he probably does not know what recognisances mean. Then he is told that he must either pay into court or find sureties for a sum of about £50—and this may be a man who is on the verge of starvation, but who yet values his good name. There is no way out; he must do that if he wants to proceed with his appeal, because this sum of money must be forthcoming or guaranteed, in order that the costs of the respondent may be met in the event of the appellant failing in his appeal. I do not think that any Member of this House is likely to agree that that is in the least degree reasonable. I doubt whether the Poor Persons Department—a very important department, which renders very important and useful service—could help in a case of this description, and, whatever may be the consequences to the individual, if he cannot find the money or cannot find sureties, his right of appeal has gone and he has to remain under the stigma of conviction for all time, whether it be justified or not.
Supposing that he is in the fortunate position of being able to find the money or to secure it, he then has to obtain legal assistance, and in this respect there is a further difficulty. Anyone who wishes to appeal to a court of quarter sessions in order to have a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction tested cannot appear by a solicitor unless he has special leave, which is only given when there happens to be no member of the Bar present. I say with the greatest respect to members of the Bar who are Members of the House of Commons that that is a very serious thing for a large number of appellants. A solicitor prepares the case for the petty sessional court; he attends at the court; and he not only knows what is in the magistrates' clerk's notes—which are very often imperfect, a fact which has been commented upon by Judges of the High Court—but he also knows what is very much more important, namely, what matters are not referred to in those notes. He knows what transpired in the court; he knows
1124
how the witnesses demeaned themselves; he knows the numerous points in the case which every advocate has to have at his finger tips in order to be able effectively to proceed with his case. The solicitor who has acted in the lower court has now to prepare, at the appellant's expense, a brief, which in itself cannot possibly contain all the items to which I have referred. No doubt there will be consultations with counsel, which of course have to be—or ought to be—paid for, and the brief is handed to counsel. Counsel proceeds to the quarter sessions, and the proceedings are then conducted at a very much heavier cost to the appellant than would have been the case if the person who had acted in the lower court were able to conduct the matter to its conclusion. That is a matter of practice which might very well be investigated, and which, in my opinion, is of serious importance from the point of view of thousands of people who appear in the various courts.
The method of appealing to which I have been referring is an easy one. There is another method by which an appeal can be taken, and that is by asking the magistrates to state a case. It is difficult to imagine that there could be anything more difficult than the instance I have quoted, but let us see. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction can ask the magistrates to state a case if a point of law or a question of jurisdiction is involved. In this event the appellant has to give notice in writing within seven days after the hearing, requesting the court to state a case. A copy must be served on the clerk of the court, and a copy must be left for each of the Justices who sat at the hearing. I do not know how many hon. Members are aware that sometimes there are 12 or 14 Justices sitting and listening to cases. A somewhat smaller number has occurred in my own experience in a case in which it was necessary to go to the High Court on a case stated.
The case has to be stated unless the Justices consider that the application is a frivolous one. If they decide that the application is a frivolous one, the poor appellant has to make an application to the High Court calling upon the magistrates to show cause why the case should not be stated. That is a cumbersome and

1125
highly technical proceeding, which certainly no layman would be able to conduct without assistance from a lawyer of experience in these matters. When the matter does proceed, extreme care has to be taken by the appellant to mention every particular on which he requires the decision of the High Court. As a rule, his lawyer drafts a case and submits it to the respondent. It is then submitted to the magistrates' clerk. The House will readily understand the complications and difficulties that are bound to arise in this regard. Even after the magistrates have prepared the case, the applicant is required to enter into recognisances or find sureties according to the requirements of the Justices before the case is delivered to him in a similar manner to the requirements on appeal to quarter sessions. He then has to give notice, of appeal to the other party, and the case has to be sent to the High Court within three days after the giving of such notice of appeal, which three days may include a Sunday. Therefore, it means in many cases that the notice of appeal has to be lodged here in London within three days, of which one may be a Sunday. The magistrates, on the other hand, have three months in which to state their case. Any failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the technicalities puts him out of court. These cases have to be entered at the Crown Office for hearing eight clear days before the day on which they are set down, notice has to be given to the other party, and copies have to be provided for use of the Justices at least two days before the date of the hearing. Let the House imagine what this complicated and intricate machinery is going to cost a person who wants a case stated. Whether the amount or the fine involved be small or large, the costs are equally great, and they have to be met by the individual who desires to appeal.
Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: What is your remedy?
Mr. JANNER: I will come to that in a moment; I have some suggestions to make which I hope will meet with my hon. Friend's approval. I do not think that any Member of the House will deny that a remedy is necessary, and that a cheap and effective system should be introduced whereby appeals can be reasonably and properly made. My hon. Friend asks
1126
what remedy I suggest. I suggest that appeals from the petty sessional courts should not be more complicated than appeals from quarter sessions or from courts of assize, and that, instead of all these complicated technicalities in connection with appeals, a man who is convicted should be entitled to give a simple notice, either in writing or even verbally, to the magistrates' clerk, saying that he wants to appeal and setting out in simple terms the grounds on which he is dissatisfied, and leaving the magistrates' clerk to take the other steps. Why should the whole of this burden be put upon the appellant? Why should not those who are competent and who understand the law have the technical difficulties placed upon their shoulders, instead of upon the appellant, who in the majority of cases cannot possibly understand them, leave alone carry them into effect?
What, I would ask, is the position of the solicitor who knows these difficulties, when a person comes to him for advice on the question of appeal? It is not very difficult to realise that, in the first place, he would inform the individual concerned that, unless he had a substantial amount of money at his disposal, it was in his own interest to suffer the ignominy of a conviction rather than to proceed with his appeal. The courts of summary jurisdiction deal with a very wide series of matrimonial causes. If you go into the Divorce Court you hear learned counsel arguing about matters of law pertaining to the various cases that come before these courts, and you will no doubt be amazed at the number of the cases referred to. Every point, every dot on an "i," every stroke of a "t," is examined. Counsel know that decisions relating to each of the facts that come before the court have to be very carefully scrutinised. They raise numerous objections, pointing out what the difficulties are and what learned judges have said in previous cases, how the Russell case, for example, affects the matter at issue, how the evidence is imperfect, why certain evidence should not be admitted at all; and so on.
These considerations are also at issue in the courts of summary jurisdiction. There are few cases that come into the higher courts which have more intricate points involved in their conduct than some of those which come day by day

1127
before the magistrates in the ordinary police courts. The Russell case, decisions on points of evidence, on points of procedure and on points of law are just as frequently before courts of summary jurisdiction as they are before the higher courts. Large numbers of cases come before magistrates who are not versed in legal technicalities. Some of the magistrates are prepared to accept the decision of the maigstrates' clerk without question, many of them are not and say that they do not care what the magistrates' clerk's views are, and that they are the people who are going to decide the matter.
In these circumstances, the position should be very carefully watched from the point of view of safeguarding any person who may receive an unjust conviction or an unjust order in respect of a wife's maintenance made against him. If a person is dissatisfied with such an order he has to appeal to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, and there, again, a long series of technical steps have to be taken. Notice of motion must be served within 21 days after the order has been made; a copy of the notice, two copies of the order, and of the summons, and of the magistrates' clerk's notes of the evidence must be left at the Divorce Registry. The notice itself must be served on every party, and upon the magistrates' clerk, eight days before the day named in it for the hearing of the motion. A wife obtains costs against her husband, even though his appeal is successful, and the magistrates' clerk's notes are usually accepted as a correct version of what happened in the court.
That situation does not exist in appeals from the higher courts of justice. In those cases the procedure is very much simpler although the decisions of eminent judges are being appealed against. It might be said that a poor person is given a certain amount of assistance on proceeding with his appeal from the court of summary jurisdiction. Let us see. Let me put to the House the position when a poor person has been allowed a solicitor or counsel. According to the Statutory Rules and Orders of 1908, the following is allowed:
"A fee not exceeding two guineas to a solicitor and a fee for counsel not exceeding £1 3s. 6d, or, if in the opinion of the court the case is one of difficulty, not ex-
1128
ceeding £2 4s. 6d., provided that the court at the conclusion of the appeal may, if it thinks fit, certify that the case was one of considerable length and difficulty, and thereupon the fee may be increased to such sum as the court, having regard to the length and difficulty of the case, may direct, but not exceeding seven guineas for a solicitor and £11 for counsel."
Hon. Members may think that those are very substantial and adequate fees to pay for a matter which has special difficulties attached to it, but they will have read of the heavy fees that are frequently paid, in matters that require very much less work and attention, and certainly are not of equal difficulty with many of the cases which should, but very rarely do, go to appeal.
There is a lot to be said on this matter of appeals. I hope that the House will forgive me for dealing with it at some length, because in my view it is exceedingly important that it should be properly considered. Even when an appeal from a police court decision has reached the quarter sessions, the matter is not, from the point of view of objections, finished with. A bench of magistrates has considered the case and come to a certain conclusion. The court to which the appellant has to go is a court which sometimes consists of another set of lay magistrates. It is not always a recorder who sits, and when it goes to a set of lay magistrates, a strange position is created. You may have a man like Lord Justice Atkin sitting as a justice of the peace at the petty court. He gives a certain decision, and the appeal comes before a court of lay magistrates, who sit at the quarter sessions in order that the decision of the Lord Justice of Appeal should be examined and overruled by a decision of those six or seven gentlemen at the quarter sessions.
The case may have come from a stipendiary magistrate. How many hon. and learned Members have failed to notice the differences of outlook between recorders and stipendiaries? I am not talking about anything in the nature of a lack of desire to do justice, because most hon. Members would agree that practically the whole, if not the whole, of the magisterial benches, whatever their decisions may be, are anxious to do justice. Whether they have a proper outlook upon life to enable them to do it is another matter, but I think they are anxious to

1129
do justice, and most people will readily grant that that is so. Let me explain what happens. The case comes from a petty sessional court to the quarter sessions, and the recorder sitting at the quarter sessions makes a striking pronouncement on the case. He may say that the opinion of the lower court was absurd, or the view that they took was not in accordance with the view which should be held by reasonable and sensible people. A few days later, the petty sessional court, sitting upon some other case, may say that in their view the decision of the quarter sessions was wrong, and that whoever was presiding at the quarter sessions held views which were either absurd or were not acceptable to reasonable men.
It is common knowledge that that sort of thing occurs and, in the view of many who are concerned in these matters, a large number of cases ought to be sent direct from the petty sessional court to a higher court, either to a Recorder at the quarter sessions, or, where there is no Recorder, to the courts of assize, where there is a proper judicial expert who can give his views on points of law which are involved as well as upon points of fact, and whose views will, at a later stage, be acceptable because they are the views of a higher judicial authority. I know that some people would say that that is a difficult proposition, because of questions of expense or delay. At the present time, a case can be sent not merely to the court of assize in the immediate neighbourhood, but it may be sent to the next available assize court. This would deal fully and amply with any objection either in regard to expense or delay.
So much for some of the points that can be made on the question of appeals. When the Amendment is proceeded with we shall hear, I suppose, of more objections, but the question of appeals is by no means the only one that requires to be dealt with, as far as the courts of petty session are concerned. May I refer for a moment to a question which is very prevalent in the minds of a large number of people who are concerned about the liberty of the person in this country? We were told some years ago, by a novelist whose name is familiar to us, of the terrible conditions that prevail in debtors' prisons and of the terrible
1130
outrage of persons being sent to prison for debt. The Debtors Act was passed. To the average man in the street the Debtors Act put an end to imprisonment for debt, except in so far as a person who was in a position to pay and refused to do so was concerned. That position, unfortunately, does not prevail. On the contrary, a number of people are confined in prisons to-day who were not in a position to pay and who, at the time when the order was made against them, were not in a position to pay. The position of those people should be looked into and dealt with. In 1930 there were something like 12,497 persons sent to prison in default of payment of fines, and among them were 483 young persons under 21 years of age. There were 2,031 persons sent to prison because they did not pay their local rates. There were 6,778 sent to prison in default of payment of arrears of orders for the maintenance of wives and children or under bastardy orders. It may well be said, and there are people who may say it even here, in the same way that some magistrates say it in court, "Who is going to find this money? We must send these men to prison otherwise the ratepayers will have to pay. Who is going to support the wife?" Who supports the wife, and who pays the rates, if the man goes to prison? There are provisions in the Acts which regulate to some extent the grounds for sending a person to prison in respect of failure to pay these sums, but these are in many instances optional. I should like to draw attention to one case in particular which has come to my notice quite recently. A maintenance order was made in October, 1928. The person concerned made numerous applications to have the order reduced and was refused on every occasion, although there was no proof at all that his statement in respect of his means was an incorrect one. He was a street trader and he was not only unable to pay the sums due, but arrears were accumulating day by day and, as is almost invariably the case, the magistrates said they would not listen to the question of reduction of the amount until the arrears had been paid. That type of imprisonment for debt should certainly be dealt with as quickly as possible.
There are, of course, a very large number of other matters dealing with criminal

1131
and civil procedure. The London Chamber of Commerce, the Bar Council and the Law Society came to conclusions in respect of matters pertaining to civil procedure which would reduce the cost of legislation without affecting the net fees that are paid to lawyers and which the layman imagines are higher than they should be, but which have actually been found by the three bodies concerned not to be, by reducing the amount of time that is wasted in waiting for trial, by accepting documentary evidence without having to get the individual who wrote a letter, for example, to go into the witness box so that he may be cross-examined in the event of the letter having a smudge on it, by making it compulsory for correspondence to be agreed before the case is actually taken to trial, allowing the reservation that, if anyone disputes any part of the correspondence, he should be entitled to ask for witnesses to be produced on payment of costs, and other matters which would minimise the costs incurred. In those circumstances, and in the circumstances which have been related already by my hon. Friend, and which will no doubt be related with a considerable amount of force by anyone who has had experience of the handling of these matters in the course of practice or business, I think the Motion is a reasonable and a substantial one which should he accepted unanimously by the House.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. SOMERVELL: I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the system of substantive law rather than procedure. Procedure has been referred to a committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and, important as it is, I do not propose to say anything about it. The Mover of the Motion referred to three or four very interesting examples of points which are admitted to be actual defects in our substantive law. He suggested that the present liability of a husband for his wife's torts was quite inconsistent with modern social ideas and also inconsistent with those ideas as they have been embodied by Parliament in the Married Women's Property Act. He referred to other anomalous features of our jurisprudence. Reference has also been made to the fact that there is no action for libel on a dead man. On these examples—and
1132
others could certainly be found—it will be agreed that legislation is desirable. They are not of overwhelming importance, perhaps, but they are things that ought to be righted. I want to ask the Solicitor-General whose business it is in the Government of the day to look out for and to deal with this sort of thing. We all know that legislation has very little chance in this House unless it has the backing of a Government Department. No doubt, we could all introduce private Members' Bills, but I should like to ask whether it really is anyone's business in the present structure of our Government and, if the answer is that it is not anyone's business, though no doubt the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers do what they can from time to time, ought it not really to be someone's business?
The same consideration will apply to the broader question of codification and consolidation. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this, in the Bills of Exchange Act, the Sale of Goods Act and the Marine Insurance Act, extremely valuable pieces of codification were done. Is that going on? Is someone seeing that codification is proceeded with where it is desirable? Our law of libel and slander is highly technical, and I think it might well be codified. Certainly it is a branch of the law which it is desirable should be plain, simple and intelligible instead of, as it is, incredibly complex and full of technicalities. I am not suggesting that something of that kind has not been and is not going on now. The suggestion I make is whether in that matter, and in the other matter of anomalies in our substantive law, we do not want rather to improve our organisation. The Lord Chancellor's office and the Parliamentary Counsel's office are understaffed. The existing staff have quite as much to do as they can handle at present, but money spent on experts simplifying codifying and making more intelligible and more coherent our system of law would be well spent.
5.56 p.m.
Major MILNER: The House is indebted to the hon. Member who is responsible for the Motion for the opportunity it gives to bring to the notice of the Government the great number of anomalies, hardships, injustices and difficulties to which attention has been drawn. I rise to reinforce all that has

1133
been said by the Mover and by the hon. Member who has just spoken in regard to the plea that they made for the codification and the modernisation of the law of the country. I should like to illustrate the necessity for that by dealing with the purely legal aspect of a case which has excited considerable interest in the last few days. It is the prosecution of Mr. Tom Mann and Mr. Llewellyn on Saturday last under two Acts of Parliament, one dated 1817 and the other dated 1360 or 1361. Mr. Mann and Mr. Llewellyn were, as I understand it, charged with being disturbers of the peace and inciters of persons to take part in mass demonstrations calculated to involve a contravention of the Seditious Meetings Act, 1817. I see that the magistrates, before announcing their decision, said there had been a certain misapprehension as to the nature of the proceedings. There was no criminal charge, and no question of imprisonment. The proceedings were to put in force a law which had been the law of the land from time immemorial for the preservation of public order. It was merely a preventive measure, and yet apparently there was a charge made under this Seditious Meetings Act.
That Act has some curious features which obviously have no application to the present day. In the first place, it is apparently provided in Section 23 that meetings of more than 50 persons within a mile of Westminster during the sitting of Parliament or of the Superior Court for the purpose or under the pretext of considering or preferring a petition, complaint, remonstrance, or an address to the King or either House of Parliament for alteration in matters of Church or State are deemed to be unlawful assemblies. In 1360, when that Act, was passed, both Parliament and the Courts sat here at Westminster. The Courts, as we all know, have now been removed to the Strand, and the curious situation therefore arises that, apparently, at any time a meeting of 50 or more persons may be held outside the Courts of Justice where they are now situated because it is more than a mile from Westminster. Similarly, as the Act provides that no such meetings may be held during the sitting of Parliament, it would appear that there is no objection
1134
to a meeting being held during the coming Recess within a mile of Westminster, and, indeed, a meeting may be held during the sitting of Parliament outside the Courts of Justice, although it was not originally intended. Apparently, the charge was brought under that Act.
I would say, in passing, that. I understand there is—in fact, I am sure—considerable doubt in the minds of lawyers as to whether under that Act any offence was, in fact, proved. As I have indicated, the Magistrate stated that the defendants were not charged before him with any offence, and the view of many with whom I have discussed the case is that it was not proved that the defendants did, in fact, disturb or incite other persons. Indeed, as I understand it, no connection in the legal sense was proved between those responsible apparently for calling meetings and Mr. Mann and Mr. Llewellyn.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL. (Sir Boyd Merriman): On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Motion to discuss the merits of this particular case? I say, frankly, that I am not prepared to deal with it in my reply. Notice has been given that this subject is to be dealt with to-morrow by the Home Secretary.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I understood from the hon. and gallant Member that he wished to raise the point concerning the Act of Edward III as showing the necessity for the codification of the various Acts. That appears to me to be in order, but to go into the merits of this case is not in order, notice having been given that it is to be raised on the. Adjournment tomorrow.
Major MILNER: I am obliged to you, Captain Bourne. I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulty, and I will not deal with the merits of the case any further. As you said, the main object in calling attention to this matter was to deal with the Act of Edward III, and the Act of 1817. When I come to the Act of Edward III the absurdity of the vv-hole matter becomes more apparent than ever. I have taken the trouble to look up the Act which has been invoked on this occasion. It is written in Norman-French, and I imagine there are few, if any, Members of the House who can

1135
follow it. I have obtained, for greater accuracy, a translation of the Act, which was, apparently, the first Act of Parliament dealing in terms with justices of the peace some 570 years ago. It provides for justices of the peace, and their jurisdiction over offenders, rioters, barrators, and vagabonds. It says:
"That in every county of England shall be assigned for the keeping of the peace, one lord, and with him three or four of the most worthy in the county, with some learned in the law, and they shall have power to restrain the offenders, rioters, and all other barrators and to pursue, arrest, take, and chastise them according to their trespass or offence. … and to inquire of all those that have been pillors and robbers in the parts beyond the sea, and be now come again, and go wandering, and will not labour as they were wont in times past; and to take and arrest all those that they may find by indictment, or by suspicion, and to put them in prison; and to take of all them that be of good fame, where they shall be found, sufficient surety and mainprise of their good behaviour towards the King"—
Mr. KNIGHT: It is obsolete.
Major MILNER: With all respect to my hon. and learned Friend, who has interrupted more than once during the course of these proceedings, I would point out that we are not proposing to abolish Recorders or Recorderships.
Mr. KNIGHT: I merely pointed out that it is obsolete.
Major MILNER: With respect to the hon. and learned Member it is not obsolete, and the proceedings which were taken on Saturday last were based upon this Act of Parliament. This part of the Act as to the duty of justices which I was reading immediately before the hon. arid learned Gentleman interrupted me says:
"and to take of all them that be of good fame, where they shall be found, sufficient surety and mainprise of their good behaviour towards the King and his people, and the other duly to punish; to the intent that the people be not by such rioters or rebels troubled nor endamaged, nor the peace blemished, nor merchants nor other passing by the highways of the realm disturbed,"
etc. It was under that Act of Parliament and the Section which I have read to the House that the sureties were demanded without any offence being charged against the defendants or proved, and under which, on the question of refusing to be bound over, they were
1136
respectively sentenced to two months' imprisonment. Those illustrations indicate the necessity for the modernisation and codification of the law. It is true that it has remained for a National Government, apparently, to invoke those ancient Acts of Parliament. One would have thought that the ordinary law which exists, and which is put into operation in the ordinary courts nowadays, would have been sufficient. I support the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and express the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will convey to the Government the feeling of this House. I would like to go further than the Mover of the Motion and say that, not only should there be, at an early date, modernisation and codification of those laws, but that such laws as I have read to the House should be repealed, and should not remain on the Statute Book, so that hundreds of years after they have been passed, and in circumstances entirely different, they may be imposed by a Government who, for their own reasons and purposes, are desirous, apparently, of taking action to prevent ordinary and law-abiding citizens against whom no charge was proved and against whom—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now coming very close again to the merits of the case.
Major MILNER: I was rather led on. I hope that the Government will take note, not only of the facts and instances addressed to them by those who have preceded me, but also of the few remarks which I have ventured to address to the House on the subject.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. MOREING: It is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address the House when I see so many hon. and learned Members around me. I could not forget while listening to the Debate that I started my career as an articled clerk in a solicitor's office. Though I no longer practise, I am still a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and I believe that as such I am entitled by Act of Parliament to be addressed as a gentleman. Two of the points which I wish to make arise out of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), who introduced the Motion. If I may, as a younger Member,

1137
I should like to extend congratulations to the hon. Member for Flint for his very able speech and exposition of the case for legal reform. There are three points which I want to put before the House. The first is the question of codification to which the hon. Gentleman, the Seconder of the Motion, and also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) attached considerable importance. I think that they are inclined to attach a little too much importance to the idea of codification. We know that there have been examples such as those quoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe of successful codification in such cases as the Bills of Exchange Acts, Sale of Goods Act, and, of course, the famous case of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. But those Statutes, although they gather together and codify a number of previous Statutes, do not actually gather together and codify the law of the land, or the law on the subject as governed by legal decisions arising out of previous Acts.
The hon. Member for Flint referred to the Italian Penal Code, and I rather gathered from his remarks the suggestion that we should have a code of a similar nature established in this country. I do not think that such a code would work very well in this country, because our mentality is rather different from that of Continental nations. Under their system things are put down very logically in black and white, but the system of legislation on legal matters in this country is along the lines of evolution and not of codification. Actually a code is only the starting point of fresh decisions, although it may be of advantage afterwards. You will not really simplify things very much if you have to refer to a number of previous decisions and Statutes as you do at the present moment. With regard to the question of costs in litigation as between a rich litigant and a poor litigant, I believe—I speak subject to correction—that under the code adopted on the basis of most Continental countries, the system is that both sides have to pay their own costs. Therefore, it is quite easy for a man to start a number of vexatious and frivolous actions merely for the purpose of ruining his opponent. Although we may have certain difficulties and anomalies in this country, things are no better, really, in Continental countries.
1138
Another point with which I wish to deal is the question of administering the law as it affects members of my branch of the profession and also members of the senior branch of the profession. I am getting on to very dangerous ground indeed, but one realises in going about that there is a sort of feeling that the relationship between the advocate who appears in court and the client is too remote. The system by which you must have, first of all, a solicitor who then briefs counsel, who appears in court, divorces the litigant to a large extent from the conduct of his case. In the county courts of this country, where the greater part of the legal work is done, solicitors have the right of audience. I am not suggesting that solicitors should have the right of audience in the High Court, but I suggest to the House and to anybody who takes an interest in legal reform that we might adopt some such system as is adopted on the North American continent, both in the Dominion of Canada and in the United States, where you have a firm to deal with the whole business from the start, where a man consults a solicitor, right up to the hearing of the case in court. It may be argued, no doubt, by my hon. Friends that the duties and responsibilities which rest upon the advocate are very different from the judicial responsibility which rests upon the legal adviser—the solicitor—in this country. If you adopted a system such as that which they have on the American continent, you would find that things would average themselves out. You would have your legal firm of Messrs. Brown, Smith & Robinson. Mr. "X" would come and consult them. Mr. Brown would be able to deal with questions of advice and guidance such as are now dealt with by the solicitor in this country, and Mr. Robinson or Mr. Smith would be the advocate who would appear in court.
Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Does the hon. Member not know that in America the cost of litigation is six times what it is here?
Mr. MOREING: I am sorry that I am not well acquainted with the American legal system, but I will accept my hon. Friend's statement. I do not, however, think that it affects the point which I am making. I am putting this matter forward as a suggestion to the House. A

1139
further point which I want to make, and upon which I feel very strongly, is that we ought to have some regulation and amendment as regards coroners' courts. In Scotland when a person is found deceased the practice is that the coroner merely sits to establish the fact as to the cause of death, and to report that fact. In recent years in England an impression has sprung up under which coroners are inclined to regard themselves in some way as prosecuting magistrates. In the first place, a person is found dead. It may be an obvious case of suicide. A woman may be found dead in a flat, with her head in a gas oven. With due respect, it seems to me that all that the coroner has to do is to find that Mrs. X was found dead, and that the cause of death was gas poisoning. Any question as to why Mrs. X took her life or whether anybody else took her life, is not a matter for the coroner but for the police authorities. The system that has grown up by which the proceedings in coroners' courts are dragged out to tremendous lengths and reported at great length in the newspapers, is doing very serious harm to the country.
Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Is the hon. Member aware that these lengthened proceedings are not of recent origin? They were far longer in the time of the Bravo case.
Mr. MOREING: I am not familiar with the case to which the hon. and learned Member refers, but I do know that the proceedings in coroners' courts cause a great deal of suffering and injury to innocent people. Very often they are under suspicion and they are dealt with in a way that is not entirely fair to them. I hope that in any question of legal reform in this country we shall try to assimilate the practice of the coroners' courts in England to the system that prevails in Scotland.
Major MILNER: The hon. Member ought to qualify his statement by saying "some coroners," and not to leave the impression that he means all coroners. There are some coroners who bear this matter in mind, and confine themselves to the facts of the case.
Mr. MOREING: I, naturally, did not mean all coroners. I was simply uttering a warning to the House in regard to
1140
a practice that has sprung up in different parts of the country, and expressed a hope that the House will consider it.
Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I would point out that I am coroner for the county that I represent in Parliament and have been coroner for 33 years. I am certain that no one could make the complaint that I deal with my court in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing).
6.19 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am certain that everyone is very grateful to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) for bringing forward the Motion. Speaking for myself, I should like to add my word of congratulation to him on the industry and skill with which he put forward the various points of great interest in his speech. In one sense, he has admitted that the Motion is academic, because he invites the House to say that it is desirable that steps should be taken to inquire into the judicial system, whereas he pointed out that he put down his Motion before the Lord Chancellor had appointed his committee. As I shall also point out later, there is another committee dealing with another of the important points which have been raised. But those facts do not in the least detract from the desirability of ventilating these matters or our indebtedness to the hon. Member.
There are two questions which the hon. Member addressed to me in regard to the committee and one matter with respect to which he expressed regret. He asked whether it will be within the competence of the committee to deal with appeals from the High Court; to deal with the machinery of appeal. About that I think there is no doubt whatever that it will be well within the terms of reference. The other question was whether it was intended to maintain intact—I am not quoting his exact words—the existing circuit system. The answer is that in the terms of reference it is made quite plain that, in its main principle, the circuit system is to be maintained, but within that principle it is obviously open to the Committee to inquire as to what reforms should be instituted, either in procedure, timesaving, or any other matters that may occur to them.

1141
The hon. Member expressed, in a sentence, his regret that there were no business men on the committee. That view has been expressed by other people, and I should like to say what I think is the answer. This is one of those cases where the engine, so to speak, is running hot, and we know that it is running hot. It is very much better in those circumstances—if I may adopt a metaphor which will appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) instead of setting up a committee composed of passengers, or even of guards or of signalmen, that we should refer the matter entirely to the engineers to see how to deal with it. At any rate, that is the view that has been taken. But that does not in the least prevent full representation of the views of those who wish to bring one aspect or another before the committee. As the whole of the procedure in the High Court is now in the hands of the committee, I do not propose to say any more about that.
The next point, to which several hon. Members addressed themselves, notably the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), is the question of the incomprehensibility of Statutes, owing to legislation by reference. I am not going to say one word on the merits of the particular instance which the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds raised, because that is going to be dealt with to-morrow, but, in passing, I may say that I am not prepared to admit that because a Statute is old it is therefore either incomprehensible or bad. The Habeas Corpus Act lies somewhere half-way between the two Statutes to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. There are some Acts which, like some wine, become none the worse for being old and well-tried.
With regard to the question of legislation by reference, may I say a few words to the House of Commons itself? I suggest that as hon. Members we have the remedy for this matter in our own hands. The question of legislation by reference is not a matter for reproach to the administrators of the law or of the courts and the rest, but it is a reproach, if anything, to the law makers—to ourselves.
Mr. THORP: It is the Government's fault.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Let me explain what I mean. This is not a question of the Government. We have to go further back than the Government of the day, and that is why I am addressing bon. Members sitting in all parts of the House. If we did what would no doubt be the best thing, namely, that when we are making considerable amendment of an existing law we should restate in the Bill the whole of the law, together with the Amendment, that would expose a very large frontage to attack, and it would invite a larger consumption of Parliamentary time. Manifestly, if you put into a Bill the whole of the old law and restate it, it is open to debate and amendment.
The reason why I say that this is a matter for us as Members of the House of Commons and for nobody else, not even for the Government, is that one of several things could happen. It would be quite possible to promote our legislation in what we all agree would be the ideal way. For example, we might say, voluntarily if not compulsorily, that there should he a sort of time limit with regard to each stage of a particular Bill and that within that anyone could discuss anything that he wanted, as is done under the Closure. Then there would be no difficulty created by exposing a larger frontage of print to attack. Similarly, we could, I suppose, if we chose, make it clear what part of a Bill was a mere restatement of the law and what part of it was new legislation and regulate our procedure so that no discussion was permitted on that which was merely a restatement of existing law, and confine ourselves to discussion of the new legislation. All that is a matter of detail; it is a matter for us. We, really, are the people who have the matter in our own control, and we are to blame for the defects of which hon. Members have complained.
Mr. JANNER: Would the Solicitor-General be prepared to make a statement to the effect that the Government will send more of these Acts for consolidation purposes to the Consolidating Committee?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not prepared to give any particular undertaking, but I was going to deal with the question of codification and con-

1143
solidation in a few sentences. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) that you do not solve all evils merely by codification, because, first of all, you have to make up your mind what you mean by codification. On the Continent some codes are really only a statement of general principles. They do not condescend to the details which we consider to be necessary. Take an extreme instance. It is. no use merely saying in an Act of Parliament, "Thou shalt not steal," without making it quite clear what it is you mean by stealing in its various aspects. Therefore, mere generalisation in a code is no use. If you are going to have very elaborate codes, let it be recognised that that is unquestionably the work of experts, and that it takes an enormous amount of time.
The hon. Member for Preston truly said that there have been very signal successes in codification, but there have also been very signal failures. The hon. Member who moved the Motion spoke of the codification of the criminal law. That was actually in process when the War broke out, and some very useful codes were passed, but when the thing was resumed after the War there was—I am not going into details—one very signal failure, and upon that the attempt to carry the codification of the criminal law any further broke down. I do, however, thoroughly agree that reform in one form or another is necessary either by passing your amending Bill, and the moment you have passed it, bringing in a consolidating Bill or, if possible, doing the two together. If the latter could be managed within some revised form of Parliamentary procedure, that would be the ideal thing. I am certain the Government will take note of the wish that has been expressed generally, that the fullest advantage should he taken of that particular procedure.
The hon. and learned Member for Crewe asked whose business it was to look after these matters in the realm of substantive law, I must utter this word of caution, with which I am sure he will agree. So far as substantive law is concerned, there is no difference between one sort of law and another. It is the law of the country, whether it is Common Law or whatever it may be. A
1144
great many of the particular instances which have been given are quite plainly within the realm of a particular department, and inasmuch as they come within the realm of a particular department, it is that department's business to bring in any legislation which experience shows to be necessary. For the rest, I will answer the hon. and learned Member by saying that in matters which do not actually concern a department the Lord Chancellor would consider that he was responsible for bringing them before the Cabinet and initiating reform. Having regard to the staff at his disposal, this may be a heavy task, but I think the Lord Chancellor would recognise that it was within his province.
Let me, in conclusion, deal with the point raised by the Amendment, but which has not yet been moved. It was referred to by other speakers; that is, the question of appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction. I entirely agree with very much that has been said about the technical difficulties which confront one who is appearing in a police court and wishes to know what are the rights of appeal in any particular case. I do not want to minimise the technicalities which, to a certain extent, are involved in that matter. Let me state two principles with which, I think, everyone will agree. The first is that neither by reason of poverty, nor by reason of the difficulty of understanding the technicalities, should any person convicted in a court of summary jurisdiction in a proper case be prevented from having his right of appeal. On the other hand, everyone will agree that it will be quite preposterous to open the floodgate to unrestricted appeals in trivial matters and in cases where, quite plainly, there is no real substance in the appeal.
The practical question is how to reconcile these two principles. I do not want to drag in yet another committee, but may I say that there is at this moment in being a committee which was appointed to deal with this very question. It is presided over by one who is in every way an ideal chairman for the purpose, a man of great experience and knowledge of the world, and among other people the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) is a member of the committee. No better committee could have been appointed. It is true that they

1145
have not yet held their first meeting, but it is also true that they have collected, and are collecting, a great deal of material from those versed in this particular question, largely from clerks to justices all over the country. I have seen some of this material myself, and I made it my business to see the chairman of the committee this morning to find out the state of affairs. He told me that the committee are going to meet sometime in the middle of January, and he is quite confident, with all this material before them, that no long time will elapse before they will be in a position to make their report. I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue that topic further, but may I say that the Home Secretary will await their report with interest and will give it the fullest consideration.
The hon. Member for Preston referred to the old subject of the fusion of both branches of the profession. That is a vexed question, and I will not deal with it at length. May I say with some practical experience, so far as my own personal career is concerned, and with some knowledge as to how the thing operates in North America, that I do not think fusion would achieve anything as far as this question is concerned. It must operate in one of two ways. Either the combined firm of barristers and solicitors will combine within themselves all the functions which any potential litigant may want, the best man on patents, on libel, or whatever the subject may be, or else, as is the case now where fusion is in working order, the firm not being satisfied that it has the best man for the job will brief the best man in another firm. In that case you simply get back to the present position. We say that any solicitor is entitled to go to the man who is supposed to be the best man for the particular job. I do not think it is through fusion that our difficulties will be solved.
Mr. MOREING: I only suggested fusion as a means of arriving at closer personal relations between a client and the advocate who appears. The Solicitor-General, with his vast experience, will know that many clients get fearfully terrified when learned counsel appears in court, and they think they are only to be approached with considerable hesitation and trepidation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There may be something in that, but I do not think it is a remedy for the position. In practical experience I have seen the solicitor-advocate in operation, and he has often 110 more contact with the litigant until the moment he appears in court than has counsel. All advocates know that there is a good deal to be said for being able to present a case with a certain amount of detachment. Anyhow, I will not pursue the topic. I have not pretended to deal with all the points which have been raised during the Debate. The Government welcome this discussion and thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this Motion.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. LYONS: Hon. Members who are associated with me in the Amendment which is on the Order Paper—in line 3, at the end, to add the words,
"particularly having regard to the present unsatisfactory position of the law in relation to appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction."
are grateful to the Solicitor-General for the contribution he has just made to the Debate. We thought that the Motion in its present form was too academic and, therefore, we put down what we thought was a concrete and specific matter to which the attention of the House might properly be directed. We are grateful for the opportunity afforded for a ventilation of these matters. I was glad to hear the references made by the Solicitor-General to the benefits derived from the Habeas Corpus Act, and I hope that the same considerations will be present in his mind after the Recess when the Government reintroduces, if they do, the Bill known as the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, about which so much was said a few weeks ago and on which some hon. and learned Friends of mine insistently had to intervene during the observations of the Solicitor-General. I hope he will bear that in mind when we discuss the matter again.
A good deal might have been said as to the concrete proposals for an alteration of the present system. I wish something had been said about the drastic 'alteration of coroners' courts, and also on the question of the transfer to county courts of some matters which are now dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction. There seems to be no longer

1147
any need for applications under the Bastardy Acts to go to the police court; they may be much better treated in the county court. These matters have not been mentioned. The Motion is a little vague. It asks for inquiries to be instituted, whereas two important committees are already functioning. I must disassociate myself from the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) that our system is effete, wasteful and cumbersome. The hon. Member, and certainly the seconder of the Motion, seemed to have their eyes upon a certain anonymous book published by an obvious egotist in the course of the last few months, because they have fallen into some of the mistakes into which he falls in his criticism. We desire to criticise the present method of appeal from courts of summary jurisdiction, but it is difficult to base our criticism on some of the observations that have been made in support of the Motion. We realise that a committee is at present working to come to a decision on a simple but somewhat vexed problem.
The position does not altogether derive its importance from the number of cases dealt with by the justices, although they may run into hundreds of thousands of cases in the course of a year. The last thing we want to do is to clog the machinery of the law with appeals of no importance which would arise if there was complete freedom to appeal in all cases. Many of the cases are trivial and have no bearing at all on the future or status of the individual concerned. We think that in some of the more serious matters which result in a conviction, it is archaic to allow the justices to have an arbitrary discretion to fix recognisances which may operate to debar the convicted man of the right of appeal which the law gives him. This may often happen with a lay Bench.
I wish the Seconder of the Motion had had in mind that it is open now for any accused person in any serious offence to get free legal aid from the State. The Poor Prisoners' Defence Act of 1930 extends widely the advantages of poor prisoners' defence. I think it is entirely out of accord With the spirit of that Act to allow these barriers to remain, to allow the Bench who have convicted to have an absolute discretion in fixing a barrier
1148
which denies to the convicted man the right of appeal in what may be to him a matter of life and death. There are many of these cases. We certainly do not suggest that there should be a free appeal to everybody convicted on summary evidence before the justices. There must be a distinction drawn between cases the conviction for which is a serious matter, something which may tend to incapacitate a man for the rest of his life, and convictions for something which is of a trivial nature.
As one desiring to offer some help in the matter I suggest that it might very well be that a short enabling Measure could be introduced for giving to someone, say a Recorder or even one of His Majesty's Judges, the right in any particular case to say "We dispense in this case with the need for surety altogether." Whether the justices have taken notes or not is a question that does not arise, because these appeals are not appeals strictly but are in the nature of re-hearings; the case is started afresh at the time of re-hearing and the question of notes does not arise.
I have not the slightest doubt, after what was said by the learned Solicitor-General, that every one of these matters will have the full consideration of the committee that is now dealing with this problem. I hope that the committee will not confine itself to evidence from justices' clerks. After some experience I say that the last man in the world to give any opinion at all upon any alteration that may be necessary in the law and procedure of the police court may be a present-day clerk to the magistrates. In many cases it happens that he is not a full-time clerk, and that he is far more concerned with carrying on his ordinary practice. He often leaves the work of the police court to an unqualified man. I wish that the Seconder of the Motion had dealt with another very important aspect which will have to be tackled sooner or later, and that is the complete lack of uniformity between one court of summary jurisdiction and another. There are some where the clerk is complete master of the position. There are others where he is kept out of all consideration. He is not present at the bench's retirement and does not know what the decision is until the bench are back, having probably misapplied their minds to a good many irrelevant topics.

1149
Obvious mistakes are made from time to time. We believe in our criminal system. Whatever imperfections it may have it stands pre-eminent in the justice of the world. But we also want to see that justice seems to be done as well as is done.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. THORP: Before coming here this afternoon I looked up "Annual Practice," which is a work of reference used by us all in both branches of the profession. To some extent it corresponds to the Code of Procedure used on the Continent. I noticed that it is a book of 3,600 closely-printed pages, and that it includes over 12,000 reported decisions. Therefore, if anyone" wants to know what our code of procedure is he would apparently have to study a book of that kind. It is an extremely severe commentary on our procedure that it should require such a book to tell us, not what the law is, but how to set the law in operation. In those circumstances, I congratulate the' Government sincerely on having appointed a committee to go into the whole question. But I would offer one or two suggestions. One is that I think the Government would have been wise if they had put on to that committee an old and experienced managing clerk who had had experience of how these things are done long before they come into the hands of counsel, and sometimes long before they come into the hands of solicitors. Many of these managing clerks can just touch the "Annual Practice" with one thumb and open it at the right place, whereas some of us who have been at the Bar for many years take the whole morning to find a reference. That very able and very experienced body of men who have knowledge of the practice and working of the courts should not be ignored by this committee.
There is one other aspect of the Motion to which I would refer. Everyone regrets the delay that there is in cases coming on for trial, and I have no doubt that that is one of the points that will be considered by the committee. I admit that the new procedure in the courts is working very well, and that cases are coming on very much more quickly under the new procedure than they would otherwise have done; but the fact remains that the result of putting
1150
two of His Majesty's Judges to deal with cases that are under the new procedure is that a lot of people who have had cases down for 12 months are being delayed because there are two judges who would otherwise have been available to work on the ordinary list and who are now dealing with cases which commenced only a few weeks ago. It means that the person who was diligent in pursuing his rights in bringing his action perhaps 18 months since is kept waiting for someone who may have begun his action only about three weeks ago.
I would be glad if the committee that has been appointed were asked to take into consideration how this suggestion works: I suggest that there should be appointed two additional judges, and that there should not be any cases for trial put into the daily list of those two judges. These two judges would be available to try cases sent from other courts which have a heavy list of litigation, with the result that many witnesses and jurymen have been kept waiting, it may be for one, two, three or four days. One case in which I was personally engaged was in the list for a whole week, and was never reached. If there were available two judges without any daily list such cases could be promptly called on; the parties could go before one of the judges without the list. An alternative suggestion is that before appointing an additional judge a point might be made of giving one of the present judges no cases in his list at all, so that he can be available for the transfer of cases to his court.
The answer that will no doubt be made is that this plan would be expensive. But even if one of these two judges did not have any case sent to him for one, two or three days a week, there is the advantage that jurymen and witnesses and experts need not be kept waiting, and if the balance were worked out in actual cost to the public it would mean that there would be less waste of time. There might he 20 or 30 jurymen concerned. There might be half-a-dozen expert witnesses, and the solicitors and their clerks, all hanging about the courts until late in the afternoon lest a case should come on for trial. If all those expenses were added up, I am sure that at the end of the year it would be found that the public had effected a real saving. The Government might be tempted to try that experiment with one of the present judges,

1151
and work out some figures so as to see whether it was a profitable line to follow.
With regard to the Amendment on the Order Paper, I suggest that it should not be in the power of a court which has given a decision with which a person is dissatisfied practically to refuse him leave to appeal. A short enabling Statute should be passed limiting the amount of the surety that has to be provided. It could limit it to £20 or £40. In certain special circumstances that amount might be increased. But refusal to fix the amount or failure to fix it at only a small figure might be the subject of appeal, as bail is the subject of appeal. It would not take a judge in chambers 10 minutes to make up his mind and to say that in a case there should be an appeal with normal surety; or he might say that the appeal would cost a lot. In the circumstances, I submit that it is rather illogical that a man should have the right of appeal and then fix an amount which cannot possibly be found.
Mr. SPEAKER: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Lyons) did not move his Amendment?
Mr. LYONS: It occurred to me, after consultation, that in view of what the Solicitor-General had said, and to which we listened with gratitude, the Government were giving full consideration to this matter and, therefore, I did not move the Amendment. Of course, if you desire that the matter should be properly on record, and that I ought to have moved the Amendment, I will do so.
Mr. SPEAKER: It does not make any difference to me.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: There are just one or two remarks I would like to make, particularly regarding what was said by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. The proposer expressed the hope that in any future improvement of the law Wales might be treated as a separate entity. Although I do not happen to be a Welshman, I have been for many years a member of the South Wales circuit and, therefore, I can speak with some authority on the matter. I am not aware of any desire of Wales, or of the Welsh people, to be treated as a separate entity. I can imagine that there are serious objections to that course. Courts of
1152
Great Sessions at one time administered justice in Wales. They were abolished about 100 years ago, and I never heard that the Welsh people raised any outcry, nor do I believe that the Welsh people were put to a disadvantage by the substitution of the English circuit system. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion expressed his dissatisfaction with the assize system, but he did not give us any reasons for his dissatisfaction nor did he go on to suggest remedies.
Mr. JANNER: I am afraid the hon. Member misunderstood me.
Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: The hon. Member did say there was great dissatisfaction, but he did not give any reasons for that dissatisfaction, nor did he say how we, proposed to deal with difficulties. Of course, if the system does not provide justice, it should be altered. I would only say that there would be the very strongest objection in the older assize towns in England if the assizes were abolished. If it were suggested to a London man that the assizes should be taken from London to Newport, you would, of course, arouse protest. I would say that the provinces are very much wedded to the assize system and would regret if it were abolished.
Mr. JANNER: I made no such reference.
Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: With what the hon. Member said about courts of summary jurisdiction I am in entire agreement. I have long been convinced that the only way to deal with courts of summary jurisdiction is to abolish them, and the "great unpaid." I have not for many years had any sympathy with them. In a great many cases the work is carried on with great incompetence. I know that the time is not yet come when it is any use advocating the abolition of these courts, but I hope the time will come at no distant date when people will be put under a reorganised system of courts of summary jurisdiction and have properly trained lawyers to administer justice in criminal and other cases. I am especially dissatisfied where children are concerned. An immense amount of mischief and harm is done by ignorant justices in dealing with children. Recommendations have been made from time to time by the Home Office as to the proper methods of dealing with children, and

1153
these have been disregarded and ignored. I would gladly welcome the day when children are taken out of the control of the "great unpaid."
The Seconder spoke of great discomfort in the police courts. I think a great deal of the discomfort and unhappiness people suffer is due to the fact that, in a good many cases, they do not intend to tell the truth. There is nothing to produce nervousness like the knowledge that you are going to try to help one side, or keep back a part of the truth. If witnesses went to the police courts to tell the truth, and the whole truth as they swear to do, there would be a great deal less embarrassment and nervousness. I do not know if the Seconder still practises in the law. If he does, and if he told witnesses, when he finds them unduly nervous, that they need not be nervous if they are telling the truth, I think great benefit would result. It has been stated in the Debate that it is not possible to bring an action for defaming a dead man. The Proposer made that statement. I think if he looks up Archibald's Criminal Pleas, he will find it possible in some cases.
Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: What I said was that it was not actionable. The hon. Member is referring to the possibility of criminal libel if there is likely to be a breach of the peace. This is of no value so far as the family of the deceased persons are concerned.
Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I will not argue the matter, for that is a minor pint. One other matter which has been referred to during the discussion is the Statute of Edward III. The fact that it is put into operation, and has not been repealed, shows its excellence. That famous Statute has been most valuable and has contributed to the freedom and liberty of the subject, and I would not allow the statement to pass that it is out of date and mischievous.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that steps be taken to inquire into the defects in the system of law and legal procedure in England and Wales and into the measures for removing these defects."

MONETARY REFORM.
Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I beg to move:
"That this House urges the Government to complete the good work which it commenced in September, 1931, when it abandoned the gold standard system in its international aspect, by repealing those enactments which still tie this country to that system in its national aspect; this House further resolves that a Select Committee of its Members may be appointed by the Government, with the following terms of reference: to hear evidence on and examine into the various proposals now being advocated for a reformed monetary system, and to make recommendations for a new monetary system which will ensure, in its national aspect, a stable internal general price level and, in its international aspect, stable exchanges and the elimination of international competition in the lowering of general price levels with a view to undercutting."
7.12 p.m.
A few years ago anybody rising to make a speech on the subject of monetary reform would have been looked upon as a. crank, but to-day what a change has taken place. The question of monetary reform is on the lips of almost everyone—the working man and the business man wherever they meet together, in trains and trains you find this subject under discussion. The high priests of the Gold Standard say, "You can either have a stable, internal, general price level and a fluctuating external change, or a stable external exchange and a fluctuating internal general price level, but you cannot have both." The Gold Standard followers admit that there are great evils in the Gold Standard system, but they do not come forward and say that there is anything better. They persist in saying that this is good enough. I do think it would be helpful if the Gold Standard followers were to try and submit some alternative. I think the reason that nothing is done is well expressed in the book recently published by Sir Basil Blackett—"Planned Money"—in words which I cannot better:
"The Gold Standard has become a religion for some of the Boards of Central Banks in Continental Europe, believed in with emotional fervour which makes them incapable of an unprejudiced and objective examination of possible alternatives."
I hope to show how inefficient, how complicated and how dishonest, is the mechanism, and how dislocation and suffering have arisen under the Gold

1155
Standard system. I think it may well be described as a Heath Robinson contraption.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Gold was supposed to be like water. It ran off the countries which had too high a price level on to countries with lower price levels, and this dislocation of gold has affected the currencies of both the receiving countries and the losing countries. The effect is that the countries which are losing gold are compelled to contract their currencies. That is deflation, similar to what we have suffered for the last 10 years. The country receiving the gold goes through a process of inflation, and that is rather like the case of the grocer who is not too prosperous in his industry, and who decides to manipulate the scales in such a way that he can give a smaller quantity of commodities for the same volume of money. In this case, it is the money which is tampered with and not the scales. It is a dishonest system and has created a great deal of injustice to both creditors and debtors. The general price level has for years been on the down grade, and this has caused a good deal of privation as between citizens within the various nations. I feel that in this country we have not yet realised the effects of this Gold Standard system.
I come to examine another vice of the system. It is clear that any nation which wishes to depress its general price level can do so in several ways. It may decide to lower the standard of living. Or it may be that some industry has introduced modern improvements which help to reduce the cost of production and by these methods a country is producing more goods than it can consume and is exporting goods to other countries. The exporting country goes into the exchange market and reduces the currencies of the countries to which it is exporting, and reduced currencies in turn produce a lower price level within those countries. So the process goes on. It is this external influence from other countries which is affecting our own country particularly at the present time. I propose to quote from a memorandum on monetary policy issued by the London
1156
Chamber of Commerce in June last the following pasage:
"We see on the one hand, Nature immensely bountiful; scientifically equipped factories capable of providing every human want and ready to raise the general standard of living of all human beings to an infinitely higher level; and on the other, millions of men all over the world without work, in great poverty and want; factories working at a loss to 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of capacity, and the Governor of the Imperial Bank of India referring to the 'teeming millions of Africa and Asia' as 'half-starved and less than half-clad.' Instead of a great increase in the general standard of well-being there is a progressive decline."
Our problem is to increase purchasing power, but on every hand to-day we find the reverse process taking place. Purchasing power is being destroyed. If we cut down prices other nations do precisely the same thing and the world has got into a vicious spiral. We are not content with engaging in international competition of this kind and progressively reducing the general price level by means of currency deflation, but nations now are reducing their own currencies and this process is causing considerable hardship throughout the world. I apologise to the House for reading another quotation, but I particularly wish to draw their attention to the resolution passed by the council of the London Chamber of Commerce at its meeting last June. This resolution which was submitted to the Government prior to the Ottawa Conference was in the following terms:
"That in the opinion of this Council monetary reform is of outstanding importance. The arrest of progressive deflatior is, in their view, the condition precedent to a restoration of world prosperity and no other measures which may be taken can prove effective substitutes. This Council cannot too strongly urge on His Majesty's Government that the opportunity which will be afforded by the Ottawa Conference should be seized to reach agreements with the other nations of the Empire upon this all-important matter, so that the Empire having itself agreed upon a constructive monetary policy may be in a position to give a lead to the other nations of the world and invite their co-operation. The Council venture to put forward the report of their special committee as a contribution to the reform of the monetary system and as a basis of discussion at Ottawa on the subject."
We all know that the Monetary Committee at Ottawa did not prove successful. We know that the Lausanne Conference was equally unfortunate. It is a question

1157
if the World Conference, which ought to be sitting now and which probably may never sit at all, would be any more successful in dealing with this matter. Unless the Anglo-saxon peoples, with the other nations who have looked to this country for leadership, show a little courage and initiative in this matter, I can see no stopping place short of chaos. I frequently ask myself, and I have endeavoured by means of Questions in this House to find out, whether the Government have any monetary policy at all. I am inclined to think that they have, but I am sorry to say that my view of their policy is that they are prepared to sit on a fence and to see industries destroyed until the volume of production in industry has reached the level of the purchasing power of the country.
If I am right in that conclusion, I would impress on the Government that it is a very dangerous policy, and I feel that before it is completely successful, revolution will arise in this country. It is impossible to "touch rock bottom," as it is generally termed, by the destruction of agriculture and industry because as you destroy, first one industry and then another, you are decreasing your own purchasing power and it is this decrease of purchasing power which has been going on for some years. The process is one that is reminiscent of a little dog running round and round trying to catch its own tail. But it is impossible for us to get back to prosperity, so long as there is uncertainty as to the monetary position of this country and so long as the belief persists that the Government have no monetary policy at all.
It is no longer sufficient to rely upon the employing classes and those classes which have investments, to consume the production of this country. We have stepped into an age of mass production, and, with mass production, we must have mass consumption. It is interesting to note that in America no less than 85 per cent. of the production of the United States is consumed by people with less than £1,000 per annum. Therefore, I feel that there is one thing which we have seriously overlooked. We have made no provision for the wages of the machine. In the past when men produced by hand, wages were paid equivalent to that production. There was no machinery to compete with them, and the wages of one
1158
consumed the production of another. We have a serious gap to-day created by the introduction of machinery. Under the Gold Standard system it is impossible to fill that gap, caused by the enormous production which is now made possible by machinery. In other words, we have to provide wages for the machine, as we did for the man who produced by hand.
I congratulate the Government on having gone off the Gold Standard in September, 1931. It was quite time that we retired from the international scramble for gold. It is rather extraordinary to find that since we went off the Gold Standard the general price level of this country has been reasonably stable, but the countries which have remained on the Gold Standard have gone from bad to worse. In many cases they have got into a position in which it is impossible for them to pay for the exports which they buy from us, and they have caused the external value of our currency to fluctuate widely. But even now, although we have cut ourselves adrift from the Gold Standard, in its international aspect, we are still suffering internally from the indirect influences of that standard. Of what does our money consist? We have a paper issue to-day, having paid the American Debt, of something like £394,000,000, but the vast bulk of the money claim of the people is represented by bank money or credit which is transferred from account to account by cheque. Of the legal tender money of just over £394,000,000 to which I have referred, approximately only one-third is "covered" by gold—whatever that may mean. But this bank money is in theory convertible into paper money and paper money in turn is convertible into gold.
One has only to consider that sketch of the position to see how inadequate and how dishonest is the gold system. We understand that this money is convertible, but into what are we going to convert it? I think that to-day we have something like £122,000,000 of gold reserves. If we proceeded to convert all this money, we should only get a fraction of what we are supposed to possess. It is a point which I want to make to show how the Gold Standard system falls short, and how the use of gold in any monetary machine is preposterous. I think I am correct in saying that the monetary gold of the world is something

1159
just under £2,400,000,000. It has got its value because the Governments of the world passed legislation agreeing to a fixed price. I submit that if the Governments of the world were to pass legislation to say that tin, lead, or any other commodity should have a fixed price, it would never go below that value. If you removed that fixed price, what might be a reasonable value of gold? Probably not more than 5s. an ounce, and it is obvious that, the Governments of the world having fixed this price of gold, upon which the value of their currencies is based, and with the limitation of gold coming into the monetary machine, it is impossible to avoid these fluctuations, unemployment, and privations, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
I should like to remind the House that in 1925 we passed the Gold Standard Act, by which we suspended Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act of 1914, and withdrew the right to convert money into gold except in quantities of £1,600 at a time. Nobody with any less amount than that could go to the Bank and demand to have his money converted. You see the futility of the proposal. How many people in this country have £1,600 available to go to the Bank to be converted? They might just as well have said that there should be no convertibility in perpetuity, because it really had that effect. The vast bulk of the population probably do not realise that there is machinery for conversion, and they are quite satisfied to have their paper money, so long as their grocer, or baker, or whoever it may be, is prepared to accept that; and he always will accept it, so long as it is legal tender. Therefore, the question of convertibility is really another preposterous argument in this Gold Standard question.
It is said that in a great crisis people would want to convert their paper money because they would lose confidence. Under the Gold Standard system, I am not surprised that that view may be held, but what is going to be the position should there be a large demand to convert, when you consider what I have previously said, that there is such a small reserve of gold that if we were all to demand conversion at once, we could only get a very small percentage of that to
1160
which we assume we are legally entitled? There have been moratoriums, of course. The Government have had to come to the assistance of the monetary machine on more than one occasion. They had to come to its assistance in 1847, 1857, 1866, 1914, and again in 1931; and, therefore, it is quite evident that the Gold Standard system is by no means infallible.
Again, it is said that there is a gold mentality. Up to a point, I agree, but where is that gold mentality? It is quite nice to feel that there are certain lumps of gold tucked away which may be of some use in one form or another some day, but for our monetary purposes I want to point out where that gold mentality rests. It rests, I submit, with the old men of the country. When it is realised that we in this country have paid wages since 1914 by paper, and have never used gold, and when it is realised that the men of military age who joined the Forces during the War and who to-day would be 35 years old have never used a golden sovereign to exchange for production, it will be seen that these men cannot have a gold mentality. How many young men in this House have ever used a golden sovereign or, perhaps, ever seen one? It is not these young men, it is not the rising generation, that can have a gold mentality, and I respectfully submit that we should legislate for the rising generation, not for the old men of this country. The question of what should be done, having regard to the payment of the American Debt, to help our monetary mechanism was, I think, very well put in a letter which was addressed by the London Chamber of Commerce to the Prime Minister on the 15th of this month. I attach so much importance to this letter that I shall ask the House to allow me to read it. It was signed by the president, Lord Leverhulme, by the chairman of the council, Sir Geoffrey R. Clarke, and by the secretary, Mr. A de V. Leigh. It reads:
"You will remember that on the 7th December we had the honour to send you, privately, a copy of the following Resolution, which was passed by the General Purposes Committee of this Chamber at its meeting on the previous afternoon:
'That the London Chamber of Commerce is of opinion that, should the United States, after considering the British Government's representations, insist upon receiving payment of the £19,750,000 due to her on the 15th

1161
December, payment should be made from the country's gold reserves.
This Chamber strongly urges upon His Majesty's Government that no contraction of the currency, should take place as a result of this shipment, but that the present volume of currency should remain in issue, the £19,750,000 at present theoretically covered by the gold which would then be shipped being added to the £15,000,000 already in issue under Treasury Minute.'
This Resolution has since been confirmed by the Council of this Chamber at its meeting on Tuesday last.
The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on the 14th December, during the Debate on the American Debt, that the fiduciary issue could only he raised by the Treasury on a representation from the Bank of England, that the Bank of England had made no such representation, and, further, that he would have been surprised if it had, is a matter of the utmost concern to the trade and industry of this country.
If, in fact, such an application is not made, it will involve a contraction of currency by £19,750,000 and of Bank credit by £197,500,000. This further drastic deflation cannot fail to force down prices still further, with disastrous results, not only to the agriculture and industry of this country, but also to those suppliers of primary products throughout the world who, under conditions of intense competition, can alone find an outlet for their products in this market, whatever the price level may be.
So far as the internal needs of this country are concerned, there cannot, we submit, be any justification for a further drastic curtailment of currency and credit, and such action would, in fact, be diametrically opposed to the undertaking given by the British Government delegates at Ottawa.
So far as our external relations are concerned, the right of other nations to take gold from this country was suspended in September, 1931, and has not been restored, so that the contraction of currency and the forcing down of prices, which was the procedure followed by this country before that date, when it lost gold, with a view to preventing a further loss, is, it is submitted, quite inappropriate under present conditions,"
There is in that letter the very serious suggestion that the payment of the American War Debt will bring about a further deflation. That would be a very serious position for this country. Deflation has already gone too far. It is rather remarkable that immediately after the issue of that letter the Press generally were unanimous in contending that the £43,000,000 reserve, as it stood then, would not be affected by the withdrawal
1162
of the £19,750,000 in so far as the currency would continue to remain. If those conditions did exist, it would mean that the Bank of England would be satisfied to hold 6 per cent. only of the total note issue in reserve, instead of what it was a week ago, approximately 10 per cent. Hon. Members will realise that the City of London is concerned about that position, and I think that concern is reflected in the tender of Treasury bills which took place on the 16th December, when the discount rate was £1 5s. 6d., as compared with 16s. 5d. the week before. There is a lesson for this Government in the fact that within a very few days of that payment, owing to the nervousness in the City as to what the Government were going to do with their monetary policy, a higher rate of interest was demanded.
I think there is another fear. While, as I say, the Press were unanimous that it might be all right for the currency not to be contracted now, and to be satisfied with the 6 per cent. reserve, I feel that the City realise that after Christmas there will be a process of withdrawing currency from the market to build up this reserve again, and every £1 which is withdrawn from the banks means a loss of approximately £10 of credit for industry. I feel that that position is extremely dangerous. I would much rather, when the American Debt question was being discussed a week ago to-day that this most important matter had been debated than that the House should have entered into personalities in which an exasperated public are entirely uninterested. I feel that there can be no prosperity in the world until we adopt a system whereby we can get increased purchasing power. Nobody can deny that the avenues leading to and from and round about the temple of the gold fetish have been thoroughly and exhaustively explored. With what result? Now we have an expression from the high priest—I refer to the Governor of the Bank of England—as to what have been the results of this policy. He made a speech at the Mansion House dinner this year, and this is what he said:
"When it comes to the future, I hope that we may all see and approach the light at the end of the tunnel which some are already able to point out to us. I myself see it somewhat indistinctly and different directions are pointed out to us, all of which I hope will lead us where we wish to go, but I must admit for the moment that the way is not clear. We have not yet

1163
emerged from difficulties through which we have been passing. I like to believe we shall meet here again next year, that this will continue to be an annual gathering, and that then, as I believe is more than likely, we shall see clearly where we are going and be sensible of the rapid pace towards that goal at which we are proceeding."
For the Governor of the Bank of England, a man who holds the destinies of this country in his hands, to make a speech which expresses such a hopeless future for the country is extremely alarming. Hardly more inspiring messages come from leaders of our own Government. The-Prime Minister, speaking of unemployment last November to the mayors, corporations and local bodies of the country, asked them to do something to organise work and to help in any direction that they could. Then shortly afterwards, the Government, through the Prime Minister, appealed to these people to economise and to cut down expenditure. What must these local bodies think of us here? One day we ask them to do one thing, and another day we ask them to do something else. What do we want? What we are doing is to create a good deal of dissatisfaction.
My reference to unemployment brings me to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going through these points to try and show that the Government have no hope. Because I feel that and see it so definitely expressed in the speeches of the leaders of the Government, I am taking the liberty to make reference to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the recent Debate on unemployment, made a, speech of which this is an extract:
"… while we will do all we can to help the unemployed to find employment in the immediate future, and while we have taken and are still taking steps that we think will give stimulus to industry and will increase the normal operations of trade, and thus gradually reduce the numbers of the unemployed, nevertheless we still have to face the fact that there are going to be a large number—a million or more—of persons for whom we cannot expect to find regular employment in their own trades either this winter or next winter or perhaps for many winters to come. If one faces up to things, that is the conclusion to which we are bound to come; and I submit that once we accept that conclusion, once we agree that, whatever efforts any of us may make, we are still going to have the unemployed with us in large numbers for a long period of time … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; col. 261, Vol. 270.]
1164
I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are going to have a large volume of unemployment with us for a long time—I will say for all time as long as this country adheres to the Gold Standard system. This is where the gold mentality of the older men to whom I have referred is so clearly expressed. We find this gold mentality coming up first in one direction and then in another. I endeavoured to put a question to the House a week ago on another subject which concerns me. When I banded in the question, I was told that because it referred to a private concern it could not be accepted as the Government bad no control over it. The question referred to the Bank of England, and, because I could not put the question in the House, I am now going to ask the Chancellor if he will give me information on three important points, because I feel that the replies to those points may have some bearing on the policy of deflation which this country has adopted and which is causing such privation and distress. My three questions are as follow: Who are the proprietors of the Bank of England? Is there any statutory provision which ensures that the majority voting power is in the hands of shareholders of British nationality, and, if not, whether, in fact, the majority voting power is so held at the present time? Whether there is any provision in the Charter of the Bank of England which makes it illegal to hold shares by proxy in such a way as to obscure the true ownership of the Bank?
I referred to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the 14th December, when he stated that there could be no increase in the fiduciary issue except by the Treasury on the representation of the Bank of England. The Bank of England is a private concern, and instead of the monetary policy of the Government being in the hands of private individuals of whom none of us in the House can make any inquiries, I feel that the development of industry and the whole change of the circumstances of industry demand something different from a private central bank. I should like to see the Bank put on a footing similar to that of the Electricity Commissioners. I am not moving this Motion out of any hostility to the Government, but with a view to helping them. I want to get them out of this gold mentality. I congratulate them on the great work that

1165
they have done, but I feel that this magnificent work will be destroyed—in fact, it will never be allowed to mature and function—unless their monetary policy is one which will give purchasing power back to the people who deserve it.
Lord APSLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
7.55 p.m.
May I say how glad I am that the House has, through the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven Ellis), been afforded an opportunity of discussing a matter of such great importance. It is a matter which I have had at heart for a great number of years. In fact, when I had the honour to represent the constituency for which an hon. Gentleman now sits, I used to speak of it on almost every occasion. Together with the Town Hall, the Bar Gate, the tolls on the Itchen bridges, a civic aerodrome, and a scientific tariff, it used to form my stock in trade on which I used to ring the changes whenever occasion occurred. It is a curious thing that, with the exception of this matter, all these things I have mentioned have either been completed or are in the course of completion. Even the Town Hall of Southampton, discussions about which began in the reign of King John and continued every year since, was opened the other day, and I should have been glad to go and see the ceremony but for the fact that I was told that there was still a wire fence across the civic aerodrome which made it awkward to land. Even the scientific tariff is almost an accomplished fact. Only this question of currency reform, about which we hoped so much, is still being left in abeyance, although if it be true that what the hon. Member's constituency of Southampton says to-day, Manchester will say tomorrow, we still have hopes that even this question may also be solved eventually.
What are the Government's views on this question? It has been raised on several occasions, especially with reference to silver and bimetallism in various Debates in this House and in another place, and I must confess that the arguments given by Members of the Government have not been in strict accordance with each other. I have here the view
1166
of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on the question of silver. He says:
"The fall in the price of silver, which lowers purchasing power in the Far East, is, I am informed, a contributory cause of the present unemployment in the cotton industry of Lancashire, and it is one of the reasons for the recent increase in the number of persons recorded as unemployed." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1930; col. 206, Vol. 235.]
No bimetallist would find fault with that statement. I have only one fault to find with it. Why confine it to Manchester? Cannot we get away from Manchester for a moment? It is not only cotton that China can buy. During the boom years after the War, when silver was high, China was buying gramophones, motor cars, beef, wool, bicycles and aeroplanes, and China was an ever-increasing potential market with 400,000,000 people ready for the trade we could give to them. The same to a lesser extent may be said of India. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? I think we hear a different voice. He says:
"I am not going to be dogmatic on that question, because I find it all very confusing and very difficult to be quite certain that any particular view is the last word on the subject; but I see difficulties in the way of accepting the theory that a rise in the price of silver would increase our trade with India and China."
Again, he says:
"Without being dogmatic I am not convinced myself that a rise in the price of the value of silver would have this valuable effect upon the trade of Lancashire with China or India."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; cols. 255–6, Vol. 270.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not appear to be quite happy or confident in his opinion. Perhaps he was expressing the views of the Treasury, and the sweet strains wafted down from Olympus, or the choruses that echo round Valhalla after a successful conversion loan, are not completely in harmony with this particular matter. In another place Lord Stanhope elaborated the same theme at much greater length. This appears to me to be a, strange line of country for the Government to take. Surely the main argument against bimetallism has always been that we should have the country flooded with silver, that silver would come in and drive gold out, under Gresham's law that bad metal drives out good. Now we are told that the output of silver is very small, only a wretched

1167
200,000,000 ounces a year. In a speech he made not very long ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the annual production of 200,000,000 ounces would add little more than 4 per cent. to the existing currency reserve, and therefore would be a negligible factor in providing the necessary new currency to bring back the rise in prices demanded from all sides of the House and consequent prosperity.
In my own humble opinion, I think too little regard has been paid by these gentlemen to the rise in the price of silver which would be consequent on any form of its remonetisation, nor do I think they make sufficient allowance for the immense funds of idle silver not only in China and India but in Russia. I think the estimate given by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) on this point was certainly on a conservative basis. Further, I doubt whether sufficient allowance was made for the development in silver mining which would be bound to follow all over the world, including this country, in the event of a rise in the price of silver. In Derbyshire there are lead mines lying idle which would be put to work if there were a rise in the price of silver such as would make it worth while to produce both lead and silver; and an enormous amount of silver is produced as a by-product of mines which yield other metals. I doubt whether these factors were taken into consideration when the figures were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House and by Lord Stanhope in another place.
Bimetallism as a. theory has had a long run. It had a good run in the "hungry forties," and was defeated then by the supplies of gold from Australia and California. It had another run in the slump of the 'eighties, and was defeated then by the boom consequent on the gold strikes in the Klondyke, on the Rand in South Africa and in Western Australia. Possibly, as a result of the rise in prices resulting from that last gold strike, there would have been another era of prosperity—perhaps another 40 years this time, instead of the actual 15 years that it lasted—had it not been for that most unfortunate agitation about Chinese labour, which had the immediate effect of raising the cost of the production of gold. It seems impossible to us in this genera-
1168
tion that this country should really have been moved by an agitation got up as to whether Chinese coolies under an indentured labour system should be allowed to come into what is now one of our Dominions which looks after its own affairs. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) thought for one minute, as they went about the country making most eloquent speeches on this subject, of the world-wide repercussions the Chinese labour election would have. If gold production had been kept low there would have been no unemployment problem in 1912, no threat of bankruptcy in Germany, Austria and Russia in 1914, and, possibly, no European and world-wide war. It is amazing how enormous developments may grow out of small matters, and it is a warning to democracy for all time.
I am not myself a bimetallist, I am a symmetalist. Like the Chancellor I do not want to be dogmatic and do not wish to weary the House with an explanation of the difference, but I would ask hon. Members who are interested to read that most excellent pamphlet on the subject produced by Lord Desborough. That would explain it in far better language than I could, but briefly the suggestions I would put to the Financial Secretary are these. We could have a managed currency—that would please the hon. Member who opened this Debate, and also the hon. Member for Dundee, if he were here—and we might call it sterling. I believe Lord Desborough calls it Rex, but I see no reason why it should not be called sterling. It must have a metallic backing, expressed by metal reserves in the Bank according to the credit of the country and according to the market price of the metals concerned. The pound sterling or Rex must, therefore, be backed by sufficient reserves at the Bank, and, in my opinion, it should be possible to coin in metal if required or as required.
I do not believe that with international action—and we can start with Imperial action—there should be any danger to the Exchequer by that process. It should be coined if required and as required; otherwise, in my opinion, the currency is a debased currency. I believe that our present currency is really debased, and with a debased currency Gresham's

1169
Law will come into operation and we shall drive the metal—in this case, as we are on gold, it will be gold—out of the country.
The only difference or the chief difference with this system is that the reserves need not be in gold only. I want gold, silver and, if necessary, platinum brought in. The amount of each held by the Bank would vary according to the price of the metal. If gold rises sell gold and buy silver; if silver rises act in the reverse way; and, if necessary, call in platinum to assist in equalising the exchange.
I see that an Amendment has been put down objecting to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider this matter. I do not very much care whether a committee is set up or not. I have no very great belief in the deliberations of what Mr. Punch calls the pundits. I have an idea that if Prince Charlie had not called a council of war at Derby he might have been crowned King of England—for a time at any rate. In my belief the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible, and it is for him to act on his own responsibility. Neither Gresham, Cromwell, Cavour, Bismarck, Lord Cromer or Mussolini called the pundits to their assistance when they successfully carried the countries of which they were in charge from financial chaos to prosperity; and I do not suppose any one of them could have passed a Civil Service "exam." Most of them were plain country squires or soldiers, with judgment and balance and a sufficient amount of determination to carry through their convictions; and they did it. The responsibility must rest on the man responsible, and it is for him to act. If Sir Montagu Norman says he cannot do it, it is for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "Aye" or "No."
This question is as old as the hills, as old as the Parable of the Talents, it is older than the fable of Midas. Unless nations take action the result is bound to be what it has always been. The creditor countries accumulate all the gold and get financial indigestion, and the debtor countries starve and pull in their belts, until as has been repeatedly the case in the past, somebody short of cash, but full of what our American cousins would call "pep," like Alexander or Titus, or Jenghiz Kahn or Drake comes in and takes the gold from where
1170
it has accumulated and spreads it about where it can be put to a more economic use. It would be a somewhat drastic way of dealing with the situation, but I am not sure, if matters are allowed to drift, that such a course of action may not again be followed. The fate of Persia, the fate of Jerusalem, the fate of Bagdad and the fate of Spain might quite easily befall the United States of America as a result of the accumulation of gold. There would be growing popular discontent, official supineness and corruption and racial hatreds, resulting in civil war and revolution, so weakening the country that their neighbours, whether they might be Mexico or Japan, or even Canada, in the future, might produce an Alexander or a Jenghiz Kahn who would right the situation—if civilisation had got to such a pitch of supineness that it was unable to find a more reasonable and a more economic way out. What has happened before will inevitably happen again.
I have no doubt the Government have excellent reasons for their inaction so far. I hope they will give us those reasons to-night, but even if they convince us that their reasons for inaction are right, and that perhaps new gold strikes in Australia, in South Africa, in West Africa, in Venezuela, New Zealand, and Canada may result in gold coming to the debtor countries in such quantity that there is no need to take alarm or indeed to take action, I still have one suggestion which I would like to put forward. The point is whether this is not the right moment and the opportunity for us to reorganise our existing system of currency. I believe it was established in 1816. Is there any reason why a system of currency that was good in 1816 should of necessity be good in 1932? I have many objections to it myself. It is not flexible enough; taking sterling at its present relation to gold, there is not enough silver to the pound sterling for the ordinary man and woman in the street to use it for making purchases. Further, multiples of 20 and 12 are exceedingly cumbrous in calculations, and when we get down to the lower ranges we get that insufferable creature, which gives headaches to all schoolboys, the vulgar fraction.
Finally, there is no unity in the Empire. Wherever the American flag flies

1171
a dollar is a dollar, and you know it. Wherever the French flag flies, in all the French colonies and possessions and mandated areas, the franc is the franc and nothing else. Wherever the British flag flies, or wherever the flags of her Dominions fly, there is the most amazing variety of currencies and coins. If we call the Empire the British Commonwealth of Nations, let us at least start by having a common source of wealth.
My suggestions, which I hope will not weary the House are not very original, and they are not in a way very revolutionary: If we have an Imperial currency, I cannot see any reason why we should not have it based on the system which prevails in Egypt. It would mean producing a new coin, worth 2½d., the equivalent of the Egyptian piastre. We might revive an old English name and call it a "groat." It would be a nickel coin, although at the present price of silver, it could quite well be coined in silver and, for that matter, called a "shilling." It would be interesting to note what ale effect would be upon the purchasing power of the public. I have spoken to many experts on the matter, and I have not had the same answer from any two of them. If, in order to avoid controversy, we presume a nickel coin such as they have in Egypt, and then you would have the pound worth 100 groats, with coins of five groats, 10 groats and 20 groats, which would be called "shillings," "florins" and "crowns," respectively. The one groat would be equal to 2½d., two and a half copper coins, or 10 farthings, and thus the money would maintain the decimal system—farthings, groats, florins and pounds—without in any way upsetting our accustomed coinage. The only difference would be the disappearance of the half-crown, and I am not sure that that would be an unmixed blessing, and of the threepenny bit, whose place would be taken by the groat. If there were an outcry in Scotland, as I hear an hon. Member suggest, I would remind the Scottish hon. Members who are present that the groat would be doing the work of the threepenny bit and that when they put it in the plate on Sunday they would save a halfpenny on it.
Another scheme, more revolutionary, would be to make the unit a coin called
1172
a "crown" which would be equal to the Canadian dollar. It would be worth a dollar, and it would be printed in bills or minted in coins say the size of a 4s. piece, with a little platinum alloy in to bring it up to its true worth. There would be five of them in the pound, and the pound would be of increased value. There would be 10 silver shillings in each crown and 10 pennies to each shilling. That is a far more upsetting and revolutionary scheme, which might never find favour in England, although possibly it would in Canada. I think that the first-mentioned scheme, if such schemes are possible, would in a very short time be acceptable all over the British Empire and would make calculations far more simple than they are.
These suggestions may sound silly. I have been a young man now for a number of years, and I have become accustomed to hearing my suggestions called silly. I have also become accustomed to seeing them brought into operation by one of my elders and betters usually after two years have elapsed. I do not mind who on earth get the credit so long as the job is done. But at any rate, in making these suggestions, I am responding to the appeal which was made by the Leader of the Opposition the night before last. I am not sure whether he was appealing to. me, to the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell), the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Burnays) or even to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). We all pass as young men, even though some of us, or, as the Attorney-General would say, all of us, are getting on in years. Still, I suppose we do pass as young men. I do not wish to lay too much stress on the value of youth. I know quite well that there can be young fools just as well as old fools. I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal by quoting a couplet from an old Gloucestershire Cavalier song called "George Riddler's Oven," which runs:
"Let each mon zing in his owen please, And as Jarge'e wur the elder brother, Twer roight as 'e should zing the hems."
8.21 p.m.
Mr. McCORQUODALE: I rise to-night, fully conscious of the old saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I fear that I am an amateur on this

1173
highly technical subject of currency and monetary system. We have had two most interesting speeches, one from the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) and the other from a past Member for Southampton, who has migrated as far as Bristol. I do not propose to keep the House any length of time, but I want, if I may, to say that I do not regard this question as one that should be left to the expert. It is the duty of everyone of us, to the best of our ability, to unravel for ourselves what the expert and the pundit endeavour to keep wrapped in mystery, and to remember, as one wit has put it, that an expert is a man who knows much too much about much too little.
These things should he regarded from the very widest aspect. I have tried to give as much study as possible in the last six months or so to these matters, ever since we heard eloquent speeches by former Chancellors of the Exchequer urging us to do so, and I have come definitely to the conclusion that any attempt whatever to revert in any form to the Gold Standard, either at the old parity or at any new parity, while the state of the world is as we find it at the present time, with high tariffs, high nationalist feelings, war and inter-governmental debts and obligations, would be a major disaster, not only to this country but to the whole world. In a Utopian world, where every person's state was equal and people were equally gifted, no doubt universal Free Trade and the universal Gold Standard system would be the best, but no one can suggest that we have achieved that Utopia in the state in which the world now is.
On Monday that admirable national newspaper the "Times," published on the leader page a long letter from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) explaining what had been said or had not been said in 1922 by the hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I felt that that was something on a par with what Mr. Gladstone said in 1885 or 1866, in the interest it would have for the bulk of the community, or at any rate for myself. On a back page of that newspaper on the same day, one found what I might describe as a, most admirable and lucid letter on the subject of the Gold Standard signed under the nom
1174
de plume of "Peregrinus." He started with a statement of so telling a phrase that I would, with the permission of the House repeat it.
"The Gold Standard,"—
he said,
"is the ghost of Free Trade sitting crowned on the ruins there-of."
We have been driven by the force of circumstances, somewhat against the will of many of us, from our position as a Free Trade country. In the view of the overwhelming mass of opinion in this country, our Free Trade position was no longer tenable in the world as we found it. I maintain that we must now abandon entirely the use or recognition of gold as a measure of monetary backing, for it has proved to be nothing but a mockery when used as a measure since the war, and especially during the last three years. Personally, I advocate something in the form of a managed currency, but I do not wish to go into that question here and now; I am not sufficiently acquainted with all the details, and I have no doubt that there are many in the House who are more qualified than I am to do so. I would like, however, to place before the House one or two points with regard to the present state of gold in the world, which I think are not sufficiently emphasised.
We all know where the great bulk of the gold lies—dead and buried in the vaults of Paris and New York; but I do not think everybody realises that, on the top of the mad scramble for gold which is going on all over the world in all countries which are endeavouring to bolster up and maintain their currencies, there is a huge speculative field in monetary exchange backed by gold. To take advantage of this field, enormous short-term balances are kept in different countries on a gold basis. It is estimated that these balances would account for at least a third of the total gold available in the world, and they are withdrawable, for the most part, at one week's notice. Obviously, if one-third of the whole gold in the world can be shifted from country to country at a week's notice, any stability is impossible; and the essence of the value of gold as a measure of value is that it should be stable.
I may be accused of flogging a dead horse. I may be told that no one in his

1175
senses at present advocates any return to gold. I may be told that we have had an admirable example in the last 18 months since we went off gold and assumed the leadership of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) so aptly described as the Sterling Convoy. It will be pointed out how, since we went off gold, things in this country have improved in a marvellous manner as compared with gold countries, and how our prices have remained steady when their wholesale prices were falling. I may, as I have said, be accused of flogging a dead horse, but I am grievously alarmed lest the Government of the United States of America may, in the forthcoming debt conversations, insist, as one of their conditions of wiping off a large portion of our debt, that we should revert to a gold standard system.
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was going to ask the Financial Secretary, but I regret to see that he has just left his place—whether he would not be doing his duty to this House if he gave a pledge that no such proposal from the United States of America should be entertained or considered in the slightest degree without the House having first an opportunity of debating it. I believe that the chancellor made a great mistake when the opportunity was offered to him the other day, on our paying our debt instalment in gold, of breaking with gold altogether by bringing in a new fiduciary issue bill. It might have depressed the pound, and I believe it would have been a good thing if it had. I would much rather, from the point of view of trade and employment in this country see our pound sterling valued to-day at $3 than at $3.30. I believe that one of the great dangers to our trade at the present time is a too rapid rise, rather than a fall, in the value of the pound in terms of dollars.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but would only say that I support the plea of the hon. Member for Southampton that we should be modern and bold in our outlook. We are, as he said, fortunate enough to have in our Financial Secretary what is known as a young man—there has been a great deal of talk about young men. Our last Financial
1176
Secretary was another young man, and I believe that our Chancellor of the Exchequer is, except, perhaps, in years, a young man also. I would enter a plea that we should take such steps as are necessary to do what I believe to be perfectly feasible, and that is to shake off the shackles of all Victorian and earlier ideas about these matters of currency, and to insist that currency should be the servant of mankind, merely easing the exchange of goods between country and country and person and person, merely aiding the prosperity and comfort and greater enjoyment of the population of the whole world. Instead of that, we are allowing ourselves to be bound hand and foot by the shackles of what I might describe as that miserable old yellow mockery, gold.
8.34 p.m.
Sir BROGRAVE BEAUCHAMP: I was very pleased to see this Motion put down, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss a question which I think is uppermost in the minds of most people to-day. We have heard a very remarkable speech from my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley). I did not know that he was such a keen advocate of the silver question. It is my belief that not only is it essential to guard against deflation, but it is also most important to broaden our monetary basis. I was very sorry that we did not see fit to increase the fiduciary issue to offset the American Debt payment. I should prefer to see sterling depreciate against the dollar rather than see any deflationary process take place in this country, even if it is only temporary. The fortunes of the country during the past year have improved out of all recognition owing to the Measures that have been passed by the Government to help agriculture and industry, but, if we are to get true prosperity back, I believe we have to face up to this question of currency, just as we faced up to the question of free imports not so very long ago.
I think it will he agreed in nearly all parts of the House that the one way in which we can restore into occupation the vast numbers of our unemployed is by raising wholesale prices and I would ask the House to consider how this can best be done. To my mind there seems to be two alternatives. One is a very painful one and a very slow process, continuing bank-

1177
ruptcy, not only in this country but all over the world, and not only individuals and firms but countries going bankrupt on an ever-increasing scale. I believe this will go on until production falls and once again the world's available monetary supply balances production in terms of economic prices. That will be a slow and weary process. If this course is pursued, it indicates a belief that there is over-production. I hold the converse view. I believe there is under-consumption, not that the market is not there but that the machine in its progress has outstripped the system of exchange.
What is the other alternative? Surely it is to work out a system of increasing the purchasing power by a method of currency reform. Surely that is not a problem that is beyond solution in the present stage of our civilisation and our knowledge of banking and commerce. I suggest that the times need, as times of difficulty always do, bold measures and that, as an interim measure, while other avenues are still being explored, we should broaden our metallic base by the inclusion of silver. It has many advantages and, although many arguments have been raised against it, I still remain unconvinced. The one that meets one more often than any other is that silver will be over-produced if you raise the price of the metal. If you look over the past 400 years, you will see that the ratio of the production of gold to silver has always remained more or less the same, namely, 14 ounces of silver to an ounce of gold, and even when the price of silver went. up to 8s. an ounce the production of silver was only 15 ounces in ratio to an ounce of gold.
But surely, after all, the production of silver is divided into two categories. One-third is mined from silver mines and the other two-thirds is a by-product. To my mind, the argument that you can get an over-production of silver is rather an incentive to include it in the monetary system, because, owing to two-thirds of it being a by-product, the more trade there was going on in the world, and the more base metal we could demand, the greater would be the increase in the production of silver just at the time when you wanted it to finance trade and industry. After all, it is a medium of exchange which is understood by the peoples of the East, as gold is not. I
1178
always thought it was one of the most retrograde steps when India broke that alliance with the metal which it had for generations in the past, and before the Commission which inquired and finally settled the matter evidence was given by no less a person than the present Governor of the Bank of England, who said it would be a very disastrous thing if that should happen which did happen after the findings of that Commission.
I was glad my Noble Friend referred to what was said by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, that the trade of Lancashire had fallen owing to the fall in the price of silver and the decreased purchasing power of India. If we could only include silver in the monetary system merely as a temporary expedient to meet the difficult times that we are faced with to-day, we should see an increase in the price of that metal fixed at, say, half-a-crown an ounce, and at once you would stimulate purchasing power in the East. After all, if you can get the stream of trade flowing in any direction, it is a thing well worth doing, and I hope the Government will reconsider the matter. I know it has been a very thorny question in currency discussions in the past, and I am afraid the Government are not too sympathetically inclined, but I believe, if we take a bold line and do this, we should not be the only ones and we should be giving a lead to other countries.
8.45 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: I propose to deal with this question in rather a different way than that of former speakers, and, taking into consideration the very wide area that the question of monetary reform covers, I trust that I shall be in order in the points I am about to raise. I was very pleased that on rather an academic subject there should be a little joke brought in about my race. I am sure that the reference of the noble Lord was much appreciated by all Scottish Members of the House. We almost, I think, expected some joke during the evening about our race, and we really rather liked it.
I do not think that we need bother very much about the technicalities of monetary reform, because, in my view, the whole question has to do with trade and commerce, and nothing else. What is money? What ought it to be? It

1179
ought to be a temporary balancer. It determines price, it equates, it measures everything, the excess and deficiency of everything, and it is only through money that we can stabilise values. It appears, at the moment, that the whole situation has developed into an impasse. The gold of the world is becoming rapidly frozen harder and harder, and we have the bank deposits also becoming frozen. It will be within the recollection of the House that only a, day or so ago one of the chairmen of the five big banks mentioned the great difficulties which they found in utilising the money that was on deposit. It seems to me that whatever scheme is finally adopted with regard to monetary reform, if it is to be successful, it must be very simple. I find myself entirely in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition when he says, "These questions I cannot understand," and when one reads the opinions of the professors and gentlemen with heads the size of dining-room tables, one finds oneself quite nonplussed by the difficult and very complicated ideas which they all seem to put forward. Therefore, I feel that if it is to be a success, it must be simple, so that a simple soul like myself—I was called a simple soul from the benches here the other day—and the man-in-the-street can understand.
One of the great troubles with regard to gold is that it has been used lately, not in the sense in which it was intended, but as a commodity. It has been used in the place of commodities, and therefore we find that the gold standard system, I make bold to say, has completely broken down. We find, as the commodity value of gold rises, that there is more poverty and less consumption. It would appear that we have let money become our master, instead of which, undoubtedly, it ought to be our servant, and nothing else. We are told that conditions are worse in other countries than they are here. It is almost impossible to contemplate things being as bad here as they are in other countries. We, being a country dependent for our sustenance to a very large extent upon foodstuffs from outside, would find that, whereas other countries can feed themselves even at the worst, we should very quickly be in a state of starvation. I believe that we have to hurry to settle this problem.
1180
For the moment I ask the House to allow me to give one or two very simple figures, Which are probably well known to us all, as an illustration of what I mean. In 1924 our trade figures, including imports, exports and re-exports, were £1,732,000,000, and in 1932, on the same basis of values, they are down to £1,440,000,000, a difference, or a reduction in volume, of £300,000,000. The Government have been forced into making temporary restrictions with regard to imports into this country. I think that they had to do it to avoid complete collapse. But what is the effect of the restrictions? It means that, although we may balance, we balance on a reduced volume, and as the reduced volume takes place, so you get an expansion of unemployment. Therefore, I feel that this question is of vital importance, and ought to be tackled at once. Let me instance the report of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company. For the first time for 50 years they had to pass their dividend. We read the remarks of Sir Alan Anderson at the Orient meeting as to the deplorable state of affairs in shipping. That shows the gradual shrinkage in volume of the trade of the country.
What is the solution? How can we attempt to rectify the position? We hear a lot about raising prices. How is it possible to raise prices without inflation of some kind? I think that that is bound to come, and if we raise prices, or if anybody is enabled to put forward any scheme by which prices are raised, and we do not get an increase in consumption, then we shall bring about the most appalling suffering, and add to the suffering which is at present in existence. If you try to raise prices without inflation, it is the same thing as trying to fatten a herd of cattle without giving them more food. You must feed, as far as I can see, with inflation. I want to say a few words about inflation. We all are aware that there are three types of money. There is metallic money, paper currency and credit money, and equally, as there are three types of money, there are three possible ways in which we can inflate. France and Germany have tried paper currency inflation, without very much success. I do not think we want to embark on that. America has tried credit money inflation, and I find there a disastrous

1181
state of affairs that we do not want to get into. Therefore, I come back to metallic inflation, and here I believe that silver is the one hope. If we have inflation by silver we shall have it controlled by nature, and it seems to me that that is a, far safer method of inflation than by a method which may be completely uncontrolled, as we have seen already by the printing press, or by credit money which we are seeing and have seen in America. The monetisation of silver is a question that should occupy, and I have no doubt is occupying, the earnest and serious attention of the Government, and that with a view to inflation.
Let me, on the question of silver, remind the House that the population of the world is, I believe, 1,849,000,000. Of that number, 820,000,000 are people who are on a silver currency. Does not that bring a thought to one's mind? Here we are, the largest consumer in the world, and we are the most important market to the countries that produce the things that we want. Our market is vital to them. Therefore, we are in a splendid position to call the tune in regard to this question. But inflation will not help unless it reaches the consumer. What it really means is that we have to get the money into the pockets of the people. How can that be done? What does a merchant do when he wants new customers? He looks about and sees where he is likely to find them and how he can possibly help them to become customers. Naturally, the merchant looks to the East, to the 820,000,000 people, almost half the world's population, and he says: "There I see this vast number of people on silver currency. If I could only put them in a position of good credit and enhance the value of their currency, I could find customers galore." These countries require further development and are crying out for it, as we have heard to-night. It is well known that when the rise in the price of silver took place orders began to come in from the East, from those 820,000,000 of potential buyers. This is, therefore, a question that deserves the most careful consideration.
I saw in the Press the other day something which I regard as a great danger. It was a statement that these vast areas within our Empire are undeveloped, while other people who are living in a congested state are beginning to say: "Is it right that one nation should have
1182
these vast areas and do nothing with them, when we are suffering from overpopulation?" From that point of view we must try to induce those 820,000,000 people to buy and to develop the countries that they live in. What would happen then? Through these people we should get our rise in prices in a very natural way. They would begin to do business with us and we should begin to employ our unemployed people here. Consumption would begin to increase, and there would be no manipulation about it at all. It would come in the ordinary course of business, which is the soundest way that it can come. If it comes in any other way it will not last, and it will not be safe. I believe that that would go a long way to solve the terrific problem which has baffled us all for so long.
We have colossal methods of production, we are capable of almost everything, and there are millions of willing purchasers of goods without the means wherewith to buy. I believe that through silver and through inflation through silver we could start the ball rolling. What, is really wanted is to eliminate as far as possible money function. Let us get to work and try to get more of the exchange of goods and leave money out of it altogether. The volume of trade must be increased very soon, otherwise this country more than any other country in the world is going to suffer far worse than she has done up to date. Do not let us try to balance down, but let us try to balance up. In conclusion, I would say, open your ports to all reciprocal trading. Put a duty on all surplus imports, but open your ports freely to all reciprocal trading. It seems to me that that step, combined with inflation through silver, would bring back the prosperity we are all longing for. I should like to add one further word, and that is that I feel very strongly that in any future League of Nations loans or any loans by this country to another country should carry with them the obligation that it should be conditional on the borrower reducing tariffs.
9.4 p.m.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I believe it to be customary that about this stage a speaker from this Bench should intervene and define the attitude of

1183
the Government towards the Motion that has been moved. The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) for having initiated a discussion on a subject of such interest. The Motion appeared to be clear when I read it first, but I could find little relation between it and the arguments of the Mover and Seconder. One of them desired to abandon gold altogether, but the other thought that there was not enough gold and that silver and platinum should be added to it. Although it was, indeed, a very vivacious and instructive speech which the Noble Lord gave, I was unable to understand why he should choose this Motion upon which to make it.
There was, however, one point of contact, and I think only one, between the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. They both held the view that our present monetary system does not provide a sufficiently adaptable basis of credit. To what extent can that contention be sustained? I would remind the hon. Member for Southampton that this country is no longer on the Gold Standard and several provisions which he thought still operated have been abrogated. The only relevant Statute in this connection is the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. By that Act the Bank of England issue of notes is made against a basic amount of securities and a fluctuating gold holding. If at any time the Bank thinks that the legitimate requirements of industry cannot be satisfied they are at liberty, indeed it is incumbent upon them, to request the Treasury to extend the fiduciary issue.
Mr. SMITHERS: Is the percentage of gold laid down in that Act?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. The provision is as I have stated. It is the gold which is fluctuating. The fiduciary issue, which is basic, may, upon the application of the Bank of England, be extended, and hon. Members will recall that at about the time when we left the Gold Standard is was in fact extended from £260,000,000 to £275,000,000.
Mr. DAVID MASON: That was before.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: At any rate, it was about that time. There you have a flexible system par excellence.
Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The Financial Secretary talks about flexibility. Will he tell us any other times since 1844 when the fiduciary issue has been altered?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Act was only passed in 1928 and, therefore, nothing done under it could have been done except after that date. The Act makes the provision upon which our currency is based; and it is based according to the principles I have enunciated—the Bank of England may make an application, and have in fact made an application, for an extension of the issue.
Mr. HAMMERSLEY; Will the hon. Member allow me for the sake of clarity? The suggestion is that it is a flexible system. The hon. Member will agree that until the passing of this Act there were no means at all whereby the fiduciary issue could be increased; it is the first Act since 1844 which has made it possible for the fiduciary issues to be increased. As he says, it was increased from £260,000,000 to £275,000,000.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member will forgive me for saying that his remarks have as little to do with the case as the flowers that bloom in the spring. We are dealing with the actual situation. Surely he does not dispute that this Act makes the provision I have indicated. It was not on the Statute Book before 1928. There need be no dispute between us on this matter. This is the Act which the hon. Mover of the Motion is inviting us to repeal. It is true that from time to time there are changes in the gold holding of the Bank of England, principally owing to our commercial requirements, but that does not in the least interfere with the flexibility of the issue, and the fact that there was a gold holding under the provisions of this Act in the Bank of England proved to be of great utility on the 15th December last, when we were able to make the payment to America with so much smoothness.
My hon. Friend before he destroys this Act will have to show that there has been a restriction of credit. Far from there having been a restriction of credit there have been almost constant expansions of credit. Every index of credit has been mounting for some time. The gold holding of the Bank of England has risen between the 11th May and the 14th

1185
December from £120,800, 000 to £139,400,000; an increase almost equivalent to our payment to America. The notes in circulation have increased from £358,000,000 to £372,000,000. Bankers' deposits have increased from £78,000,000 to £86,000,000, and cash of the London Clearing Banks has increased from £179,000,000 to £193,000,000. It does not appear that there is any restriction of credit there; it appears to be notoriously abundant. Confronted with these facts, the hon. Member who moved the Motion, like some hon. Members who have followed him, expressed apprehension that if credit has not been restricted it may be restricted in the future. He passed great strictures on the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made last week. There is, as a consequence of our payment to America, no restriction on the notes in circulation, no restriction whatever, but there is, of course, a reduction of £20,000,000 of notes in the banking department.
In the place of this asset the bank has another asset, namely, Treasury Bills. Intrinsically, therefore, there is no reason why credit should be restricted having regard purely to that book-keeping arrangement. Further, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that there was plenty of slack, that there was, in fact, and had been for some time an abundance of credit. One asset is replaced in the Banking Department by another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did say that there might be an increase in the Treasury Bill rate, which has been low for some time; and the hon. Member has referred to the slight increase which has already taken place. He did not give us any credit for the reductions in the past, and an increase in the Bill rate is not unusual about this time. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind was the effect of a reduction of £20,000,000 of notes in the Banking Department on foreign opinion, and he was prudent enough not to ignore that the effect might be that foreigners would sell sterling, for they would be able to see from our banking return that the proportion of notes held against liabilities was diminishing. But in point of fact—and it is further important evidence of the respect in which the financial system of this country is held abroad—instead of selling sterling they have been buying sterling, and therefore the worst which my hon. Friend
1186
anticipated has not happened. If what my hon. Friend anticipated had happened, the Bank, in order to strengthen its position, might have allowed some of their Treasury Bills to run off or might have refrained from renewing certain of their holdings of Treasury Bills.
I have dealt with what has happened and what might have happened. But there has happened nothing which would entitle my hon. Friend or any Member of this House to say that this Government and the monetary authorities have embarked upon a policy of restricting credit. There has been no restriction of credit. As far as I understand it, it is not the intention of the monetary authorities to restrict credit. Indeed, the difficulty of to-day is not the provision of credit, but its absorption. Having exploded to his own satisfaction, as my hon. Friend did in his full and well-documented speech, the present monetary system of this country, I waited in vain to know what he would put in its place. After all there is a system, a pliant system, a system which has worked in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend talks about our affection for gold and talks about the monster gold, but he did not say what was to be put in its place. He was not satisfied with calling our system a bad system; he called the Bank of England a bad bank; he was suspicious of its whole direction; and he addressed to me a number of questions regarding the management of that institution which I will answer. But I would remind him that the Macmillan Committee recommended that the controlling authority of the monetary system should be the Bank of England. They said:
"It is not necessary in this country, as it was in the United States before the War, to create a new organ for the centralised control of the monetary system. For we have in the Bank of England an excellent instrument for the purpose; independent of political influences, yet functioning solely in the public interest; with long traditions and experience and clothed with vast prestige, yet not distrustful (as we have learned in evidence) of evolutionary change or hesitant of new responsibilities; entrenched in the centre of the struggle for profit and with access to the arcana of the market, yet itself aloof and untinged by the motives of private gain."
That is what the Macmillan Committee said—a Committee composed of members of every political party and of representatives of every financial and indus-

1187
trial interest. Now, asks my hon. Friend, will I tell him whether this Bank of England is in the hands of foreigners or in peril of becoming so. I will tell him. The Bank of England, of course, belongs to the proprietors. He asks me who the proprietors are, and the answer is that they are the shareholders. The Bank of England belongs to the shareholders, and it was given in evidence before the Macmillan Committee that the amount of stock held at that time by foreigners, as estimated from registered addresses, was about £57,000 out of about £14,553,000. I do hope, therefore, that any fears that my hon. Friend had will be assuaged.
The next question he asked me was, whether there could be votes given by proxy. This is my reply: Votes can be given only at personal attendance at the General Courts. In the case of a joint account the holders may appoint one of their number to vote, but apart from this provision proxy voting is not allowable. That is the institution which is charged with the management of our monetary policy. My hon. Friend attacked the policy but suggested no substitute. He attacked this institution and again failed to suggest any alternative. My Noble Friend who seconded him was apparently satisfied with the institution but dissatisfied with the Motion to the extent that he did not wish completely to do away with gold, but he wished to add silver to it. I feel dispensed from entering into the bimetallic controversy because there is no reference whatever to it in the Motion, and it would be better that the House should debate that substantively. Indeed speeches have been made upon it in a previous Debate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a long declaration upon it. He expressed the thoughts that were in his mind as recently as 8th November last, and he did say, as my hon. Friend recalled, that he had no desire to be dogmatic. After all, this matter may be raised at the International Conference. I hope that I have satisfied the House that there is nothing, at any rate in our monetary policy, which indicates any prospective intention, or any intention at this moment, to restrict credit, but on the other hand that our policy has been to provide cheap credit, and that has been made possible by our conversion operations.
1188
There is another reason why we should not completely do away with gold at this moment. We are about to enter an international conference, and one of our tasks at that conference will obviously be, in conjunction with the other Powers, to devise some satisfactory standard of international exchange. My right hon. Friend gave the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) asks when he said:
"We must make it clear that we have no intention of returning to the Gold Standard unless we can be thoroughly assured that a remedy has been found for the maladjustments which led to the breakdown of that standard last year. It would be useless for the countries now on the sterling basis to revert to gold if the fundamental conditions—economic and political, as well as monetary—had not been so changed as to obviate the risk of a fresh fall in gold prices. Before we change our present basis we must be sure that the change can be maintained, and that we shall not have to do our work all over again in a few years' time."
That is what my right hon. Friend said at Ottawa, and he added:
"We do not see any prospect of a speedy return to the Gold Standard, nor are we prepared to say at the present time at what parity such a return should be effected, if and when it takes place."
It is not in any sense ruling out a possibility of return to gold, and indeed it would be imperative to discover some satisfactory international standard, but the problems to be solved, of the maladjustments to avoid in future, ale not only monetary; they are political and economic.
That brings me to the second part of this Motion, and shows how inappropriate it would be to refer to a Select Committee, with Terms of Reference such as these, the problem which my hon. Friend has raised. Its terms would limit such a committee. The problem is not a purely monetary problem. It is, as my right hon. Friend has said, political and economic as well. But there are other reasons why a Select Committee should not have this matter referred to it. Those reasons are not because the Government dissent from the objective which my hon. Friend has in view. He wants it
"to make recommendations for a new monetary system which will ensure, in its national aspect, a stable internal general price level."
Every monetary system must have that as an objective. We desire, of course, to maintain a. stable price level. The only

1189
question is, what is to be the level? We want, of course, as has been stated from this bench on many occasions, to raise the wholesale prices of commodities and, having raised them, to keep them on a stable level. Then my hon. Friend's Motion goes on:
"in its international aspect, stable exchanges"
Certainly, in so far as a country can unilaterally take measures to preserve its exchange, we have done so by establishing the Exchange Equalisation Fund, but it is only as the result of some agreement reached at an international conference that you can reach a standard of values which will keep your exchanges firm. So the objects which my hon. Friend has in view are the objects of all monetary policies, but if at this time we were to refer this matter to a Select Committee, we should create dismay in the world. We are now engaged on the Preparatory Commission for the World Economic Conference. We are going there in concert with other nations, having heard their arguments as they will hear ours, to discover and agree upon the kind of standard that is desired. No Select Committee can replace an international conference. Whatever a Select Committee recommends would apply to this country only. If we did establish such a committee one of two things would happen—either everybody would go into it with his mind made up, just as my hon. Friend has made up his mind and has also made up the minds of the committee, or they would go there to hear evidence. If that Select Committee heard evidence with the same thoroughness as the Macmillan Committee did, they would be sitting for a year and a half. Really, we cannot hold up the affairs of the world in that way.
We have recently had a most exhaustive inquiry by the Macmillan Committee which heard every possible idea, ancient and modern, that could be put before it on monetary policy, and it closely examined all these theories. Surely my hon. Friend would not suggest that we should so soon reopen the whole matter? I trust I have said enough to show why the Government cannot accept the Motion, though the House must be indebted to my hon. Friend for having promoted a Debate on so useful a topic, and for having provided the House with so many facts. We cannot accept the
1190
Motion. There is on the Order Paper an Amendment which says that the time has not yet come for a review of the problem which the Macmillan Committee undertook. The Government have no reason to dissent from that Amendment and, if it is proposed, I would suggest that the House should accept it.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
"is of the opinion that, in view of the comprehensive inquiry of the Committee on Finance and Industry whose report was published in June, 1931, it is not necessary for the Government to seek the guidance of any further committee in order to arrive at decisions on the future monetary policy of the country."
On very material questions the Minister has stated the main ease for my Amendment, namely, that the whole matter has been exhaustively investigated and, in the circumstances, there is no need for a fresh investigation. Quite apart from that, I do not think at this moment the Government's hands should be tied in any decision that it may have to take at short notice. If there were another committee, their hands would be tied and, therefore, quite apart from the argument of the Minister, I think there is an overwhelming case against remitting this question to another committee. The discussion to-night has been interesting and, in the language of the Football Association, more a friendly than a League match, because there has been a curious diversity of view. People supporting the same cause have differed violently, and I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend who seconds this Amendment will in some respects differ from me, because I believe he is an advocate of bimetallism, and I am rather doubtful on the subject.
We have been asked to-night to support certain causes because the advocates were young. Youth must be served Youth is the one disease which has a certain cure. Because somebody was born in the days of Queen Victoria, it does not follow that what he has said is wrong. The real argument for or against anything does not depend on who said it, but on the merits of the argument itself. Therefore, while it may be said that

1191
youth must be served, and that one must not be tied to Victorian shibboleths, it does not prove anything at all. Some people have urged in the Debate that we should have a bimetallic system, They, first of all, pointed out the great desirability of having a measure of inflation. A measure of inflation means, of course, as I have pointed out previously in this House, that a given amount of gold will exchange for less goods. The very same people urge upon us the desirability of bimetallism on the ground that they want to increase the purchasing power of silver. In other words, they want silver to buy more goods, and to have deflation in India and China. They say that deflation for India and China would make the world prosperous, and that inflation in Britain would make the world prosperous. Their argument for bimetallism may be right, but it cannot simultaneously be associated with the arguments for currency inflation in this country.
I would urge the advocates of bimetallism to devote a little more original thought to the subject and not just calmly to repeat the statement—which is not true—that throughout the ages there have always been 14 ozs. of silver produced to an ounce of gold. If there had, it would not have mattered. It would mean that the aggregate value of gold produced in a year is equal to the aggregate value of silver. It is equivalent to an assertion that the aggregate value of tomatoes produced in a year is equal to the aggregate value of caviare. It is sheer economic nonsense to say that the price of any two commodities depends solely on the aggregate quantities produced. It is to assert that there are only two commodities produced, and that they must be exchanged. That is perfectly dreadful economic nonsense.
The Noble Lord who seconded the Motion quoted from a pamphlet by Lord Desborough. Lord Desborough equally quotes a thing and everybody goes on accepting it because somebody 50 years ago said it, and nobody has ever troubled to examine the truth of it. Therefore, if bimetallism be argued, it must be argued on grounds which have intellectual merit. On the eve of a day which is of great interest to many people, namely, 12th August, 1919, Sir Auckland Geddes, then President of the Board of Trade, moved,
1192
"That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill was the Profiteering Bill. This is a generation which desires that youth shall be served. In 1919 this House was engaged in active debate, for the purpose of trying to defeat the normal consequences of inflation. It amazes me how some people appear to have forgotten recent history and the deplorable series of industrial disputes which followed the end of the War—ninetenths of which were due to the diversion of relative values owing to the gigantic inflation which took place during the War. Now we are asked to repeat the folly of 1919 on the ground that the people who advocate it now, were not quite as old in 1919 as they are now. They have not studied the things which happened then and have merely observed the troubles arising from the fall of prices following the Wall Street collapse of 1929. In considering such a subject as this we must not take only the history of the last three months. We have to take a wider view.
I move this Amendment for many reasons but not least because the Macmillan Report has furnished us with what I think is an admirable solution of our problem, a solution which is I believe capable of reconciling the conflcting interests of those who want a much more elastic system and those like the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) who remains faithful to the Gold Standard. sans phrase. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh believes in it really because he is an honest person and thinks that all debts ought to be paid in the currency in which they were borrowed. But the bulk of the War Loan was borrowed in legal currency or legal tender, which was nothing but paper, its value having no merit at all except that the Treasury saw to it that there was not an unduly excessive issue. We went off the Gold Standard in 1914 and every penny that was borrowed for the War was borrowed on paper currency and, that being the case, no question arises as to honesty or dishonesty. You can say that we borrowed one loaf of bread and are paying back two or three, but you can make no case on the ground of high honour and morality against having a different standard of prices. Though I agree with him on many other things, I differ from the hon.

1193
Member on this matter, because I think he has overlooked a fact of great importance.
What did the Macmillan Committee recommend? I think a large proportion of the Members who have spoken to-night have not devoted as much thought and study to that report as they might have done. As the Minister said, the Committee supported the conception that the Bank of England should be a private enterprise. The present Prime Minister and Viscount Snowden in 1924 were primarily responsible and rightly responsible at the London Conference which followed the Dawes Report, for enforcing upon Germany that the Reichsbank must he a private institution, because they had seen the deplorable results which followed in Germany from State control of the monetary system. It is realised that a successful central bank must be as free as possible from political considerations, and therefore it is vital to set up private institutions of such a kind as will consider the public interest impartially and dispassionately. Those who read the Macmillan Report and in particular pages 106 to 160, will find a description of the kind of central banking system which we ought to have.
Many people now deplore what they call the return to the Gold Standard in 1925. But we did not return to the Gold Standard in 1925. We returned in 1925 to the Gold Exchange Standard which is quite different from the pre-war Gold Standard. Most of those who deplore the return to the Gold Standard are deploring the wrong thing. What they ought to deplore is the decision taken in May, 1919, to abandon support of the dollar exchange, to leave the exchanges to look after themselves, and simultaneously to carry through a restriction of the Treasury note issue—and it was a Treasury note issue in those days—bit by bit, so that ultimately we should restore sterling to its old gold parity. That policy, rightly or wrongly, was pursued by the Coalition Government, by the Conservative Government which followed, and by the Socialist Government which followed that again. There was hardly a Socialist speaker during the period from January to October, 1929, who did not, with pride, justify the existence of that Government by showing how British credit had improved during its
1194
period of office. They rejoiced in the fact that sterling had appreciated in terms of dollars.
As a matter of fact, the first six months of that Government was a period of considerable prosperity. There was an improvement in trade. It was only after that Government had been six months in office that evil followed from their bad policy. In the first six months they were dissipating the heritage which they had acquired from their Conservative predecessors. Viscount Snowden, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, faithfully pursued the policy of deflation inaugurated by the Coalition in 1919, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), on 28th April, 1925, announced the restoration of the Gold Standard, that was not the important act. The important acts had been taking place over the previous six years. The final pegging of the exchange was a very good thing. It meant deflation coming to an end. And, was the period 1925 to 1929 a period to justify anybody in saying that that act of restoring the Gold Standard had been a failure? Between 1925 and 1929 industrial production in this country expanded by 10 per cent. and the number of people employed increased by 750,000. In 1929 there were at work in this country more people than had ever been at work in its history and in many industries production was at a far higher level than was ever known before. Those who say that the restoration of the Gold Standard in 1925 was a mistake are condemning the wrong thing. They ought to condemn the long period of deflation from 1919 to 1925. I believe in a Gold Exchange Standard, and I think that this country would have been wiser had we returned to the Gold Standard at a lower rate of parity than that which we adopted in 1925.
What is the comment of the Macmillan Report on that matter? They considered a recommendation—and remember we are now talking of a time before the crisis of the autumn of 1931—that there should be devaluation in order to regain those advantages of which we had deprived ourselves. They pointed out that however desirable it might have been to restore the Gold Standard at a lower parity, once it had been restored the arguments against devaluation as a. policy were overwhelming. It is in that

1195
respect and only in that respect that the Macmillan Report is out of date. Devaluation was forced upon us not through the maldistribution of gold—in that, I differ from the Minister—and not through the maladministration of the Gold Standard. We were forced off the Gold Standard by a combination of three reasons. There was the fact that we had not been balancing our Budget, which had nothing to do with the administration of the Gold Standard. There was the fact that there had been a general crisis, and finally there was the fact that a mutiny had occurred in the Navy.
It is no use blaming on the maldistribution of gold the fact that we were pushed off the Gold Standard in September, 1931. The question is have we gained or lost as a result of having been pushed off the Gold Standard? Has our employment increased? Most Members of this House were returned on the basis that they were to defend the Gold Standard. I was not, because my by-election came when people had forgotten all about it, and therefore I have a greater measure of electoral freedom than most of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom I am addressing. They said all sorts of things on the platform. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know we had been pushed off the Gold Standard before the election. Nevertheless, you were still explaining to the people, all of you—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You do not know what I was going to say. You were still explaining to the people that it was a vital necessity to balance our trade, because if we did not there would be an enormous enhancement in the price level. There was not a single Member of this House who was not expressing (that fear at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members do not believe it, let them read up the reports of their speeches in the local newspapers. The extraordinary thing is that that enhancement of the price level has not happened. It is said:
"A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country."
I want to get a little honour in my own country, which for the moment is the House of Commons, because on the 9th June, on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, I drew attention to the fact that, curiously enough, our being off the Gold Standard had not had, as everyone had anticipated, the effect of a rise
1196
in prices in this country, but that it had led to something much worse; it had led to a depression of gold prices, of prices measured in gold in other countries.
At the time that I said that—and this is where I claim credit for myself—nobody else had said it, and on the basis of that fact I urged the desirability of there and then returning to the Gold Standard at the then existing value of our currency, because I wished to support commodity prices throughout the world. I was convinced that if you allowed the depreciation of our exchange rates to continue, you would inevitably depress the level of prices in the world outside, and by so doing you would throw more people out of work. What I said then, everybody says now. It appears in the Note sent by His Majesty's Government to the President of the United States. A popular London newspaper, which for a year, in a paragraph on its front page, under the heading, I think, "What the Wondering World Says," used to classify among the favourable items a depreciation in our sterling exchange, now classifies it under the unfavourable items. The outlook has altered, and people realise that a continued decline in sterling exchange is a very bad thing for the employment of people throughout the entire world.
Therefore, we want to get the stability of exchanges, because it is only when we get that, I believe, that we shall lead the world back to prosperity. The Macmillan Report points the way. It points out, quite truly, that on a Gold Exchange Standard gold does not exist to back the note circulation. There is very little connection with the note circulation. It does not exist for that purpose; it exists for the clear and definite purpose of linking our currency to the currencies of other countries. It is a link, not a backing. That has been so little realised that in every Gold Exchange country in the world they have either got a fixed fiduciary issue, as we have, or a percentage ratio. Of the two, the percentage ratio is the worse, but the fixed ratio, which we have got, is unsatisfactory. It is true, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has pointed out, that Section 8 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, provides that the Treasury, on the application of the Bank, can sanction an increase in the fiduciary

1197
issue, but they point out, quite rightly, that that is not quite the thing we want.
That, in fact, was not quite the thing that the Government of 1928 intended, and I ask hog. Members to read the speech of the late right hon. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, who took part in the Second Reading Debate—a part of it is quoted in the Macmillan Report—which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th May, 1928, columns 744–6. He was one of our great experts on this subject, and he quite clearly visualised a very elastic system, but the Bill which he was supporting was not as elastic as he desired. The Macmillan Report says that under a Gold Exchange Standard you must have a large sum of gold in reserve, so that you can meet the seasonal fluctuations which come. Every autumn we need something to pay off our temporary excessive indebtedness, and during the other months of the year other countries have to liquidate that.
You must have some commodity that everyone will take; if you take gold, copper, brass blocks, or tin wire, you must have some commodity in universal demand that people will accept without question in settlement of temporary indebtedness, and it is no good saying you can introduce great supplies of paper. You will not get countries abroad to accept our Treasury bills, at a time of difficulty, as a satisfactory liquidation of temporary balances. They say, "No, it is only paper, and that is a promise to pay, which may be repudiated. An act of war may make it impossible to honour it." They want something which to them has an effective value, and gold is valuable, not because it is a metal, but because it is very difficult to get. It has a commodity value, and over a long period of time the commodity value of gold determines its price in terms of other commodities. The periodic fluctuations may be due to purely monetary causes, but the long period value of gold is due to the relative effort needed in its production with the effort needed to produce wheat, barley, oats, butter, or whatever else you like. In the long run, gold comes into the world as a commodity. It only becomes money later on, and its value as a commodity in the long run will determine its money value.
1198
The Macmillan Report recommended that with great freedom the Bank should visualise gold going out, and should not take much notice of it, if they knew it was only due to normal, seasonal causes, that they should not regard it as abnormal provided a minimum of £75,000,000 was retained as an impressive thing to create confidence. It would be a psychological thing, the £75,000,000. At the other end, they recommended that the upper limit of the fiduciary issue should be a limit so much higher that it was improbable that it would ever be reached; and they went on to recommend that the Bank of England should have freedom to move inside this very large limit without the necessity of going to the Treasury. Supposing it was announced a week from now that the Bank of England had asked the Treasury to sanction a £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 increase in the fiduciary issue, everybody would say, "Something has gone wrong." But if normally you are doing these things, if normally you let your fiduciary issue expand and contract as the circumstances of industry call for it, you avoid those troubles.
The Gold Standard has not existed in this country since August, 1914. We have had a Gold Exchange Standard, and we have to pass our legislation on that Gold Exchange Standard, which economises the gold at the disposal of the world. The world to-day has the largest glut of gold it has ever known. I agree that it is maldistributed, but the last three years have seen the largest production of gold the world has ever known, not only gold from the mines, but gold from the hoards in India. There is no prospect, anyhow, at any level of prices which we are likely to get, of there being any shortage of gold within the lives of most of us. Therefore, we can return to a Gold Exchange Standard with the certainty that it will provide us with all the elasticity we want, and that it will provide us with the stability of exchanges we need; and the sooner we get back to a Gold Exchange Standard, the sooner, in my opinion, we shall not only stabilise but bring about some moderate increase in wholesale prices, without which it is impossible to obtain a general restoration of trade.
We have now had 18 months of managed currency, and I am not too happy

1199
about it. We have got most of the world on managed currencies, and most of the troubles of the world to-day are arising from managed currencies. If I could only get the hands of Governments off currency control in every country, the world would be more prosperous. And here to-night we have a Motion which, after all, is a proposal to restore the grip of Governments on currency. I am not prepared to trust Governments with currency, not even if I was the whole Government myself. I do not believe it possible politically to control a currency system without danger. Plenty of people have tried it. Charles I lost his head over it, as I have pointed out on a previous occasion; Louis XVI died for the same reason; and in those circumstances I do not wish to emulate their examples, nor do I wish anybody else to be put in the same degree of peril. I hope that His Majesty's Government will at the earliest moment, if circumstances justify it and it is reasonably sale, restore the Gold Exchange Standard, that they will persuade the rest of the world to restore it, and that we shall operate it with that degree of elasticity which was so clearly explained in the Macmillan Report. Having had the splendid investigation and the clear views of the Macmillan Committee as to how we can get an elastic system of currency, I am of opinion that there is no need to have another body to do the same job.
Captain PETER MACDONALD: I beg to second the Amendment.
9.56 p.m.
I support the Amendment in opposition to the Motion because I believe that whatever reason there may be for a weak minority Government to adopt this method of delegating functions to committees, however select they may be, the method is all wrong. It would be disastrous and dishonest at the present time for a Government such as the present Government, with such an overwhelming majority and such a wide mandate, to adopt the methods so abused by the previous Government, which was responsible for setting up 75 or 80 committees of various kinds to deal with problems with which they themselves should have dealt or they should have had the honesty to say that they were incapable of dealing with them.
1200
If this Government or any other Government wants material on which to base their opinions, they have ample material in the excellent report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry. That committee sat for no less than 22 months examining evidence of experts in industry and commerce, and they give no less than 54 pages of their report to this question of currency. If they want more evidence on which to base their opinions, they will find it in every Government Department. The archives, the shelves, and the desks of every Cabinet Minister and Under-Secretary are stocked full of reports of Royal Commissions and committees, select and departmental. Most of them are moth eaten, all of them are dust ridden; nearly all of them are forgotten, and most of them are unread.
For a Government such as the present Government to adopt the methods of shelving or delaying an issue which is of such vital importance to the country at the present time is wrong. That is why I am supporting the Amendment. I am not going to enter into the merits or demerits of bimetallism or the Gold Standard, because the more I hear upon those subjects the more confused I am. There is no economist or so-called expert in this country to whom I have not listened in the last two or three years, and no two of them have ever agreed on any issue which they have put forward. So far as gold is concerned, it seems to me that, while five countries adopt the present policy of hoarding three-quarters of the world's supply of gold in their vaults, there is no immediate prospect of this country returning to the Gold Standard, or any other country which has followed us off the Gold Standard returning to it in the very near future. There is no doubt that this hoarding of gold has had a great deal to do with the fluctuating and lowering of commodity prices, because it is obvious that, while there is such a shortage of gold in countries so highly commercialised as this country, it is impossible for us to follow that standard, whatever the level it may hold in exchange value throughout the world.
There is one point which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) made. He agrees with the Gold Standard, but he does not agree with the

1201
standard of exchange value laid down by the previous Government. The Macmillan Report lays emphasis on the same thing. It says that the exchange value of gold in this country was unfavourable to our export trade, and that other countries such as France and Belgium, in returning to the Gold Standard, fixed their exchange value at such a level that it was favourable to their export trade. How can we know, whatever level we may fix the exchange value of gold in this country, that these other countries will not again alter the exchange value of that commodity in their own countries in order again to have it favourable to their export trade? It is not my intention to pursue this subject in detail to-night, because there are other speakers who are greater experts than I am on this subject, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) who, I am sure, is going to give us advice on this subject. All I rise to say is that I strongly oppose any appointment of a further Select Committee to deal with this subject at the present time.
I ask the Government, however, either on this occasion or on some early occasion, to tell the House what their policy is on this question. I was profoundly disappointed that more was not done at Ottawa on this matter. Some of us were very anxious before the Ottawa Conference took place that the question of monetary policy should be placed on the agenda. It was placed on the agenda, but what was done? We are told that a committee was set up and that that committee did good work and submitted their report, but so far there is no indication from the Government or any other source that any action is being taken whatever to improve the position with regard to either Imperial currency or international currency. While that situation exists, it seems to me that the benefits of half the work done at Ottawa have been nullified, because any preference which is granted between ourselves and the Dominions and Colonies is spoilt by the fluctuations of exchange values between the different parts of the Empire. I urge the Government to tackle this problem without abrogating it to any further select committee, and also to tell the House and the country at the earliest opportunity what their policy is.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I gladly accept the invitation extended by those who brought forward this Motion to join in this discussion, and I feel grateful to them for having given us an opportunity of expressing our views, knowing in advance that we differ very much in. our views, but knowing also that no one wants to make any party capital out of the discussion. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) disappointed me in seeking to make party points at the expense of the party to which I belong.
Captain P. MACDONALD: I included previous Governments as well.
Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member spoke especially about the late Government and about the views of the Macmillan Committee which they set up. At this festive season I do not wish to be too controversial, and I approach this subject as one who is not an expert. I share the distrust which many Members feel for the opinions of experts on this subject. They have disappointed us so often. The Motion disappoints me because it does not go as far in the second part of it as I could have wished. In the first part it rightly states that the Government did a wise thing in going off the Gold Standard, though it should be remembered that the Government did not go off the Gold Standard willingly. We went off the Gold Standard because we fell off the Gold Standard, and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was quite justified in the remarks he made, because all the Members opposite were elected under the pretence that they were going to maintain the pound. Further, I hope that no one will do what the hon. Member for South Croydon invited them to do. I wish everybody a Merry Christmas, and it would not be a very merry Christmas for hon. Members opposite if they reread the election speeches of 12 months ago. They would have a very unrestful time, their consciences would be pricking them, and they would have more than the pains and penalties of Christmas indigestion.
If we on this side were to utter any criticism of the Government it would be that they did not come prepared for the departure from the Gold Standard, and

1203
made no arrangements for an alternative system. The fall from the pound came rather too late. It would have been a very good thing for this country if we had gone off the Gold Standard at least two years before we did; as it came about so late, we ought to have improvised a system; at any rate that would have been a better state of affairs than the position we are now in. At present we are more or less in the air, and that is due to the reluctance to take action of the majority in this House, who still have the old faith in gold. The average Member of the Government still believes in the possibility of the restoration of the Gold Standard. There is one hon. Member opposite who always openly avows his belief in gold as the infallible medium for the regulation of prices, and we admire his consistency; but I think it is a calamity that a Government should still cling to the old faith, because, unlike that hon. Member, they will be held responsible for their failure to make adjustments to fit the changing industrial life of the country.
The failure of the Gold Standard was due to the failure of the old men to realise that a change had taken place. The faith of the old men has more than once been responsible for national failure. I see before me young Members, and I would urge them to approach this question with young minds and fresh minds. There are a good many shibboleths to be shed, and a good many prejudices to be discarded, and I urge them to approach the examination of this problem with fresh, vigorous minds. We have been told that we ought to be bold and courageous. No question warrants more courage and a greater readiness to depart from the old faith.
We have been told that the Gold Standard failed and there has been an attempt to explain why it failed. In reality there has not been a Gold Standard since 1914. There have been attempts to work the Gold Standard, but it has been a gold exchange standard. The Gold Standard has not operated because under post-War conditions, with debts and reparations, it was impossible to maintain an adequate backing of gold in any debtor country. The maldistribution of gold led to more than half the gold of the world being locked up in the vaults of two creditor countries, and
1204
there it remains. The amount of gold in the Bank of France at the present time is £670,000,000, and the amount in the vaults of the American Federal Bank is £880,000,000. In this country we have only £140,000,000.
Mr. D. MASON: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what is the difference in principle between what he called the Gold Standard of 1914 and the gold exchange standard?
Mr. GRENFELL: I should occupy the House too long in doing that. I have read very learned lectures by experts on the subject, and they have failed to give us satisfaction. I can assure the hon. Member that I do know what function gold plays. A very important point was made by the hon. Member for South Croydon in telling us what really is the value of gold. Gold does not derive its value from Acts of Parliament or from any backing by regulations or Government control. It derives its value from the amount of labour and capital expended in the production of it. It always has been so. Whenever gold was scarce more labour was applied to the production of gold, and more capital was expended, and when more gold was obtained and gold therefore became cheaper, then less effort was made to obtain gold and in that way gold more or less adjusted itself to the needs of the world. The Gold Standard has broken down because gold has been mined at very great expense and then "frozen," so that all the real value of it has not been made effective. Gold, which has a real labour value, has been stowed away in the vaults of creditor countries, and no use has been made of it.
The amount of gold available for the purpose of backing credit was very much smaller than the real value of gold, and the value therefore of that gold for all purposes was very much less. At the present time there is about £2,500,000,000 of currency gold. That is not the whole of the gold in the world. The whole of the gold for currency and industrial purposes is nearly £4,000,000,000. More than half the currency gold is frozen away, and is not really serving its main purpose. Gold has served a purpose in giving fixed values or giving definite values to the monetary units of the world. The monetary units in use in every country, whether they be pounds sterling,

1205
dollars, francs or marks, have been monetary units derived from the value of gold, because they were based on gold and because gold contains more or less real value represented by the labour involved in the obtaining of gold.
A more or less stable value was, therefore, given to the currencies of the world. The pound sterling has, since 1660, exchanged for 113 grains of gold, and a correspondingly similar weight of gold would be exchanged for the American dollar, which is of lower denomination, and for the French franc, which is of lower denomination still. This was the relation in the weights of gold coins to their denominational value. By giving a value derived from gold to the currency, whether it be in paper or in metal, a stability and interchangeability on equal terms was made possible between all the currencies of the world. It was an attempt to obtain a universal currency with varying denominations, so that all nations of the world might pay in an equitable way. That scheme failed, because gold was not available.
I am coming to the special point that I wanted to make to-night, which is that gold has served its purpose. It is a luxury which the world cannot afford. We cannot afford the growing expense of scratching, delving and digging for gold in sufficient quantities to meet the necessities of the modern world. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who advocated a return to the Gold Standard, must know that we are rapidly approaching the time of shrinkage in the gold yield.
Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Gold Delegation published a report in 1929 which made certain forecasts. The increased production of gold since that publication, and the enormous yielding up from the hoards of India, have completely altered the picture as it was predicted by the Gold Delegation.
Mr. GRENFELL: We have been forced to pay a very much higher price since. Gold at £6 an ounce ought to be more easily forthcoming than gold at £4 an ounce. If production of gold is made still more expensive, gold at £8 or £10 an ounce might be a material that we could not afford. There is a limit to the price that we can pay.
1206
This problem is related to the question of employment. I have not yet heard sufficient appreciation of the point that we have always paid a high price for stability in price. At all times in the last 100 years, since the growth of industrialism required a larger currency throughout the world, we have set aside a large volume of labour power to provide us with the increasing volume of gold required for the increase in production. The increase in production has been assessed to have reached a figure of about 3 per cent, per annum in the last 100 years, and gold has been forthcoming in quantities almost sufficient to enable gold to be freely exchanged at the same value.
Now that we are up against the enormously increased productivity of the machine—and I make no apology for repeating what has been said by some hon. Members here to-night—there is a change to a difficulty in obtaining gold in abundance, and to the huge expense of getting gold, which lies deeper and deeper, and which is receding further and further into the bowels of the earth. The difficulty of obtaining gold cannot be compensated, except at greater-expense in order to obtain the required quantity. We cannot visualise an increase sufficient to meet the increased production, not at 3 per cent. per annum, but which is doubled or which has increased by 6, 10, 15 or 20 per cent.—almost any figure you care to name. Since the age of machinery, the potentiality of production has gone on increasing. At the present time, we use hardly more than half of our world industrial power. We could produce immensely larger quantities of all kinds of commodities if we were able to devise and apply a system of currency which would enable the whole of this productivity to be absorbed and consumed. To return to gold would be a definite bar upon production. The tying of production to gold again would mean that we should be deprived of the advantages that the machine offers to us. We have heard of the old idea of hitching one's wagon to a star, but to hitch modern production to gold would be like hitching a star to a London barge or some other almost immovable object; it would retard productivity and progress.
Some of us on this side of the House believe that future days are to be very

1207
much more prosperous than those of the past, that a time of happiness, of leisure and pleasure, is to come; but those days will not come if we tie ourselves to this filthy lucre, to this yellow metal which has brought about so much havoc in the past, and is now causing so much economic and industrial confusion. A good deal has been said about the part that gold plays in trade, but will anyone deny that the monetary position as regards gold has been responsible for the breakdown of world trade? Taking the figure of 100 as representing the position in 1929, world trade has gone in value down to 40 in 1932. Quantities have not fallen quite so much in proportion, because prices have fallen by at least 50 per cent. That fall in the value of trade is largely due to failure in the manipulation of gold, and to the inherent weakness of the Gold Standard itself. The restoration of gold will not pay. An attempt to go back to the Gold Standard and observe it in its strict application will mean perpetual deflation, and a bar to progress which the world cannot afford.
With regard to the second point in the Motion, I do not think that there is anyone anywhere who can describe in detail the currency system of the future. I am satisfied, however, that it is not to be based upon gold. Upon what is it to be based? Once or twice this evening, when Members have talked about the question of bimetallism, an old refrain has come into my mind, and I listened for something about "silver threads among the gold." One hon. Member even went so far as to suggest introducing platinum as well, but no combination of metals will achieve what is required. The same arguments can be used against silver as against gold. It is true, in spite of what the hon. Member for South Croydon says, that for the last 2,000 years the ratio of silver production to gold production has averaged about 15½ to 1. But the labour expended in the production of silver—
Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member says that the ratio is 151 to 1, but the previous bimetallic expert said that it was 14 to 1. I said that it constantly varied.
Mr. GRENFELL: I am not an expert. It is true that the ratio has varied from time to time; periods can be quoted
1208
when it has been 10 to one, and when it has been 20 to one; but the average over 2,000 years, as is well known from the records of currency, has been to one. No metallic basis, however, is firm enough and strong enough to hold the commercial and industrial fabric of the future; it must be based on something more responsive and more elastic in relation to the every-day life of the people who have to live under the system. There is no fundamental difficulty in relating this question of the basis of currency to the actual measure of commodities themselves. I thought we should have a little more information from the Mover on this point.
I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for the information that he gave us. I am sure that it will be a comfort to many people outside the House that the measure of our currency has not been diminished as a consequence of paying the American Debt and that we have, in fact, a larger store of gold than we had six months ago. We have a reserve of £140,000,000, which is £14,000,000 greater than the reserve six months ago. We have a larger volume of money in circulation. I am not quite sure that we can take as much credit for that as we should like because, while there is a large volume of circulatory currency ready for use, the rate of that circulation has gone down very much and the number of transactions for each currency unit is very much less than it was a year or two ago. It is not enough to say we have plenty of money pieces to play with if we keep them in our pockets and do not use them for ordinary business. It is our business to see that those pieces are moved more frequently, and it is the businesss of the Government to keep them on the board. I believe it is possible to relate world currency to the volume of wheat, coal and other primary products and, indeed, a stocktaking, which will he related to world currency, of the main productive commodities will he required in order to find out how much currency is required.
Everyone speaks of raising the wholesale prices of commodities. It cannot be done by everyone working independently of everyone else. You can only raise the wholesale prices of commodities by world action, and the only world action possible is a world assessment of currency, a stock-

1209
taking to find how much currency you require in all parts of the world to meet productive requirements and the transaction of trade between one country and another. The relation of currency to production has been hinted at by men of greater authority than I can claim to be, and I see that Mr. Hoover has expressed something which should be borne in mind in the examination of this problem, and which must be examined very closely and solved if the whole system of international trade and finance is not to collapse. This is the keynote to the solution of our problem. Mr. Hoover said:
"In any event it is a certainty that trade and prices must be disorganised until some method of monetary and exchange stability is attained. It seems impossible to secure such a result by the individual and separate action of different countries."
I believe Mr. Hoover has done a service to the world by directing men's minds to that aspect of the problem. I believe the Gold Standard has gone and a new basis of prices must be brought into operation. That basis cannot be applied in one economic unit by itself. It must be made universal and it must be brought in by universal consent. Instead of trying to balance the pound against the dollar, the Canadian dollar against the American dollar, and the English pound against the Australian pound, why not give a bold lead to the world and approach the World Economic Conference with a declaration that Great Britain is willing to consider, not a badly working Gold Standard for the universality of currency values, but a universal monetary unit, a universal coin, of equal value in all parts of the world? An hon. Member suggested that we might adopt the dollar, and gave an indication that he believed it was possible to found a new unit of currency. I believe it is. It is not necessary to give the same name to every unit in every country. You can still call your pound your pound in English if you prefer to do so, but another coin of a similar value, or a multiple of the same value, can be used in a Continental country and known by its Continental name.
There should be a universal currency, perfectly negotiable, not open to speculation or abuse. We should build up a world system where the allocations of currency for every country would be known. One value for the whole of the currency of the world should be allocated
1210
from time to time by joint international action. That is the way out of the confusion of to-day. The machines to which I referred earlier have destroyed the power of gold. Tireless and invincible, they move to greater and greater achievement. We hear them around us and above. They stand in our factories and send out a stream of goods fashioned in a thousand patterns from materials supplied to them. The goods are too many for our small market. The machine does not want to stop. It whistles and buzzes. It sends us its message in tones which we understand. Its message is not to economise; it does not announce bard times. The machine calls on us to help ourselves. The only effective way to help ourselves is to provide the purchasing power by reorganising modern currency in such a way as will enable us to enjoy a fuller life.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. SMITHERS: I apologise to the Mover of the Amendment for not being here when he delivered his speech. I was doing some work on behalf of a Committee of this House which is attempting to give some recognition to Mr. Wyatt, who has been here for 37 years, and is now retiring very ill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury called attention to the fact that this country was no longer on the Gold Standard, and it is very nice to have that said in plain language from the Front Bench. I was disappointed because his speech did not take a wider and larger aspect upon this important Debate to-night, because the monetary policy of England, in my opinion, is vital to the future prosperity of the world. He further pointed out that, although we shipped £20,000,000 of gold to America¾ in payment of the debt, it had been replaced by Government securities, that we were no worse off as to credit supplies, and that the purchasing power of the pound had not varied. He also said that he could not do away with gold, and that he did not see his way to take any definite decision because of the coining World Economic Conference. He used the words—I wrote them down at the time— "There is dismay in the world." It is because we keep on waiting for conferences and talking to other people about those important questions that there is dismay in the world. I contend that this

1211
country has it in its power to give a lead, to impose its will upon the world and to make sterling the international medium of exchange.
I like the Motion for two short sentences in it. It urges the Government "to complete the good work" which it has begun, and it goes on to say that that good work dated from the time when the Government abandoned the Gold Standard. We are to-day half way through a great policy of reconstruction, and the Government must have the courage to carry that policy and to carry their financial and monetary policy right through to the bitter end. The Motion would not have been put down if it had not been for the insistence of America on the payment of War debts. That insistence means murder for the world and suicide for America. The Motion might have been discussed on a much higher plane. Our monetary policy is vital to the world. Our policy all through, from the start of the War, in Lord Balfour's declaration after the War, and the wonderful note to America on the 1st December, has been world recovery. It is no use talking about irrecoverable debts. It is no good waiting for the World Economic Conference. I am sorry to have to say this, but the action of America in the last few days has made the possibility of the success of the World Economic Conference more remote than ever.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) spoke a good deal about international currency and said that there should be an international stable purchasing power. I cannot help thinking that he went too far. If this House of Commons, with the National Government, could control the policy of the world, and if the Bank of England could control credit supplies as it used to do, we might get some international policy, but we have the national fears of France and the ignorance of the great mass of the electorate of the middle West of America to cope with, and it is impossible to ignore those great factors. They upset the idea of an international exchange of currency. The hon. Member mentioned that there is two thousand million pounds of gold in the central banks of the world. The whole trouble to-day is that that gold, which was the
1212
medium of exchange in the past and which for many years acted so well, is no longer available. That gold, for the time being, is hoarded in two financial centres. Three-fourths is in the Central Bank of France and the Central Bank of America.
So long as the Bank of England had control, before August, 1931, of the gold supplies and the credit supplies of the world, she was able by shipping a few millions, or by taking in a few millions, or by putting up or lowering the Bank rate, to maintain fairly stable relations amongst the currencies of the world and to enable world trade to be continued with a certain amount of stability and certainty. The trouble to-day is that France and America having got all the gold will not allow it to function. I agree that if gold was allowed to function as the basis of credit, as it used to be allowed to function by the Bank of England, that that would be the best international medium of exchange that the world could have. That gold is not available to-day. The only way in which it can be got back into circulation and use is for France and the United States to give it to the Bank of England and allow it to operate; and no one can see them doing that.
If the policy of the Government is to lead to world recovery this country must take measures, gold being no longer available, to get the world on to the next best medium of international exchange. That is sterling. Some hon. Members have called attention to the necessity for raising the commodity price level. The reason for the fall in the commodity price level is the hoarding of gold by America and France. It has meant that the commodity price level has fallen in relation to gold, and this, in conjunction with the insistence on the demand for the payment of the American Debt, which has compelled us to produce at lower costs, is having a continually depressing effect on the commodity price level. It is quite useless for the World Economic Conference to meet until there has been first of all a settlement of the debt question.
If our policy is one of world recovery it must be directed to helping the whole world, including America. We can only pay America in three ways, by sending gold, by sending goods or by rendering

1213
services. We can go on sending gold for another three or four years, but that gold will not be allowed to function by the central banks of America, in order to increase credit. America has put up high tariff walls to prevent us sending goods or rendering services. Therefore, in the interests of the world we should use the great power which this country undoubtedly has to push France and America off the Gold Standard and impose sterling as the international medium of exchange. We could do this if we had the will. In several newspapers this morning it is reported from New York that the restoration of gold as the basis for the stabilisation of currency will be one of the chief objectives of the American Government during the last few weeks of its tenure of office. Of course, the American Government want us to go back on the Gold Standard. America and France are only holding gold in the hope that we shall one day go back on the Gold Standard. In August, 1931—and it is beginning to be realised more and more by the world—sterling did not go off gold; gold went off sterling. Sterling has been a stable currency, the more stable currency ever since, and France and America only hold their stocks of gold to-day in the hope that one day we shall go back to the Gold Standard at some price or other. I believe that before we parted with all our gold resources, if we went on paying America in gold and at the same time announced that we would never go on to the Gold Standard or only when it suited us, we would compel America to beg us not to send any more gold. Ipso facto she would be off the Gold Standard. But that would not affect the payment of our debt. Gold would then be reduced from a price in which was contained the factor that it was formerly a basis of currency. That factor would be withdrawn from the price of gold and the price of gold would come down more nearly to the commodity value.
I believe that action by this country can be taken. I believe that the mere threat would be enough. I do not like even to use the word "threat," because in this we should get co-operation with the United States. But I do believe that we can take such action, long before we have parted with the rest of our gold, to reduce the price of gold, to make them
1214
disgorge their gold, and even if they said they would not import any more gold, our bond to the United States is in gold and we would continue to pay in gold at a much better price.
I believe that sterling is now the mistress currency of the world. The great object of this country must be to get the wheels of international trade revolving again. It would be better to have gold as the basis of international currency; but we cannot get gold, so let us use sterling as far as possible. It may be said that to carry out many of the suggestions which have been made here tonight would be too great a risk, that it would open the door to all sorts of new ideas of which we have no experience. I ask the House to consider what will happen if no action is taken, if we go simply drifting on from conference to conference and no decisive attempt is made to secure for the world an international medium of exchange, and to get the wheels of trade revolving again.
I believe that even this Government and its advisers do not realise to the full, even now, the enormous strength of the character of this people, the enormous weight that this country carries in the world. I believe that we have great responsibilities, but, what is more, I believe we have a great chance. I believe that as soon as possible we should take that chance, and so frame the national policy that we can enlarge as much as possible the sterling area. Let the Gold Standard countries understand that we will refuse to receive imports from them, not from any selfish or vindictive motive, but for the good of the world, and I believe we have it in our power so to dictate the world policy that we can and must give a lead to set the wheels of trade revolving again.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. D. MASON: It was amazing to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers). When an hon. Member gets up in this House and suggests that we should push America and France off the Gold Standard, and does not tell us how we are to do it, except by refusing to take in more of their imports, one is at a loss to know how to reply. There is no sinister design on the part of either France or America, as the Governor of the Bank of France has said recently. They are bound to accept gold,

1215
and when the rate of exchange falls, as it has fallen for a number of years, any bullion dealer or banker in France, in London, or anywhere else, can take gold, or could before we went off the Gold Standard, from the Bank of England, and take it to France. The Bank of France is bound to take it, and there is a profit to the bullion dealer on the transaction. There is only one way to stop hoarding in France and the United States, and that is to improve financial conditions here, and contract paper gradually, so that it is equal in value to the gold it represents, and then no more gold will leave these shores. There is a most extraordinary confusion on the part of the hon. Member, who often makes very admirable contributions to our Debates from the City point of view, and I would suggest to him in all humility that he might really try to understand what it is which governs the movement of bullion.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) complained of the high price which we had to pay for gold bullion. We have to pay £6 2s. 3d., which is the present price for an ounce of fine gold. The Mint price for standard gold is £3 17s. 10½d. or £4 4s. 11½d. for an ounce of fine gold. The difference between the price of £4 4s. 11½d. and £6 2s. 3d., the present market price for fine gold, is the measure of the inflation from which we are suffering to-day. When the hon. Member speaks of the high price for gold bullion, it is not that gold has gone up in price, but it is owing to the inflation of our paper, for our paper has gone down in price. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at in that.
Mr. LANSBURY: We may as well laugh as cry.
Mr. MASON: Hon. Members might at least try to learn the elements of finance. I do not pose as an expert and an authority, but I have made a little study of these matters, and I put it to the hon. Gentleman, who is very kind in speaking of my consistency, as the real reason for what is called the high price of gold bullion. It is not because of the high price of gold bullion since we went off the Gold Standard that the pound has steadily deteriorated by 35 per cent.
Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Member must remember that gold is the measure of the price of commodities very much more than sterling.
Mr. MASON: The fall in sterling prices has not quite followed it because of inflation in this country. Suppose you are importing raw cotton to-morrow. When the pound is at parity you can get 4 dollars 86 cents for it, but to-day you can only get 3 dollars 20 cents. That means that the pound has fallen in purchasing power. Is not that so 7 I have a pound and I exchange it for raw cotton. Am I not better off if it purchases 4 dollars 86 cents' worth of raw cotton than if it only purchases 3 dollars 20 cents' worth? That is self-evident. What we look for is a rise in the pound. We are told that we adhere to the old orthodox doctrine. Why I should be called an old man I do not know. I do not know why references should be made to the "old man mentality." I do not feel an old man and I would never think of describing the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition with such activity as an old man. It is not a question of age, but of mental activity, and we are all glad that the right hon. Gentleman possesses that vigour which he displays. The point is, what a man is advocating and what he believes in, and I believe, as many of us do, that principle to which I have referred will raise gold prices. Another point which has been emphasised, is that going back to the old parity would have a deflationary effect and would lead to unemployment and depress industry. I submit that the contrary is the case and that it would stabilise the exchange. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), who has done a real service in bringing forward this important question, feels that what we are suffering from is instability of exchange. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a well-informed and brilliant speech showed that the hon. Member for Southampton offered no method of getting stability of exchange.
We who adhere to the Gold Standard believe that it would bring about stability of exchange and we desire to see it restored with all its faults as the best method for giving stability of exchange. We do not feel in the least lonely, because, in America, there are 120,000,000 people believing, I think, on the whole,

1217
in the Gold Standard; there are 40,000,000 in France, and 60,000,000 in Germany and indeed I think the majority of the leading countries adhere to the Gold Standard. I hope that the 45,000,000 people of this country though they may think for the present that there are difficulties in the way of getting back to it, and that the time has not yet arrived for doing so, will go back to that standard. The report of the financial committee of the League of Nations recommends it as the best mechanism. The hon. Gentleman opposite quoted President Hoover's message. He might have quoted another passage from it in which President Hoover said that the Gold Standard if effectively worked was the only practicable basis for international settlements and monetary stability. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the question of the scaling down of the American debt presented another reason why we should not go back to the Gold Standard. On the contrary, I think that is another argument why we should make it very clear that our hope and our aim is to restore the Gold Standard. I believe the United States as large holders of gold are suffering from this instability of exchange and believe if we took a strong line on this matter—while I do not think the Government are taking a strong line yet their attitude is a long way nearer to sound' finance than that of the hon. Gentleman opposite—it would lead to a revision and a large reduction of the debt.
Mr. LANSBURY: Why does it not help America?
Mr. MASON: It will help America in the sense of giving stability to exchange.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1029, on the application of the Grantham Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th day of November and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—
Page 27, line 14, leave out the words Section 18 (Limit of dividend).'"
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Weymouth Consumers Gas Company, which was presented on the 6th day of December and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Liverpool Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th day of November and published, he approved, subject to the following modifications:—
Page 9, clause 21, sub-clause (3), after the words added limits,' insert the words and within the Speke area if and when such area becomes part of the limits of supply;'
Page 14, clause 29, sub-clause (3), after the words preference stock,' insert the word ' issued.' "—[Dr. Burgin.]

Ordered,
"That Mr. William Allen be added to the Committee on Public Accounts."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tomorrow.

  AUSTRIAN LOAN [GUARANTEE].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury, in pursuance of the Austrian Protocol drawn up at Geneva on the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, a loan (being a portion of the loan for the raising of which by the Austrian Government provision is made by the said Protocol), of such an amount as will, after payment of the expenses of issue, produce the equivalent of a sum not exceeding one hundred million gold schillings."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir John Simon, the

  1219
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. The remaining Orders were read, and Hore-Belisha.

  AUSTRIAN LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
  "To authorise the Treasury to guarantee a portion of a loan to be raised by the Government of Austria," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th February, 1933, and to be printed.—[Bill 51.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "'That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT (COST).
  TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT (COST).
  EXCHEQUER (RELATIONSHIP).
  EXCHEQUER (RELATIONSHIP).
  POSTAL DELIVERIES, WALSALL.
  POSTAL DELIVERIES, WALSALL.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  POTATO CROP (YIELD).
  POTATO CROP (YIELD).
  LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (MEALS, SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (MEALS, SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.
  POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.
  CYPRUS.
  CYPRUS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS).
  KENYA (CROWN LAND, GRANTS).
  KENYA (CROWN LAND, GRANTS).
  PLUMAGE (ILLEGAL IMPORTATION).
  PLUMAGE (ILLEGAL IMPORTATION).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (MARINE PISCICULTURE).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (MARINE PISCICULTURE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CLITHEROE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
LLANGYNWYD MIDDLE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
MID SOUTHERN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, &c.) ORDER, 1932.
BLACKBURN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
MINSTER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
NORTH DERBYSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved, and if your Lordships agree I will move them en bloc.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUXTON GAS ORDER, 1932.
HAMPTON COURT GAS ORDER, 1932.
COATBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.
WEYMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1932.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LIVERPOOL GAS ORDER, 1932.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble friend Lord
506
Templemore, I beg to move that the Special Order reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved with additions.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved with additions.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I now move that the following modifications be approved:
Page 9, Clause 21, subsection (3), after the words "added limits," insert the words "and within the Speke area if and when such area becomes part of the limits of supply."
Page 14, Clause 29, subsection (3), after the words "preference stock," insert the word "issued."
This Order authorises the purchase by the Liverpool Gas Company of the undertaking of the Huyton and Roby Gas Company and extends the limits for the supply of gas by the former company. Objections to the application were lodged by the Liverpool Corporation and the Lancashire County Council, but these were subsequently withdrawn and the Order is now unopposed. No Government grant is involved. The first Amendment is to make it clearer that, if and when the Speke area (as defined in the Order) becomes part of the company's limits of supply, the provisions of their Acts and Orders shall apply within that area. The second Amendment merely corrects a printing error.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

GRANTHAM GAS ORDER, 1932.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Temple-more, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name. The modification referred to is to omit the words "Section 18 (Limit of dividend)."
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved subject to the following modification: Page 27, line 14, leave out the words ("Section 18 (Limit of dividend)").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, you will have seen by the Minutes that were circulated this morning that the Special Orders Committee reported this Order to the House with a note that there is a departure therein from precedent. The precedent is this. In all former schemes of this kind, if an amount in excess of that required to pay the basic dividend is paid to the shareholders there is a clause providing that an equal amount shall be paid to the employees for their benefit. In this particular Order that clause by which the employees received benefit is omitted. One of the main advantages claimed for the operation of the basic price system is that not only do the shareholders but also the employees obtain a share of any additional profit that may accrue. Therefore the Board of Trade in their Report to the Special Orders Committee drew particular attention to the omission of this clause from the Order. They did not, however, feel bound to insist upon the insertion of the clause for reasons which I will state to your Lordships.
I may point out that the Order was unopposed, and a witness who appeared before the Special Orders Committee as a representative of the employees—I think there are about 50 of them altogether and they are all agreed—stated that they were in favour of the omission of this clause. That was because they have already a benefit scheme which they do not wish to be interfered with and which they prefer to adhere to in toto. It seemed to the Committee that the attention of your Lordships' House should be called to this circumstance because if your Lordships are disposed to agree that the usual clause should not be inserted in this Order, at any rate that course should be taken with an explanation that it was for a special reason and that the employees themselves were in favour of it and preferred that the present system should continue. I think it is most desirable that it should be recorded that this is an exception and is not to be taken as a precedent unless, of course, similar circumstances should arise in relation to another Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (HERNE BAY URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-merit under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Herne Bay, and laid before this House on Wednesday last, he approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF WHITEHAVEN ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Whitehaven, and laid before this House on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they have appointed a Committee to consist of five members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bill and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members of that House.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Message.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Earl De La Warr, I beg to move that this Message be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Message be now considered.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I now beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Earl De La, Warr.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the

509
said Bill as mentioned in the said Message; and that the said Committee be named by the Committee of Selection.—(The Earl of Lama.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, That in accordance with the recommendations of the Home Office Committee appointed in 1910 to report upon the advisability of adopting, for official and other purposes, the twenty-four-hour system of expressing time, it is desirable that the system should be introduced into the Post Office, and that the railway companies should be invited to adopt it in their time-tables from a certain date,.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I have no intention el occupying the time of your Lordships' House for long because the arguments are perfectly familiar. The sole object of the Motion is to simplify railway timetables and to make date marks upon letters and telegrams more intelligible than they are at present. In case there should be any noble Lord present who is unfamiliar with the story perhaps I may explain shortly the history of the circumstances. During the War one of the discoveries which was made was that our system of denoting time as a.m. and p.m. was of no use at all and only led to complete confusion. The result was that we adopted, in common with other civilised countries, what is known as the twenty-four-hour system, and the experiment proved so successful that the Government of the day set up a Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven to consider the whole question and the Committee reported unanimously in the words which are contained in my Motion.
The Committee pointed out that there. would be no public expense if this proposal were carried out, that the railway company were prepared to adopt the system if it were adopted by the Post Office, and that any expense involved would be recouped by the economy resulting from the adoption of the new system. They examined representatives of scientific bodies and the representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force,
510
and pointed out that all these bodies had adopted the practice. They further pointed out that it is in use in every country in Europe, in India and in some of the Colonies, and that in no instance where it had been adopted was there any question of abandoning it. It is employed by the B.B.C., it is used for meteorological reports and it is also used in Whitaker's Almanack. In the circumstances, as no public expense was to be incurred, and in view of the unanimous recommendations of the Committee, one would have thought that something would have been done, but now, fourteen years after the Report, the Government in the shape of the Post Office have stolidly refused to look at the proposal favourably.
I have approached every Government since the War and in no single instance have I or my noble friend Lord Laming-ton ever received a reasonable or adequate reply. When I say that, I do not consider it adequate or reasonable to be told that the people upon whose education perhaps five or six thousand pounds have been spent, are unable to do a common suns in subtraction. I class such an objection with another which I understood was raised in certain quarters against the introduction of summer time by certain people who believed it to be the cause of wet summers. There seems to me to be about equal sense in the two objections. The only reasoned objection I have heard was one made by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, on the last occasion when I brought this subject forward. The noble Lord, at all events, had an argument to advance, although it seems to me it has no substance. His argument was that the day is naturally divided into two, one half devoted to rest and the other half to work. I should like to see him submit that argument to a trade union. What sort of reply would he get if he put it to a trade union that half the day was to be spent in work? I am old enough to remember—what in these days would be described in the popular Press as a slogan—a doggerel rhyme which, if I remember rightly, ran something like this:
"Eight hours work,
Eight hours play,
Eight hours sleep,
And eight bob a day."

511
That is an ideal which has been reached long ago. We have got beyond that stage, but at all events it is a more sensible division of the day than that suggested by the noble Lord to whom I have just alluded.
The fact is that nobody can adduce any reasonable arguments against the proposed change. No attempt has ever been made to bring forward any reasonable argument. I have been told till I am sick of hearing it that the Post Office decline to undertake this experiment because there is no general demand for it. Why on earth should there be? In the first place, the general public has not sufficient imagination ever to think about such a question, and whoever heard of a general demand for anything unless it was for some political or pecuniary advantage? Last time I brought this subject forward I was answered by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Marley, who was, I am bound to say, more sympathetic than any of his predecessors. When I complained of this hollow argument that there was no public demand, he suggested to me that I should go on a hunger strike myself and produce a public demand in that way. Quite frankly I am not prepared to do anything of the kind, and I am afraid I should not be successful if I endeavoured to persuade the Astronomer Royal to parade the streets outside here with bills asking for a twenty-four-hour day. Nor would it be much good to ask a prominent gentleman in the railway world, Mr. Pick, for example, to burn down a church, one of the recognised methods of drawing attention to an alleged grievance.
It seems to me—I was almost going to say contemptible—childish to argue that because there are no public demonstrations and no Press stunt, there is no need to pay any attention to a demand put forward by sensible and responsible people. No one, I submit, has ever made any serious attempt to answer our contention and it seems to me that the Government might perfectly well accept my Motion as it stands. There is nothing about a date in the Motion. No doubt the Government would almost be able to find some convenient excuse for not putting this proposal into operation until a date that suited them. If they will agree to do this, I would be willing to amend the Motion, inserting limiting words; but if they are not prepared to
512
do anything of the kind to meet me half way, I shall feel obliged to take the sense of the House on the question.
Moved, That in accordance with the recommendations of the Home Office Committee appointed in 1919 to report upon the advisability of adopting, for official and other purposes, the twenty-four-hour system of expressing time, it is desirable that the system should be introduced into the Post Office, and that the railway companies should be invited to adopt it in their time-tables from a certain date.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what objections there are to the introduction of the twenty-four-hour system of expressing time by the Post Office, for official purposes, and whether such a change was not recommended by the Home Office Committee appointed in 1919, and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I should like to express my satisfaction that my noble friend, who has recently recovered from an accident, has been able to be here to submit his Motion. My Notice is to much the same effect, but it is more limited in character for the simple reason that I want to try to pin down the representative of the Post Office who will no doubt answer on this point as to what are the real objections of the Post Office for not introducing this twenty-four-hour system. I have raised this matter for five or six years in your Lordships' House and we have been told time after time that if the Post Office will give the lead then the railways will follow suit. I do not know what possible objection the Post Office can have. It cannot be that of economy. It has been mentioned before that they have these stamps already in use for foreign or Dominion cablegrams on the twenty-four-hour system. Another possible objection might be that the change would involve altering the hours of the various post offices. But these are trivial sources of expense even in these hard times.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, who was referred to by my noble friend as being sympathetic, practically favoured the introduction of this system, and so did his predecessor, Earl Russell, in private, although not in public. Who is the official in the Post Office who stands

513
in the way of the introduction of this system? According to my information, some leading officials favour it, but there is somebody who will not have it. I have put down my Motion in order to get a clear answer on this point. I think my noble friend the Chairman of Committees on one occasion did mention, in regard to the introduction of this system for railways, that he thought it would be very complicated. I live in Scotland and have to make these long journeys, and it is most confusing, when taking a through train, to understand the change from p.m. to a.m. The twenty-four-hour system would make the matter absolutely simple. You would know where you were.
Lord Newton mentioned three Services, the Army, Navy and Air Force, which have adopted this system. It was absolutely essential in war time and they also use it in peace. Surely it would be in the interest of the Post Office to see that this system was adopted for the ordinary purposes of their undertaking. Take the Test Matches played in Australia,. It would be very much simpler, if you had a twenty-four-hour system, to know exactly at what hour play was being carried on. I remember during the last Test Match that I and some friends tried to work out the time, and it was almost impossible to tell exactly what the hour was when the match was being played. There is another point which I should like to make. I am not sure that I am altogether in approval of these stunts, but from time to time foreigners are invited to come from abroad and enjoy our climate and amenities. The foreigners who have been able to enjoy the principle of the twenty-four-hour system must find great confusion and very great difficulty in unravelling the intricacies of a railway journey from the South of England to Scotland. It would be far simpler for foreigners to have a system to which they are accustomed.
The noble Lord referred to the B.B.C. I looked in The Times to see how they make their announcements as to various services, and there I saw that in regard to foreign stations it was stated that the hours of transmission were p.m. unless otherwise stated. It is to be presumed that the a.m. was eliminated on the score of the confusion that would result. As to the argument that the alteration would
514
lead to confusion here, I would point out that the first twelve hours would remain exactly as now, and that the introduction of the twenty-four-hour system would only lead to only temporary confusion as regards the other half of the twenty-four hours. I do hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will state definitely what are the objections to the introduction of this system into the working of the Post Office.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I did not mean to speak, but my name has been mentioned as being sympathetic to the proposal. I think the House will admire the persistence with which Lord Newton has continued to press for this very important reform. I may say that I am glad that he did not have to go on hunger strike, and I am sure the House is glad to see Lord Newton back after his recovery. The point has been raised that probably the Government will answer that because there has been no demand for the measure therefore there is no need for anything to be done. That is a rather dangerous doctrine to advance on the part of any Government. We all saw before women obtained votes that they had to put in an immense amount of public demonstration, and we have recently had other demonstrations demanding action with regard to the means test and unemployment, which have had some result in alleviating certain conditions. It is doubtful whether you could get public opinion to take action along those lines on this question, but I suggest that from the point of view of the argument raised, as to the Army, Navy and Air Force, the railways and the Post Office, there is an argument which might cause the Government to give a sympathetic answer to this question. If the noble Lord decides to take this matter to a Division the whole of the Party behind me on these Benches will go into the Lobby with him—I shall go into the Lobby with him.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I feel bound to support my noble friend because I happen to be associated with the Home Office Committee which launched the whole idea. We went into the question immediately after the War, and we could find no objection to the system. It had been worked during the War by all our Services, and no country

515
which has adopted it has ever abandoned it. There is also this interesting point, that when my noble friend raised the question Lord Marley said he was authorised to say on behalf of the Government of which he was then a member that careful and sympathetic consideration would be given to the whole question, and as his sympathy with this question has now gone the length of his promising to vote with my noble friend, should he divide the House, it would be interesting to know what has been the result of the consideration that was given to the question. A little, later Lord Marley said that if my noble friend would put a question in six weeks' time, if there had been no Report before then, he held out some hope that the Government would be able to give an answer. It would be satisfactory to have this matter disposed of one way or another. It has been before the country for a very long time, and although in many ways people opposed to all change would object to this particular change, still the fact that it has been so successful in other countries, and particularly operates in the direction of simplifying communication with our Dominions—for this reason and for others which have been given very often in this House I hope my noble friend who will answer for the Government will see his way to accept the Motion.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I wish in a few words to support the Motion. To my mind the question of railway time-tables is far the most important one in this connection. Until the moment when some genius discovered the twenty-four-hour system there was always trouble with the question of railway time-tables. Every country that has accepted the twenty-four-hour system, I believe, has no more trouble at all. All kinds of dodges have been tried instead of the twenty-four-hour system, such as specially dark-printed italics and things of that kind; but, like all conventional signs, they are not the slightest use unless you know what the conventional signs mean, which most people do not. So that I really hope that the House will support my noble friend. But I may perhaps add that I am not altogether hopeless about the railway companies, because the railway companies are very peculiar people. 'When the Royal Commission
516
on Transport issued their recommendations the railway companies issued a statement to the Press that they had not the slightest intention of taking the least notice of anything that the Commission had recommended. Well, in point of fact, they were all the time making preparations to carry out a great many of their recommendations. So that I live in hope.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this subject has been brought up each year during the last three years by my two noble friends, and I am afraid that I cannot very much vary the answer which has been given to them by the representatives of the Home Office in the House. Personally, I am not an opponent of this proposal, and as regards Lord Newton's remark about the difficulties of this system, of which we have heard on other occasions, to me personally—and I say it in no boastful spirit—the difficulty of calculation has no terrors. I could deduct twelve from seventeen with the result of 5 p.m., and I see no difficulty in that. But I understand that my two noble friends only wish to have this system for the purposes of the railways and the Post Office, not for all general purposes. For example, when hospitably inclined, I take it, they would not ask their friends to dine at 20.15. I see that the Astronomer Royal returned to the charge yesterday in The Times in support of my noble friends, and this morning a letter appears from another gentleman who put forward the suggestion that we should have two circles on our clocks and watches to mark the two periods of twelve hours each. I do not think that would be an improvement or a convenience to anybody.
But it all comes back to the same point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, last year, when, after there had been consideration of the matter by the Government during a certain number of weeks, he found that the Government were still not prepared to introduce this reform. The view of the Government is that so far the public has not shown that it wants the change. Except for a few letters which have appeared from time to time in the Press and these discussions in your Lordships' House, there has been an entire lack of public interest in the matter. It is quite true

517
that the change could be introduced at small cost, and that the railways, I understand, intimated—and I believe they have intimated again this year—that they would be quite prepared to adopt the innovation if the Government would give the lead. But the Government consider that there is no point in making the change unless it is going to be a real help to the public. It is considered that in a small island like ours the need for the twenty-four-hour system cannot be very great. Railway journeys cannot be very long, because you can get to Edinburgh or Glasgow in eight or nine hours and to Plymouth and Penzance in considerably less time. Telegrams also can never take more than a few hours between the despatch and the receipt. You never hear, either, of a person missing an appointment because he has mistaken a.m. for p.m.
Successive Governments have considered the matter from the point of view of public advantage and have felt that, in the absence of a strong and general demand for the change, it would be wrong to try to impose on the public a system of notation which may confuse rather than assist. The present is certainly not a time to spend money, even a small amount of money, on experiments of this nature, and the Government could not undertake to introduce this change or to ask the railway companies to do so unless they were convinced of the existence of a much stronger public feeling than there is any-reason to imagine exists at the present time. I regret very much that I cannot accede to my noble friend's suggestion that I should accept this Motion with any addition of words—no date being named—because he only suggested that after the Home Office representative had gone away, 'and I have not been able to ask the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary or anybody else. and I could not take it on myself to accept the suggestion. Therefore I am afraid I must ask my noble friend to be satisfied with the answer which I have given him.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl would be greatly surprised if I did accept the statement he has made with any satisfaction at all. It is the speech I have listened to now for about five years and surely the
518
House must have observed that not one single argument is brought forward against the proposal itself. Take the question of expense. There is no question of spending money at all. It is not going to cost the Post Office a penny. And, as regards the other expenditure, the railway companies are prepared to incur it in view of the benefits which they will obtain as the result of employing the system. We come back to the old story that there is no public demand. What has that got to do with the utility of the proposal? The utility of the proposal is admitted. The noble Earl himself has admitted that he is in favour of it. He has stated that he can count. If he can count, other people can do so, too.
It is not a question of the noble Earl only being in favour of it, but every other noble Lord who has had to reply for the Government has also admitted that he is in favour of it. If I am not mistaken, every single Postmaster-General of recent years has been in favour of this proposal, and I do not think I am betraying any secret when I say that the present Postmaster-General is personally in favour of it himself. It therefore comes to this, that there must be some senseless opposition somewhere or other. Nobody has a higher respect for the permanent officials than I have, but it is quite evident to me that there is a solid and unreasoning opposition on the part of some official and that unfortunately he has so far been successful. I am sorry to trouble the House, but, as I think my noble friend is very unreasonable in not accepting my suggestion, I shall therefore propose to take a Division on the question.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order in speaking again, but I only wish to reinforce what was said by my noble friend Lord Newton. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has stated that there has been no public demand for a change, but that is a futile argument. Another point he has made is that this is a small island. But the Post Office has ramifications all over the world, and this question arises every day and every hour. He seems to be unaware of that fact. We have to realise that in regard to cablegrams and foreign telegrams it would be to the great ad-

519
vantage of the public if this change were instituted.
On Question, Motion disagreed to.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the League of Nations——
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, on a point of order I do not think my noble friend Lord Newton understood that the Question had been put.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I put Lord Newton's Motion. The Question was, "That this Motion be agreed to." The first time I put it nobody said anything. I put it again and the Not-Contents had it.

DISTURBANCES IN TRANSYLVANIA.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether a sub-committee of your Lordships is deciding either the proceedings of the House or the time by the twelve-hour clock, but if we have now finished upon that matter for the present, I should like to ask the starred Question standing in my name.
[The Question was as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government whether the League of Nations has received any report or petition regarding recent disturbances in Transylvania, during which demonstrations took place against the Hungarian minority; and whether His Majesty's Government has received any reports from its Consular representatives or otherwise.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT FIAILSHAM): My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is referring to the disturbances at Cluj on December 1, when a body of students stormed the Hungarian Passport Office, which fulfils the function of a Consulate, and insisted on hoisting the Rumanian flag. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no report or petition has been addressed to the League of Nations on this subject, but several reports have been sent by His Majesty's representatives abroad, including a detailed account of this unfortunate incident from His Majesty's Consul at Cluj itself.
It appears that the meetings of various kinds which had been arranged all over
520
Rumania to celebrate the fourteenth anniversary of the union of Transylvania with Rumania passed off elsewhere without untoward incident. His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest reports that the Rumanian Government at once issued a communiquè; condemning severely the action of the demonstrators as an. infraction of the International Law under which the Hungarian office was placed, and expressing their sincere regrets for what had happened. The same evening M. Titulescu, the Rumanian Foreign Minister, called at the Hungarian Legation to convey officially a similar expression of regret. His Majesty's Minister at Budapest reports that the incident aroused indignation in the Hungarian Press, and in reply to a question in the Lower House the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that a strong protest had been made in Bucharest. The news of M. Titulescu's prompt action, however, was well received in Hungary, and the matter is now considered closed.
LORD MARLEY: I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for his reply.

CABINET SECRECY.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR rose to call attention to disclosures of Cabinet proceedings, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust that no apology is necessary for bringing before your Lordships a matter which I submit is of vital importance to the good government of this country—namely, whether the business of the King's Ministers and the business of the King shall be conducted under an implication of secrecy or not. I believe that the doctrine on this subject which has been long accepted is perfectly clear. I was a little surprised at an official statement of the Lord President the other day in which he said that he had been informed by the proper constitutional authorities that Cabinet documents, or accounts of Cabinet proceedings, could not be divulged without the leave of His Majesty. It would seem as if that doctrine was something which had been half forgotten, and had been buried in the course of time and had to be unearthed from ancient precedents; but I submit that it is laid down in perfectly clear and unambiguous fashion in Sir William

521
Anson's "Law of the Constitution," which says quite distinctly that the proceedings of Cabinets may not be divulged without the consent of the Crown. As a matter of fact the obligation is reciprocal between the Crown and the Ministers; the Ministers may not divulge without the consent of the Sovereign, and it is held that the Sovereign should not divulge without the consent, at least, of the Prime Minister.
Twice His Majesty King William IV, I am certain from no motive to which any exception could be taken but in his known genial and. expansive way, communicated decisions of Lord Melbourne's Ministry to the Leaders of the Tory Opposition, which at least shows that the imputation which used to rest upon him of being unduly favourable to the Whigs, is not well-founded. On another occasion he allowed an individual Minister to publish his version of what had taken place in the Cabinet, and on that occasion, Lord Melbourne made a remonstrance which I think is worth quoting. He said:
"If the arguments in the Cabinet are not to be protected by an inviolable veil of secrecy, there will be no place in the public counsels for the free investigation of truth and the unshackled exercise of the understanding."
The doctrine which was laid down then, and is set forth in Sir William Anson's book, I believe has never been challenged in theory. I would make this further point: that whereas the obligation on the Crown rests on custom, the obligation on Ministers rests both on custom and on oath. The oath is not a Cabinet Minister's oath as such, but it is the oath that all Privy Councillors take; and if the King should see fit to commit some part of his business to a Committee of the Council other than the Cabinet, the same oath would bind those Privy Councillors who sat on that Committee.
I think it is not generally known, and though it is somewhat lengthy it may be worth reading to your Lordships:
"You shall swear to be a true and faithful servant unto the King's Majesty, as one of His Majesty's Privy Council. You shall not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against His Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal; but you shall lett and withstand tae same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to His Majesty Himself, or to such of His Privy Council as shall advertise
522
His Majesty of the same. You shall, in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your mind and opinion according to your heart and conscience; and shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Councils shall touch any of the Councillors you shall not reveal it unto him, but shall keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of His Majesty, or of the Council, publication shall be made thereof. You shall to your uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the King's Majesty: and shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences and authorities granted unto His Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign Princes, persons, Prelates, States or Potentates. And generally in all things you shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to His Majesty. So help you God and the Holy Contents of this Book."
That is the basis of the doctrine of secrecy, and that, I think, has never been challenged, at any rate in this or in the last century, by any authority in either House of Parliament or by any writer on constitutional law. That is the theory.
What is the practice? In the first place I would refer to matters dealt with in memoirs or in the letters left and published after their death by the literary executors of various statesmen. Sometimes we see in those memoirs that the leave of His Majesty has been obtained. In other cases the writer or publisher is silent on the point, and I presume that if he had obtained leave he would have advertised the fact. I am afraid we must take it that in those cases he has not obtained leave to reveal what took place in the Council of His Majesty. But to pass from that to the proceedings of Parliament, if your Lordships will study the debates in another place in the month of September of last year you will find what I only can describe as an absolute orgy of assertion, denial and recrimination about matters dealt with only a few weeks before either in the Cabinet or in Committees of the Cabinet. It is really not worth quoting any particular instances, the debates abound with them, and noble Lords who have any doubt on the matter can look them up for themselves.
To pass from that, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to an incident that took place on April 27 of this year. On that occasion a former Law Officer of the Crown challenged the Home Secretary to say what part he had taken in the

523
deliberations of the Cabinet, and when the Home Secretary was silent he said he would draw a certain inference from that silence. The Home Secretary protested that no inference should be drawn from the silence, which was obligatory on him, and the Chairman of Committees, the House being in Committee, upheld the action of the Minister. But is that proper constitutional protection which was then afforded likely to be continually available if repeated infractions of secrecy are permitted from time to time and are not visited in some form by public or official censure?
I now come from that which is a rather striking illustration of the necessity of protection to a Minister to the events of Wednesday in last week, and this episode offers a striking example of how easily either House of Parliament may slip into a wholly false position. A Privy Councillor rose with a motive, with which I entirely sympathise, to say what he believed and remembered was the policy of the Government to which he had belonged some ten years before. Another Privy Councillor rose and denied his version. A third made another contribution from a somewhat different angle, but the only test as to which was right was in the proceedings of the Cabinet, which it was impossible for any of them to divulge. Probably unwittingly in the course of the excitement of the moment, they did say, or at least two of them did, what had happened in private, and the mischief NV a s done almost before it was realised, and certainly any one reading the discussion (and, I am informed, still more any one hearing the discussion) could not have said at what moment, if any, intervention by the Chair would have been advisable or perhaps possible.
I do not quote these episodes for the sake of going into the merits of the matters then raised, and still less from the point of view of censure on any of the participants. I have no reason to suppose they were exactly aware of the full implications of what they said. My noble friend Lord Hailsham is, I think, a theologian, and he will appreciate the distinction between material and formal sin, between the objective act and the act as done according to the knowledge and conscience of the transgressor. I fully believe that these various Privy Councillors have quite forgotten what was
524
in the oath they had taken some years ago. I confess I had forgotten it until for the purpose of this debate I looked it up. I believe that they regarded it as an ordinary oath of allegiance, and although they knew there was a general injunction of secrecy, they did not for a moment realise of what a solemn character it was. But whatever their motives, the words spoken on the various occasions to which I have alluded do, in substance, constitute a breach of the Privy Councillor's oath and an invasion of the rights of the Crown.
There may be arguments against the continuance of the present Privy Councillor's oath. Personally, I should be sorry to see it abrogated. It comes down from a time when perhaps men were more conscious of the ultimate sanctions that govern their actions and transgressions than they are now, and I should be sorry to see it go, but I can understand there may be arguments against it. It may be said that in the hustle of modern politics, with the multiplication of secretaries and documents and the vast number of subjects treated, which make it essential on each of such subjects to take a far greater number of persons into confidence than formerly, a strict obligation of this kind is, in practice, impossible to maintain. That may be said: but what I submit cannot be defended is keeping in force a solemn obligation of this sort and seeing it continually, I will not say callously, but at any rate carelessly, violated by men with a long experience of public life.
That is the position. What should be the remedy 7 That, I think, I must leave to those who have had greater and more continuous experience of Cabinets. I have only been summoned on two or three special occasions on a particular point, and, therefore, I do not for a moment speak with any dogmatism or authority on the matter; but I should have thought, in view of controversies that have arisen, that it should be enough to record formally the decisions of the Cabinet without recording any opinions or divisions therein. That is a matter which I would suggest at any rate for discussion as a possibility. I must leave the matter in your Lordships' hands. I submit that it is a grave question. The business is the King's business. The secrets of Cabinets are the King's secrets. Cabinet Ministers

525
are the King's servants, and I suggest that it is essential for the good government of the realm that each Minister should have no sense either of fear or favour but, in the words I have before quoted, should faithfully and truly declare his mind and opinion according to his heart and conscience. I beg to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise for one purpose only. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, may possibly be able to give information which I believe I possess but which, of course, is only what I understand. Surely, in the days up to the War there was neither a Secretary to the Cabinet nor were there any minutes. I should like to ask the noble Marquess if he can give us any information whether that is so or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had no intention of troubling you with any observations, but as a direct appeal has been made to me I would say that there is no doubt that the noble Earl has rightly stated what was the practice up to the time of the War. There were no minutes when I served in the Cabinet and there was no secretary. What is more, there was no agenda even. There was nothing at all in writing which would lead anybody to know what was decided in the Cabinet except so far as it might be recorded in the Prime Minister's letter to His Majesty, which was a matter in those days of daily occurrence, or, at any rate, whenever the Cabinet sat. Probably it may be so now. At any rate it was so then. Otherwise there was no record.
The truth is that I have some hesitation in dealing with this question because I feel so strongly the necessity, as my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has said, of keeping what passes in the Cabinet secret that I am rather inclined to deprecate discussion as to the procedure there. At any rate it should be touched upon with great delicacy. I agree with almost every word which my noble friend has said in the observations he has made. It is a great pity that the old tradition of the absolute secrecy of what passes in the Cabinet has, to some extent, in these latter days been relaxed. I am sure that your Lordships will realise that if discussion in the Cabinet is to be unfettered then there must be no
526
record whatever of what passes. Otherwise everybody will say: "I must be careful what I say or it may be brought up against me hereafter." A man might be inclined to put forward an opinion which was not a considered opinion but put forward only because he wanted to hear what the arguments were on the other side, but if there is to be a. record as a record is taken of what passes in your Lordships' House, he would have to take great precautions in what he said.
Freedom of discussion is not only a matter prescribed in the oath which my noble friend has read, but it is obvious on the face of it that it is absolutely essential if Cabinet government is to have its full operation. There must be freedom of discussion, freedom of opinion and freedom of decisions formed upon that freedom of opinion and discussion. That would be destroyed by any kind of record. I very much hope that what my noble friend has said, and what I am sure my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will say, will do something to check a practice which is certainly growing and which is full of mischief, as my noble friend has said and as I believe, for the welfare of the realm.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the importance of the topic which my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has raised this afternoon is one which I think can hardly be exaggerated, and if I deal comparatively shortly with the subject it really is not because I under-estimate its importance, but because I find myself so completely in accord with what he said that really what I can add amounts to little more than an endorsement of his warnings. My noble friend cited three or four instances in which, in his view, there had been an infraction of the obligation of Cabinet secrecy. He referred to the fact that memoirs had appeared in which it seemed at least that matters which occurred in Cabinets had been disclosed. He mentioned three specific cases in another place in which discussions had taken place in the course of which there had been, as he thought, a similar departure from the proper standpoint of conduct. I am sure that my noble friend will forgive me if I do not go in detail into these specific instances. It is not because I find myself in disagreement

527
with anything he said, but obviously I should have to enquire into these specific cases to ascertain exactly what had happened. I should be challenging the conduct of gentlemen who hold very high positions, or who have held high positions, in the State without having given them any notice and without their having any opportunity of replying. I do not think my noble friend would desire, or that your Lordships would desire, that I should undertake that task.
But, my Lords, I am very glad that the question has been raised because it has seemed to me that there is a tendency in some quarters at least to ignore or to forget the nature and extent of the obligations of secrecy and the limitations which rigidly hedge round the position of a Cabinet Minister. My noble friend has read to your Lordships what in fact I was proposing to read—that is, the oath which every Privy Councillor takes when he is sworn of His Majesty's Privy Council. Your Lordships will remember that one reason at least why a Cabinet Minister must of necessity be a member of the Privy Council is that it involves the taking of that oath. Having heard that oath read your Lordships will appreciate what a complete misconception it is to suppose, as some people seem inclined to suppose, that the only obligation that rests upon a Cabinet Minister is not to disclose what are described as the Cabinet's minutes. He is sworn to keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto him or that shall be treated of secretly in Council.
In fact, there are, I think, three distinct classes which that obligation plainly covers. There are the so-called Cabinet minutes. I share the reluctance of my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury to discuss even the nature of Cabinet documents, but I think that without impropriety I may say that that phrase is a complete misdescription of the documents which, in fact, exist. They are described as, and are, Cabinet conclusions, and I should be very sorry if a system of keeping Cabinet minutes were ever to grow up.
There is, secondly, a series of documents, memoranda, telegrams, Despatches, documents circulated from one Cabinet Minister to his colleagues to bring before them a particular problem and to discuss the arguments for and
528
against a particular course of conduct—documents which everyone who has served in a Cabinet knows form a very great part of the labour which a Cabinet Minister has to undertake. I do not think that until any one has been in the Cabinet it is possible to realise what a great amount of time is devoted every day of necessity to the study of the various documents which are circulated to members of the Cabinet, which have to be read, considered, digested and thought about if a Cabinet Minister is going to do his duty to his colleagues and his country.
Thirdly and finally, apart from those two classes of documents, there is the recollection of the individual Minister of what happens in the Cabinet. I stress that because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury suggested and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, confirmed, Cabinet conclusions did not exist until sixteen years ago. The old practice is set out in a book which bears the name of the noble Earl's father, "Halsbury's Laws of England," with which I have had the honour to be associated in the present edition. This is the description which is there set out, and I read it so that I shall not run any risks of committing an indiscretion by making any fresh disclosures:
"Until 1916 deliberations of the Cabinet took place only in the presence of members of the Cabinet, except where other persons were summoned to assist with special knowledge or advice. No official records of the proceedings were kept, though the decisions arrived at might be embodied in the form of written minutes to be communicated to the Sovereign by the Prime Minister; and indeed it was customary for the Prime Minister to write a letter to the Sovereign after every Cabinet meeting, setting out what had been decided. No agenda was prepared and members might be called upon to make decisions suddenly, and without sufficient information about the point at issue, though it was usual to circulate written memoranda, Despatches, and other documents which were intended for perusal by members of the Cabinet, in Cabinet despatch boxes, of which each member has a master key."
I understand that that practice of having no record and nobody present, however desirable in the interests of secrecy, was apt occasionally to break down because considerable difference of opinion sometimes arose as to what actually had been decided.
There is rather an amusing letter which was published some ten years ago in the

529
Manchester Guardian and was written in July, 1882, by Lord Hartington's private secretary to one of the private secretaries of the then Prime Minister. The letter was in these terms:
"My dear Eddy,
Harcourt and Chamberlain have both been here this morning and at my chief about yesterday's Cabinet proceedings. They cannot agree about what occurred. There must have been some decision, as Bright's resignation shows. My chief has told me to ask you what the devil was decided, for he be damned if he knows. Will you ask Mr. G. [that is Mr. Gladstone] in more conventional and less pungent terms?
Yours ever."
Your Lordships will therefore see that occasionally there must have been inconveniences from the old practice. But when the pressure of war arose and enormously multiplied the haste and the pressure under which work was done, and the number and importance of the topics with which the Cabinet had sometimes without much notice to deal, it was felt that it was impossible to carry on without some sort of record of what decisions the Cabinet actually took, and accordingly in that year there was set up what is now known as the Cabinet Secretariat. Although my public life dates from a period when that system was already well established, I must say that, speaking for myself, I do not know how Cabinet work could be carried on if there were not the very wonderful work done by the Cabinet Secretariat to keep a record of what is happening and to see that the matters which come before the Cabinet or the Cabinet Committees for decision are properly prepared before they are considered by individual members, and I should be very sorry to see a departure from that practice.
Your Lordships will appreciate that a failure to maintain a Cabinet Secretariat or to keep any record of Cabinet conclusions would not involve by any means that there would be no breach of Cabinet secrecy. The unfortunate thing that seems to have happened recently is that some Privy Councillors seem to have had a kind of idea that so long as they did not read out what they called the Cabinet minutes it was all right to state, their recollection of what happened in the Cabinet. I hope what I have said will make it absolutely clear that in the view of His Majesty's Government—and
530
I believe, if they reflected upon it, in the view of everybody who has undertaken the oath of a Privy Councillor—that is a complete misconception. The obligation of refraining from disclosure of anything which is discussed in Cabinet extends just as much to your own recollection as to any written record which may remain.
Apart from the Privy Councillor's oath there is a penal section which attaches to the maintenance of that secrecy to which we are all bound, and which attaches not only to members of the Cabinet, but to any civil servants or others who, in the course of their duties, should become possessed of any Cabinet information or any Cabinet document. It is, perhaps, just worth recording that under the Official Secrets Act, 1911:
"If any person having in his possession or control any … document, or information which … has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under His Majesty or which he has obtained owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under His Majesty … communicates the … document, or information to any person, other than a person to it he is authorised to communicate t or a person to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty to communicate it … that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
And a person guilty of the misdemeanour is liable to imprisonment for two years. Obviously in the case of anybody who has served in a Cabinet that penal sanction is a minor matter. What really binds him is the Privy Councillor's oath; but it is just as well to remember that the obligation of secrecy extends equally to any other person than a Cabinet Minister who obtains confidential information, and that the State has been careful to make provision that anyone, Privy Councillor or otherwise, who fails to observe that obligation of secrecy incurs a very heavy responsibility before the Criminal Law.
The other point to which I want for a moment to call attention is the question of the circumstances in which a release may be obtained from the obligation of secrecy, because again it has seemed to me, from some observations which I have read, as if there was an impression in some quarters that a Cabinet Minister, or former Cabinet Minister, could exercise his own discretion in deciding when he was released from his obligation of secrecy, or as if

531
some persons had gained the idea that if, for example, it was necessary, in order to defend themselves against a charge or to convict an opponent of inaccuracy in debate, to disclose Cabinet documents or information, then they were at liberty so to do. I need not, I hope, remind your Lordships that that again is a complete mistake. The only person who can release a. Privy Councillor from his obligation of secrecy is His Majesty the King, and His Majesty, acting, as always in this constitutional country, on the advice of his Ministers, is in that matter guided by the advice given by the Prime Minister of the day.
If a matter arises which concerns some previous Administration the practice is to communicate with the Prime Minister who was then responsible to find out whether he has any objection to publication, and if he has no objection then the duty falls upon the Prime Minister of the day to advise His Majesty as to whether or not it is proper, in the particular circumstances, to make a disclosure. A common instance which occurs to all of us when such a disclosure is possible and is invariably permitted, is when a Cabinet Minister feels it incumbent upon himself to resign his office because of his disagreement on some high matter of policy with his colleagues. In such a case it is the invariable practice to permit the resigning Minister, if he so desires, to state the circumstances which led to his resignation and the reasons why he was unable to remain a member of the Cabinet from which he has resigned. But that privilege is granted to that particular Minister on his application by His Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister, and without that previous consent it would be improper, even in that case, for the resigning Minister to make any statement at all. The permission is always given, but the permission has to be obtained in order to absolve the Minister from the duty, which is otherwise an imperative and absolute duty, of keeping silence.
I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss at any length whether the rules which I have tried to explain to your Lordships are proper rules, but I should wish that there should be no doubt that. so far as my own personal view is concerned—and I have no reason to doubt it is a view shared by my colleagues in the Government—it would be most undesirable that this rule of Cabinet
532
secrecy should be modified or abolished. It would be an intolerable position if in discussions in the Cabinet individual Ministers had to remember that whatever they said in the course of a discussion, the thoughts which they might have expressed aloud on matters which they had not thoroughly thrashed out, and opinions which they had put forward for discussion and consideration, would be allowed to be brought up against them with charges of inconsistency if they departed from them. It would be an intolerable position if a Minister, before he reported to his colleagues some information which might be in his possession with regard, say, to some foreign country, or perhaps some individual—it would be intolerable if he knew that that information was going to be recorded and hereafter was liable to publication, with possibly grievous consequences between this country and a foreign country to which reference had been made.
It is absolutely essential in the public interest that discussions which take place between Cabinet Ministers shall take place in the full certainty of all of them that they are speaking their minds with absolute freedom to colleagues on whom they can explicitly rely, upon matters on which it is their sworn duty to express their opinions with complete frankness and to give all information, without any haunting fear that what happens may hereafter by publication create difficulties for themselves or, what is far more grave, may create complications for the King and country that they are trying to serve. For those reasons I hope that the inflexible rule which has hitherto prevailed will be maintained in its integrity, and that if there has been any relaxation or misunderstanding, of which I say nothing, the debate in this House will have done something to clarify the position and restate the old rule in all its rigour and all its inflexibility.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, have no call to address your Lordships, but as I happen to be in the Cabinet as Lord Chancellor I desire to associate myself with every word that the Leader of the House has uttered. You must have, if our Cabinet system is to prevail, free and frank discussion in the Cabinet of all matters which appear before the Cabinet and with the understanding that none of

533
those discussions and none of this information will leak out. I very much regret that in the last several years there has been from time to time serious Cabinet leakage. I hope that this discussion at any rate, will have this effect, that in future there will be no leakage at all from any Cabinet, not only of foreign affairs but of home affairs. It is most important that every member of the Cabinet should be entitled to give his opinion. Sometimes it may even be changed afterwards. It is vital that no Cabinet discussion—I am not speaking of secrets—should leak out at all. I think that if this rule is not observed our Cabinet system and system of government will come to an end. I would also like to add to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, first of all that any disclosure of Cabinet secrets is a breach of the Privy Councillor's oath, and secondly that it offends against the Official Secrets Act; but to my mind there is something more important still—and I feel sure that every noble Lord will take that view—it is a breach of a man's personal honour to make any disclosure.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I desire only to add one word to what has fallen from the two noble Lords who have just spoken. There is another question with regard to the secrecy of Cabinet proceedings which has been brought before me more than once, with a request that I. would bring it up in this House. Therefore I think it is not inappropriate that I should for a moment engage your Lordships' attention upon it. A system has grown up since the War of the publication in memoirs and biographies and other printed forms of the view held, or supposed to have been held, by individual members of the Cabinet with regard to proceedings in which military and naval advisers have been involved. I do not want to suggest the name of any individual. But I do ask your Lordships to recollect the extraordinary inequality which thereby is made to exist in the conduct of military operations between the Minister who gives the orders and the technical advisers on whom he has to rely. If it were appropriate I could give your Lordships half a dozen instances in which, perhaps unintentionally, interpretations of opinion have been made or really very
534
grave aspersions have been cast upon military or naval advisers who, if they, ire serving, are debarred by the terms of their service from replying, and, if they have died, whose relatives often have even not got papers by which they can be vindicated.
That is really a serious matter. I would not have ventured to raise it, but it happened that I served for twelve years in the War Office, and therefore perhaps it was not unnatural that in more than one ease the men who have felt themselves so aggrieved should have asked me, if it were in my power, to bring the matter forward. I have always felt, certainly during the War and immediately afterwards, that nothing could be less beneficial to the public service than that a controversy should be raised in which it was necessary that all that happened in a Cabinet or a Committee of the Cabinet should be brought out in order to controvert what I might have stated, and therefore I have not done so. But perhaps your Lordships will not consider it inappropriate that I should ask that what the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend below me so strongly stated should be regarded as applying not merely to those differences of opinion between Cabinet Ministers on which the debate has arisen, hut also to the relation of the Ministers of the Crown o the technical advisers of the Crown.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I add a word to what my noble friend Lord Midleton has said? He has spoken of the military and naval advisers of the Crown. May I say that exactly the same thing seems to me to apply to the publication of Departmental minutes, which has been done on a very large scale in recent years. I do not think that you should publish even with their consent—certainly not without their consent—the minutes of men who have written them without the slightest possible idea that they might conceivably be published. I think it is absolutely wrong that that should be done. It will lead inevitably to a system which has existed in the past, and noble Lords who have served any of the Departments can confirm my words: a system to which I think there are considerable objections—namely, the conduct of public business, not in official archives, hut by private conversations and in private letters which

535
are taken away by people because they are their own personal property. That has led in the past to a considerable amount of difficulty, as we all know. But not only that, the publication of Departmental minutes will certainly lead to discontinuing them in the future. It is bound to happen. In view of possible publication people will not write their minutes freely. They will undoubtedly follow another system. I feel perfectly certain that the practice of publishing Departmental minutes is a mischievous one. I do not think it is necessary. A minute, which a man puts on the file, is quite a different thing from a Despatch which is sent home from a Mission abroad. Everyone who writes a Despatch knows that it is possible it may be published in a Blue-book. The private comment on a Despatch which is made in the office is quite a different thing. My late colleagues in the Foreign Office, some of whom are here, will bear me out when I say that it was a rule of the office that those who were serving abroad should not see the minutes written on their Despatches. I think I am correct. If that is the case, surely they ought not to be published for all the world to see. It is a practice that has done mischief and I hope it will cease.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, 1 sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Hailsham for what he has said. There is just one question I would like to put to him. Under the Official Secrets Act is there any Parliamentary immunity for members of either House? I do not ask for an answer immediately, but I just ask that. As to the rest, after the very emphatic declarations of my noble friends Lord Hailsham and the Lord Chancellor, I trust that this Motion, for thie time being at any rate, has served its purpose, and I ask leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mention that I am suggesting that your Lordships' House should meet at noon to-morrow, by which time I understand the Consolidated Fund Bill will have passed all its stages in another place. I shall have formally to move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in order that that Bill may pass through all its stages here. There will be a Royal Commission at a quarter past twelve o'clock to give the Royal Assent to a certain number of Bills, and thereupon I propose to move the adjournment of the House until February 7, keeping the Motion in the form which I am sorry has almost become habitual now, which gives power to the Lord Chancellor in this House and to Mr. Speaker in another place to summon the House at an earlier date if a public emergency should render that course necessary.
  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Adelphi Estate,

Amersham, Beaconsfield and District Water,

Barking Corporation,

Bootle Corporation,

Bridlington Corporation,

Calvinistic Methodist or Presbyterian Church of Wales,

Cancer Hospital (Free),

Canterbury Extension,

City of London (Various Powers),

Colne Corporation,

Commercial Gas,

Deanne District Traction,

Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport,

Dewsbury Corporation,

Dover Harbour,

East Hull Gas,

Essex County Council,

Frimley and Farnborough District Water,

Gas Light and Coke Company,

Great Western Railway,

Kingston upon Hull Corporation,

London and North Eastern Railway,

London County Council (General Powers),

540

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

London Overground Wires, &c.,

Lyme Regis District Water,

Mablethorpe and Sutton Urban District Council,

Manchester Corporation,

Manchester Ship Canal,

Mersey Tunnel,

Middlesbrough Corporation,

Norwich Corporation,

Oxford Corporation,

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council,

Preston Corporation,

Rhondda Passenger Transport,

Rugby Corporation,

St. Helens Corporation,

Salford Corporation,

Samaritan Free Hospital for Women,

Sheffield Extension,

Sidmouth Urban District Council,

Southern Railway,

South Metropolitan Gas,

South Suburban Gas,

Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal,

Torquay and Paignton Traction,

Wigan Corporation,

Wimbledon Corporation,

Worksop Corporation,

York Corporation Transport.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Durham Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.