Sitting of 6 July 1932

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

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).
Mr. MAXTON: I have been requested by certain of my constituents to ask the leave of the House to present a petition signed by 53,000 church workers of the City of Glasgow against the Means Test.
"To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The humble petition of the undersigned members of churches of all denominations in Glasgow sheweth:

(1) That the Means Test as applied by the Government to large numbers of men and women of this city is operating in an extremely harsh manner by depriving them of unemployment benefit.

(2) It is proving destructive of family life, driving sons and daughters from the homes of their parents? and disturbing those filial relationships which have been the characteristics of Christian households.

(3) Numbers are finding it less and less possible to meet the rent charges of their landlords and the rent courts are crowded with people under threat of being rendered homeless.

(4) Those responsible for law and order complain of the increase of crimes against property.

(5) Those whose special care is the health of the people mark with misgiving signs of malnutrition, particularly among children.

(6) While those concerned with the spiritual welfare of the people fear the moral deterioration that must ensue.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will suspend without delay the operation of an Act which is devastating in its effect upon the lives and well-being of the British people."
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chester Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee Corporation," presented by Sir Archibald Sinclair; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for—
"Return showing the number of experiments on living animals during the year 1931 under licences granted in pursuance of the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 140, of Session 1931)."—[Mr. Stanley.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  HUNGARY (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what action he proposes to take in respect to the default of the Hungarian Government on the League of Nations Hungarian 1924 Loan, in view of the fact that the Hungarian Government has broken the general bond and the Geneva protocol;
  (2) the purposes for which the Hungarian 1924 League of Nations Loan was raised; and, in view of the fact that some of the subscribers to the loan were British subjects, will he request the League of Nations to provide him with details of the purposes to which the proceeds were eventually applied?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The Hungarian 1924 League of Nations loan was raised, as part of a general scheme of financial reconstruction drawn up by the Financial Committee of the League and approved by the Council, for the purpose of covering the budgetary deficit during the period of reform, i.e. until June, 1926. For full details of this scheme I would refer my hon. Friend to the General Survey and Principal Documents relating to the Financial Reconstruction of Hungary published by the League of Nations in December, 1026, which contains the information he

  415
  requires regarding the application of the proceeds of the loan (Publications of the League of Nations: II Economic and financial: 1926, II, 54). The question of the action to be taken in respect of the breach by the Hungarian Government of the general bond and the Geneva Protocol is under the active consideration of His Majesty's Government.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Has my hon. Friend assured himself that the statement made in 1926, six years ago, as to the purpose to which the loan would be applied has actually been carried out, and will he inform the Hungarian Government that this breaking of their plighted word will render it impossible for them to raise money again in this country?
  Mr. EDEN: A full statement of the Hungarian position was made on the 2nd July. We are now considering the position of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: If a request is to be made to the Hungarian Government that they should keep their word, I want to know what this Government are going to do to keep their pledge to the electors at the last election.

  FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION (BRITISH SOLDIER'S DEATH).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the death of John Lambton, who was killed while serving in the Foreign Legion in Morocco?
  Mr. EDEN: I have telegraphed to the British Vice-Consul at Fez for a report on this case and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as it is received.
  Mr. LAWSON: As it is improbable that we shall have an opportunity of raising this matter again, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this soldier was a mere youth, that he was well educated and of very high character, and will the Minister take steps, when he receives the information, to see if it is possible to get a pension for the boy's parents, who were very dependent upon him?
  Mr. EDEN: I hope to receive the report in the course of a day or two, and I will endeavour to confer with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LAWSON: This is a matter of very great importance, as it is not a single case. Unless something is done in the matter, will the hon. Member take steps to warn youths in this country against being influenced to join the Foreign Legion, and tell them what they are likely to expect?
  Mr. EDEN: That is another question. So far as the individual case is concerned, I must see the report before I can pronounce on it.

  MANCHURIA.
  Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the discrimination by Japanese against foreign trade in Manchuria?
  Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.
  Mr. KERR: Is the hon. Member aware that numerous complaints have been received by the British Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, and does not the situation warrant some action in view of the fact that Japan has declared in favour of the open door in Manchuria?
  Mr. EDEN: Those complaints have not reached us. If the hon. Member has any information I shall be glad to receive it.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the League of Nations' report be available to hon. Members before the Adjournment for the Recess?
  Mr. EDEN: I am afraid not.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Japanese went into Manchuria in order to get all the trade and to keep thy rest out?

  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position at Lausanne?
  Mr. EDEN: I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the work of the Conference at Lausanne.
  Mr. COCKS: Will the hon. Member state whether the British Government still stand by the policy of the clean slate?

  DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position at Geneva with special reference to the Hoover proposals?
  Mr. EDEN: I regret that I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
  Mr. COCKS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether we accept the Hoover proposals in principle?
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we expect a statement before the Adjournment?
  Mr. EDEN: I hope so.

  CHINESE RAILWAYS (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
  Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the totals of arrears of interest and amortisation due from the Chinese Government to British bondholders in Chinese railways; if he can state how long these debts have been accumulating; and if any steps are being taken to recover payment?
  Mr. EDEN: According to my information, on the 30th June this year the total arrears of interest due from the Chinese Government was £4,210,569 and about 1,700,000 taels. Arrears of amortisation were £5,856,547 and 78,000 dollars (Chinese currency). These figures cover a number of loans on which default began at different times, since 1924. I am unable to state precisely what proportion of the arrears is due to British subjects, but it is certainly high. With regard to the last part of the question, constant pressure is brought to bear on the Chinese Government by His Majesty's Representative in China to meet their obligations, and these efforts will be continued.
  Mr. MOREING: Is it not a fact that the earnings of one of the railways, the Tientsin-Pukow railway, in 1931, were as high as they have been in recent years,
  418
  but the money which should have been been given to the British bondholders in payment of loan has been diverted to the building of a Ministry of Railways in Nankin? Cannot the hon. Member take steps to see that the bondholders get their money first?
  Mr. EDEN: I am not aware of that. His Majesty's Minister in China is at present on leave in this country, and I hope to discuss generally with him the question of these railways.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ADMIRALTY.
    Mr. POTTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total of the Admiralty clerical staff, as at a convenient date, during the first half of 1914 and the total on 1st July, 1932; will he state by how many persons the total has been, or will be, reduced as a result of the economy campaign in the accountant's and secretary's departments; and whether he is taking steps to reduce the total by not less than 100 before the end of the current financial year?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) on the 25th May. The figure then given was for the 1st April, 1932, and has since been reduced by 16. I regret that I am unable to give the figures or undertaking asked for in the remainder of the question, but I would point out that the economies resulting from the merger of the secretary's and accountant-general's departments are to be seen in the reduction of the cost of the staff rather than in the number of persons employed, because the concentration and redistribution of work which is now in progress makes possible and justifies a reduction in the number of higher paid posts and the employment of less expensive clerical grades.

    BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of promotions of writing assistants and shorthand-typists, respectively, to the established general and departmental clerical classes of the Board of Inland Revenue for the years 1928, 1930,

    419
    and 1931; and the number of promotions of ex-service P-class clerks to the established general and departmental classes, respectively, in the Board of Inland Revenue for the same years?

    Inland Revenue Department.

    Promotions.

    —

    To General Clerical Class.

    To Departmental Clerical Class.

    1928.

    1929.

    1930.

    1931.

    1928.

    1929.

    1930.

    1931.

    Writing Assistants

    …

    6

    7

    7

    13

    12

    23

    23

    62

    Shorthand Typists

    …

    2

    1

    2

    3

    18

    13

    14

    34

    "P" Class Clerks

    …

    5

    15

    9

    13

    34

    108

    100

    99

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a woman civil servant in his Department will be retained in the service at her own request subsequent to her marriage; and, as her future husband is also a civil servant in the Ministry of Labour, on what grounds is the retention of this woman civil servant sanctioned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It is the fact that a woman officer has applied to be retained in the Department after marriage, and that this permission, after full consideration of her qualifications, has been granted. The decision has been taken in accordance with the Treasury Regulation of the 26th August, 1921, on the ground that the retention of the officer in question after marriage is in the interests of the public service.
    Mr. HUTCHISON: Is it not a fact that the work Nvihich this woman undertakes could be done equally well by a man?
    Mr. HUDSON: That applies to a great deal of the work done by women in all Government Departments.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, DARTMOUTH.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what economies it has been found possible to introduce into the administration of
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth as a result of the inquiry instituted by him into that matter?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The inquiry is still in progress.

    SUBMARINE M.2 (PARENTS' APPLICATIONS).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many parents of single men killed in submarine M.2 have been refused pension or other compensation for the loss of their sons?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The parents of 10 single men who lost their lives in submarine M.2 were found to be ineligible for the award of pensions on investigation of their applications. Under the Regulations, a pension can only be awarded to a parent if the parent was largely dependent on the deceased at the time of his death, but in these 10 cases this condition was not met. This rule is common to the three Service Departments. The Admiralty have no power to grant compensation, as distinct from a pension, to the parents of a naval rating.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in consequence of the death of these men, although some parents were not wholly dependent upon them, they are suffering material loss, and is there no way in which he can assist them to recover some of the loss which they have sustained?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I sympathise deeply with the parents, but under the regulations I have no power to do it.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible for the Government to make an ex-gratia payment as they did in the case of the M.2 widow in Liverpool?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: If any particular consideration is put forward, I will see that it is considered, but I can hold out no hope that any such grants will be made.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not within the power of the Admiralty to grant a compassionate allowance in such cases as these?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have explained that it is not possible.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of men discharged from each of His Majesty's naval dockyards since 8th September, 1931, and the number who have been found substituted work by his Department; what schemes have been formulated by his Department for providing substituted work for the men already, or to be, discharged from naval dockyards; and whether he will consider giving instructions that no further discharges shall be made unless and until substituted work is provided?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): The approximate numbers of men discharged from the home dockyards since the 8th September, 1931, excluding natural wastage, were:

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    …

    859

    Devonport

    …

    …

    …

    770

    Chatham

    …

    …

    …

    1,059

    Sheerness

    …

    …

    …

    350

    It will be understood that discharges and re-entries are constantly taking place on account of the fluctuations in the amount and nature of the work in the yards, and that the same individual may be discharged and re-entered several times a year. The approximate numbers of entries, who would for the most part be re-entries, during the same period were:

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    …

    1,186

    Devonport

    …

    …

    …

    852

    Chatham

    …

    …

    …

    1,081

    Sheerness

    …

    …

    …

    371

    The Admiralty is not in a position to provide any scheme of substituted
    422
    employment, but, whenever possible, discharges are avoided by inter-departmental transfers.

    RECRUITING.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if boys are now being recruited for the Royal Navy and in what numbers per month; and if he can give similar information as to officers' stewards?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Boys are being recruited for the seaman branch of the Royal Navy at the rate of 150 per month. The rating of officer's steward is now obsolete, but six assistant stewards, continuous service, per month are now being recruited.

    HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the mui-tsai system is now totally abolished in Hong Kong; and, if not, what action is being taken to ensure the suppression of this practice of child slavery
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The system has been abolished. The girls who were mui-tsai have been registered, and their status changed to that of free paid domestic workers. Three inspectors—a European police officer and two Chinese ladies—have been appointed by Government to ensure that the regulations are observed.

    PALESTINE (TRADE UNIONS).
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware that the Palestine Government demands that the membership registers of the Railway, Post and Telegraph Workers' Union shall be submitted to them; and whether, having regard to the principle of freedom of association granted to workers by the Peace Treaty of Versailles, he will have this practice discontinued;
    (2) if he is aware that the directors of the railway and post departments of the Palestine Government have imposed upon the Union of Railway, Post and Telegraph Workers a condition that it shall not be affiliated to the inter-

    423
    national trade union movement; and if he will take action to have this condition withdrawn;
    (3) if he is aware that the departments of railways, posts and telegraphs of the Palestine Government refuse to allow employés to join the General Federation of Jewish Labour, which is the only organisation which provides for sickness, etc., so that hardship is caused because the Government itself does not make such provision for its employés; and if he will take steps to remove this hardship?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is a fact that the National Union of Railway, Post and Telegraph Workers in Palestine, like all other unions of Government employés in that Territory, is required to furnish the Government with a nominal roll of its members. It is also the case that unions of Government employés cannot be recognised if they constitute a part of or are affiliated to any association which is not itself a union of Government employés duly recognised by the Government. I am not aware that the former condition conflicts with any provision in the Treaty of Versailles, nor am I prepared to ask the High Commissioner to withdraw either of the conditions. I informed the High Commissioner some time ago that I saw no objection to Government employés enjoying any benefits that they might be able to obtain by participating in the sick club and other benefit societies conducted by the General Federation of Jewish Labour provided that this did not involve membership, affiliation or any promise of obedience to the rules of the Federation. I have been informed by the High Commissioner that almost all of the Arab members of the National Union of Railway, Post and Telegraph Workers participate in the benefits of the sick club and loan fund under an arrangement by which the Federation admits individuals on payment of certain dues to enjoyment of these benefits without requiring membership, affiliation or obedience to its rules.

    KENYA.
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Kamba reserve (Kenya) was first delimited; and at what date the Akamba
    424
    Natives were subsequently removed by the East African Protectorate Government from the Mua hills and other lands near Machakos and Ulu?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The boundaries of the Machakos Reserve in the Ukarnba Province were described in a Government Proclamation, dated the 18th June, 1906. In 1908 certain Wakamba were removed from a portion of this area; the officer in charge of the Province at the time reported that
    "they acknowledged that the land was not originally owned by the tribe…They one and all definitely agreed to the recommendation that they should move; the whole question was freely discussed. No pressure or menaces were employed and every person present was encouraged to have his way."
    Mr. JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the land office number and size of Captain F. O'B. Wilson's farm in Kenya, which forms part of an estate alienated to a Captain Slatter about the year 1908 subsequent to the eviction of Akamba Natives; what was the size of the estate alienated to Captain Slatter; and whether any of the Akamba Natives, living under a headman named Mohindu, who were resident on this land have remained as squatters on the land after the re-sale of a portion of it to Captain F. O'B. Wilson?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information in my possession does not enable me to deal with all the points in the hon. Member's question. He will be interested to know, however, that in 1908, the year in which Captain Slatter's land was transferred to Captain Wilson, there were 57 native families living on it under agreement with Captain Slatter. In 1910 the agreement was renewed by Captain Wilson, and the number of families was increased to 66. On Captain Wilson's present estate, which includes areas other than that derived from Captain Slatter there are, at the present day, 488 adult male natives with their women and children.
    Mr. JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the form of the inquiry- held in 1929 into the delimitation of certain lands in Kenya; whether the inquiry was held in public or in private: by whom it was conducted; at what place and on what date; and whether public notice of the inquiry was given beforehand?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If I am right in assuming that the hon. Member is referring to the demarcation of the Machakos Reserve in 1929, no formal inquiry was held as the boundary was not in dispute. As I have already stated the boundary was first described in 1906, and in the area in which Captain Wilson's land is situated has remained approximately unchanged; and I am informed that during the interval of 25 years no objection has been raised by the Wakamba to this boundary nor has any claim to the land occupied by Captain Wilson ever been advanced by them.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    ARMY OFFICERS SECONDED.
    Wing-Commander JAMESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) how many officers have been seconded from the Army to the Royal Air Force since the War; how many officers would have been seconded had the scheme been used to capacity; and how many of the officers who have been seconded since the War are still serving in the Army;
    (2) how many officers are at present seconded from the Army to the Royal Air Force?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): 128 Army officers have been seconded to the Royal Air Force since the War. Of these officers 10 are at present serving with the Royal Air Force on secondment, 52 are serving on the Active List of the Army, and 23 are in the Regular Army Reserve of Officers. The scheme for these secondments did not provide for a. regular annual quota, so that it is not possible to make the comparative estimate asked for by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied with the way in which this scheme is working, and, if not, will he take steps to improve its operation?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The whole scheme has been under review by the two Departments, but as to any specific question I had better have notice.

    LANDING FLARES (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of
    426
    British aircraft that have been set on fire since 1918 by night landing flares carried on the aircraft; and the number of deaths resulting therefrom?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There has been no recent fatal accident of this kind. My Noble Friend does not think that the labour of producing detailed statistics on the subject from 1918 onwards would be justified.

    AIR ROUTE (PERSIA).
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air from what date it has been decided to discontinue the air route through Persia; what loss will be incurred by the Exchequer owing to the abandonment of our equipment in Persia; and what cost will be involved in preparing the alternative route?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, it is proposed to discontinue this route as from 1st October next. As regards the remainder of the question, I am not in a position to state to what extent, if any, it may prove impracticable to transfer existing equipment in Persia, but the capital cost of the transfer to the alternative routs is roughly estimated at £9,750.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Does that figure include the possible cost of finding new places?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I could not answer that question without notice.

  TRANSPORT.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Commander MARSDENasked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to introduce new legislation for the purpose of reducing the number of accidents resulting in death or injury caused by vehicles and horses in streets, roads, and public places?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I have no present intention of introducing fresh legislation, particularly as the question was so recently and so prominently before Parham-lent in connection with the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I am, however, in frequent consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as to the best means of reducing accidents, whether by enforcement of the law or otherwise.
    Commander MARSDEN: May I put the question in this way. It is admitted that the existing laws are fairly and impartially administered, but does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that by the results and returns from the Home Office these rules and regulations have shown themselves to be quite inadequate to reduce the terrible number of daily accidents resulting in disablement, injury, and death?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am not satisfied that the present legislation is inadequate, and for that reason I do not propose to introduce fresh legislation at the moment.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: How long does the hon. Member think the public is going to tolerate 20 people being killed daily on the roads, and nothing being done?
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the Department conducting any research into the causes of these accidents, such as worn-out tyres?
    Mr. PYBUS: We are watching this matter with the gravest attention, and we shall leave nothing undone that can be done to reduce the number of accidents.

    WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Transport whether, before committing the Government to any expenditure with regard to any proposals that may be made in connection with the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge, he will undertake to obtain the approval of Parliament?
    Mr. PYBUS: Before any decision in the matter is reached, I will make available to the House the estimates of the cost of dealing with the existing bridge, by alternative methods, which the London County Council has agreed to furnish.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will a Debate take place on the proposals before the Government are committed to them?
    Mr. PYBUS: That is another question altogether.

    OMNIBUS FARES, FARNHAM.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Transport whether he will instruct the Traffic Commissioners, southern area, to inquire into the omnibus fares between Farnham Common and Farnham Royal which have lately been
    428
    raised, and cause hardship to workmen who have to travel by this route four times daily?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have caused inquiries to be made and understand that the question of reduced fares for workpeople between Farnham Royal and Farnham Common has not been before the Traffic Commissioners in connection with any application for a licence. I am causing a copy of this question and of my reply to be forwarded, however, to the Traffic Commissioners concerned for their information.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is the Minister aware that these fares were raised by the Traffic Commissioners about six months ago? They were originally a penny, and were raised to twopence.
    Mr. PYBUS: My information is that they were not raised by the Commissioners at all. The case never came before the Commissioners.

    RAILWAYS (COMMUNICATION CORD).
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that on the 5.45 p.m. train from King's Cross to Hull, on 17th June, the communication cord was pulled by a passenger but it failed to operate; and, in the interest of public safety, what steps his Department takes to secure inspection and adequate working of communication cords in trains throughout the country?
    Mr. PYBUS: I understand from the railway company that on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers the communication cord was, according to their information, pulled by a passenger who had previously intimated to the company's staff his intention of pulling it in order to secure that the train should stop at a station at which it was not scheduled to stop, and that in these circumstances the signal was disregarded. In the circumstances I do not propose to take any action.
    Mr. HUTCHISON: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of the question, which is to know what action the Department takes to ensure the safety of passengers?

    LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
    Sir KENYON VAUGHAN - MORGANasked the Minister of Trans-port whether he will issue, for the in-

    429
    formation of the House, a. statement showing the effects on the financial basis of the London Passenger Transport Bill of the arrangements come to between the main line railways and the Metropolitan Railway to which he has recently given his approval?
    Sir WILLIAM RAYasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to the terms provisionally arranged under which the Metropolitan Railway Company will be absorbed in the new combination of London passenger transport undertakings under the London Passenger Transport Bill; whether the beads of agreement have received his approval; whether this settlement alters the total liabilities of the Transport Board as laid before the Joint Select Committee on the Bill; what will be the effect of the settlement on the estimated net annual balance of the undertaking of the Transport Board, which would during the years 1934 to 1941 be available for the purposes of a reserve fund and which was given in the course of evidence on the Bill as £132,928; and whether any of the owners of the other transport undertakings with whom settlements already embodied in the Bill have been arrived at were consulted before the new terms proposed for the Metropolitan Railway Company were provisionally agreed?
    Mr. PYBUS: I shall be very glad to meet my two hon. Friends' request and to circulate at the earliest possible moment a statement regarding certain changes which it is proposed to make in the London Passenger Transport Bill. In this statement will be embodied full details of the provisional agreement arrived at with the Metropolitan Railway and the amalgamated companies in respect of the acquisition of the Metropolitan Railway undertaking, and certain alterations regarding powers of the Minister and the appointment of the board. The agreements with the Metropolitan Railway Company are subject to ratification by the proprietors of that company but in view of the early rising of Parliament I will circulate the statement immediately after interested parties have been formally acquainted with the new proposals.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the agreement with the Metropolitan Railway Company
    430
    and the Combine approved by the Ministry of Transport Is the agreement subject to that approval?
    Mr. PYBUS: The agreement between the amalgamated railways and the Metropolitan Railway has been provisionally approved by my Department, but of course it is always subject to the approval of this House.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Does the Minister propose to proceed with the London Transport Bill after the Recess?
    Mr. PYBUS: I cannot add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 2nd June last.

    TRAFFIC NOISES (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have taken place since the issue of the order relating to the noise of road vehicles on 1st August, 1929; and whether it is proposed to issue further orders dealing with the noise of vehicles using the public roads?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No separate figures are available showing the number of such prosecutions between 1st August, 1929, and 31st December, 1930. During 1931 the total number of prosecutions for noise offences in England and Wales was 24,721. I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that he does not propose at present to issue any further regulations on this subject.
    Mr. McENTEE: How many fines were inflicted as a consequence of these prosecutions?
    Mr. STANLEY: I could not say without notice.

    ROAD SERVICE (PREMIER LINE).
    Mr. HUTCHISON (for Sir REGINALD BLAKER)asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience caused to the travelling public by the withdrawal of the Premier Line omnibus service operating between parts of Middlesex and London; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am aware of the withdrawal of the service to which the hon.

    431
    Member refers. It has been operated in contravention of the law, and the company have on this account been convicted and fined on three occasions. The question whether a road service licence should be granted to the company in, respect of this route is at present the subject of an appeal and stands referred to the special committee of inquiry presided over by Lord Amulree.
    Miss PICKFORD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the withdrawal of this licence over 60 men have been thrown out of work, that the Premier Line is perfectly willing to re-employ them if the licence is renewed, and that it is obvious that the public require their services?
    Mr. PYBUS: I regret the fact that these persons were thrown out of work, but it was because an illegal service, which never had a licence, was withdrawn after being prosecuted on several occasions.
    Miss PICKFORD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this line was operating more omnibuses on that route than on the line to which a licence has been allowed?
    Mr. PYBUS: This service has never been licensed. The law of the land is that public service vehicles must have a licence, and the last time that this company was before the court Sir Chartres Biron described this particular case as one of the most impudent attempts to defy the law in his experience.
    Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Would not the simplest way be to annul the Road Traffic Act altogether?

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (ERROL).
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the installation of electricity into the village of Errol?
    Mr. PYBUS: I gave my consent on 6th June to the wayleaves applied for by the Grampian Electricity Supply Company for the purpose of serving this village.
    Lord SCONE: Can the hon. Member say when the installation is likely to be completed?
    Mr. PYBUS: I cannot say. The Noble Lord should apply to the power company.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (RIVER LANDING).
    Mr. WILLSasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will arrange landing facilities for those Members of Parliament who, being desirous of relieving congestion on the roads, wish to arrive at the Palace of Westminster by boat, in view of the fact that at present the nearest landing stage is Westminster Pier, for which a charge of 6d. is imposed?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): If hon. Members desire to use the Speaker's steps, I will endeavour to arrange that the gate shall be unlocked at certain hours, but I cannot contemplate expenditure of public funds on any new construction for the purpose proposed in my hon. Friend's question.
    Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Is it not a fact that this gate is not only locked, but that there is a wall erected in front of it as well?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that when the gate is unlocked the wall is really a step.

    POOR LAW (CASUAL WARDS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether there are still any casual wards in England where heating is not provided in the winter and, if there are any, will he take action prior to October next to ensure that the wards are heated?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The reply to the first part of the question is "No." The second part does not therefore arise.

    DISTRESSED AREAS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether he has given further considera-

    433
    tion to the views and representations made to him by the members of the deputation representing the distressed areas last Thursday; and whether, in view of the need of immediate action, he has any further statement to make?
    Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the representations made to him by the deputation, but he is not at present in a position to make any further statement.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say definitely, on behalf of the Minister of Health, that immediate steps will be taken in this matter, seeing that the position is tragically urgent and that something must be done at once, and whether he will see that immediate steps are taken to relieve the deplorable position of these areas?
    Mr. GROVES: Has the Minister made any public statement on the matter, and can Members be furnished with it?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that the case was put by a deputation to the Minister recently, and he is now considering the representations made, which, as is known, were of an urgent character. More than that I cannot say.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first available opportunity.

    NEW FOREST (ELECTRICITY GRID).
    Major MILLSasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the Commission is adhering to its decision not to allow the grid to traverse the New Forest; and if he can give an undertaking that the question will not be reopened by the Commission?
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners are adhering to their decision not to allow the suggested grid line to traverse the New Forest, and consequently, while the question of reopening the matter does not rest with them alone, they will not take the initiative.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA (CONVENTION).
    Sir BASIL, PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Senate of the United States of America has yet agreed to the ratification of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, or whether he is in a position to furnish any information as to when the United States of America are likely to ratify this Convention?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The United States have not yet ratified the Convention, and I am not at present in a position to state when they will do so.

    COASTING CARGO VESSELS.
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what precautions are taken, and what Government supervision is exercised on our coasts, to ensure that properly certificated mariners are in charge of coasting cargo vessels; and whether the representatives of the Government will be instructed to support an international convention on the minimum requirement of professional capacity in the case of captains and navigating and engineer officers in charge of watches on board merchant ships, as proposed at the thirteenth session of the International Labour Conference at Geneva on 1st March, 1931?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Coasting cargo vessels are not required by the Merchant Shipping Acts to carry certificated officers. I have no reason to think that the absence of any such requirement is a source of danger. The attitude of His Majesty's Government to the proposals for an international convention on this subject are set out in the Blue Report of the International Labour Office, dated 1st March, 1931, containing the replies to the questionnaire sent out by the office after the thirteenth session of the International Labour Conference of 1929.
    Sir B. PETO: Have any communications taken place since, and do the Government still adhere to the decision expressed in 1931?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The views were expressed in 1929, and have not changed.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND (TRADE RELATIONS).
    Mr. EMMOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that as a result of restrictions by Switzerland on German imports into that country the German Government has relaxed, in favour of Switzerland, the German foreign exchange control; and will he consider the application of this method in suitable directions to enable British subjects to receive payment from foreign countries?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have not yet received particulars of any arrangement of the kind suggested in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made yesterday in reply to the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Ramsden) and the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Chorlton).
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Would the hon. Gentleman ask His Majesty's Minister at Berne to obtain particulars of this important statement as an actual fact?
    Mr. COLVILLE: We are obtaining particulars, but so far as I have knowledge up to the present the statement does not cover the wide range suggested by the hon. Member who asked the question.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PIKEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that large numbers of persons previously holding non-insurable positions in the iron and steel industry have, as the result of the reorganisation proposals of the Tariff Advisory Committee, recently been dismissed; and what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that the knowledge and experience of the individuals concerned is not lost to British iron and steel production and to re-absorb them into industry?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. Friend must be under a misapprehension. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have not drawn up any scheme for the reorganisation of the steel industry. The position is that at a meeting with representatives of the industry on 3rd June, the Import Duties Advisory Committee
    436
    made it clear that, provided the industry was prepared to carry through a satisfactory scheme of reorganisation, it was their intention to recommend such measure of protection as was necessary to make the scheme effective. Representatives of the industry are in process of drawing up proposals which are not yet complete.
    Mr. PIKE: Is the Minister aware that in some cases these proposals are already taking effect, with the consequences stated in the question?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. Friend is under a complete misapprehension. The Advisory Committee have not put any scheme into execution at all.

    COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY (PROFIT SHARING).
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the number of concerns in the cotton textile industry in which co-partnership or profit-sharing schemes are in operation; how many workers are affected thereby; and how the regularity of employment in firms where such schemes are in operation compares with that in other firms?
    Mr. HUDSON: Five firms engaged in the cotton textile industry were known to my Department as having schemes of profit-sharing or co-partnership in operation in the year 1931. These firms had about 19,000 employés, of whom about 6,000 were entitled to participate in profits. As to regularity of employment, I have no information as to how these firms compare with other firms in the industry.

    SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Prime Minister how many copies of the report of the expert sub-committee on the Severn barrage are necessary in order to enable this report to be considered by the Economic Advisory Council; for what reason it has been found necessary to incur the expense of having this report printed; and whether, in the event of the Economic Advisory Council concluding that the Severn barrage is definitely an uneconomic proposition, he will take steps to prevent any further expenditure being incurred by the publication of the report?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): It would be contrary to established practice to give such information as is asked for in the first two parts of the question. I am sure, however, that the council fully appreciate the need for economy in its secretarial arrangements, and I can assure my hon. Friend that if the circumstances contemplated in the last part of the question arise, his point will be borne in mind.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the very great interest which is taken in this matter, not only in the district immediately affected, but in South Wales generally?
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not satisfied that sufficient time has elapsed and sufficient money has been spent for exploring all the possibilities of this scheme; and, in the interest of economy, will he definitely consider whether any further expenditure should be made?
    Mr. BALDWIN: In answer to that question, no decision has yet been arrived at as to whether the report will be published, but I would remind my hon. Friend that this is a subject which for many years excited a great deal of interest, particularly in the West Country and in Wales. It was thought by the Government of that day that a question of such importance ought to be thoroughly investigated, to see if it would be possible to carry out this great scheme. I believe that the conclusions are that it is impracticable, but it may be that a strong feeling will be expressed that the reasons for those conclusions ought to be preserved, for the benefit of the Members of this House who sanctioned the expenditure in the past, and for future generations.

    BRITISH ARMY (UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can make any statement regarding the proposed alterations in the uniform and equipment of the Army?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): No change in the peacetime dress of the Army is contemplated,
    438
    but the question of an improved dress and equipment for the soldier on active service or manœuvres is being considered by a committee with the special object of reducing the total weight at present carried. An early decision is not to be expected in view of the experiments involved and the financial and other considerations.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that in certain Midland districts coal is sold for household purposes at several shillings per ton cheaper than the same grade of coal is sold for industrial purposes; and what steps he proposes to take to assist industry in this connection?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The suggestion contained in the first part of the question is new to me. If it is implied that the difference in price is due to the minimum prices fixed under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, I would remind the hon. Lady that the proper course for any person who wishes to make a complaint is to address it to the appropriate Committee of Investigation appointed under Section 5 of that Act, when the matter must be thoroughly investigated.

    AGRICULTURE (WAGES).
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information as to the number of applications received by agricultural wages committees for permits to receive less than the statutory wages from juniors engaged in the industry and the number of applications granted?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I have no information as to the number of applications for such permits made in respect of junior workers only, but on 30th September, 1931, there were 263 permits in force for workers under 18 years of age and 511 for workers of 18 and under 21 years.

    WAR LOAN CONVERSION (COMMISSION).
    Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that hardship has been caused to the

    439
    stockbrokers of the country by his advice given to the holders of 5 per cent. War Loan to consult bankers as to the conversion of their holdings without making any reference to stockbrokers; and will he take steps to make it known that the public may obtain assistance through stockbrokers as well as banks?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Explanatory Note sent to all holders tells them:
    "If you are in any doubt how to complete the forms you Should consult your banker, stockbroker or solicitor, or you may obtain advice and assistance free of charge on personal application at any bank or banking office, even though you do not keep an account there."
    The banks are, by reason of the great number of their branches, more accessible to most holders, but I of course welcome the assistance which I am sure is being given by the stockbroking profession.
    Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether solicitors, brokers, and bankers are being allowed five shillings per cent. commission as agents for forwarding applications for conversion in connection with the War Loan Conversion scheme; and whether, in view of the fact that this Conversion is being conducted as a measure of economy, he will advise holders to convert their stock direct and thus effect substantial savings in respect of the commissions so payable by His Majesty's Government?
    Major ELLIOT: Bankers, stockbrokers, solicitors and Scottish law agents are being allowed commission on continued holdings at the rate of 5s. per £100 nominal if notified not later than 31st July, and at the rate of 2.s. 6d. per £100 nominal if notified between 1st August and 30th September. While my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of economy in this as in other matters, the essential point is how we can get into touch with an enormous body of stockholders, and he is sensible of the great assistance that can be afforded by bankers, brokers and solicitors in this matter, both to the stockholders and to the Treasury. Individual stockholders will no doubt use their own discretion; but it is of the first importance that the forms of request should be properly filled up, and that they should
    440
    be lodged without delay, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the payment of the commissions in question will conduce to these ends. He is not prepared, therefore, to do anything to discourage stockholders from making use of the ordinary channels by which such business is customarily conducted.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is not this rather a reflection on the patriotism of the solicitors, brokers, and bankers in suggesting that they should have special remuneration while the rest of the country is being asked to go into conversion to a lower rate of interest?
    Major ELLIOT: This is a scheme which was drawn up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—not my right hon. Friend, but the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom I understand the hon. Member opposite was associated for many years. It has always been understood that persons are remunerated for performing services which are of benefit both to the people for whom the services are being immediately rendered arid to the Government which is asking for those services.
    Mr. LOGAN: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how much this patriotic bankers' dole will mean to the nation?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not far below the ordinary trade union rate?
    Mr. MAXTON: Why should these persons be paid by the Government for performing their ordinary professional duty towards their clients and customers?
    Major ELLIOT: They are performing a duty which is of the utmost use to their customers and the State, and they are receiving the ordinary rates of remuneration for those duties.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Should it not be the customer who should pay for the work that is done?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Suppose that a friendly society had a large sum of money to convert in this connection, would that society, if it transacted this business on its own account, get the rebate now going to the bankers?
    Major ELLIOT: I should like to see any further questions on these points on the Paper.

    EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary how many visits to registered laboratories were paid by the two inspectors under the Act, 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, during 1931; and what was the total number of experiments upon living animals and the number of other experiments?
    Mr. STANLEY: The number of visits was 745. The number of experiments performed during the year will be given in the annual return which is in course of preparation and will, I hope, be issued shortly.
    Mr. GROVES: Before the Recess?
    Mr. STANLEY: I could not say with-in a day or two. It is approaching completion.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary what steps are taken to ensure that the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, is observed, and that students are not allowed to undertake vivisection experiments for which they do not and cannot under the Act hold a licence; and whether his Department has taken any legal steps against such students during the last five years?
    Mr. STANLEY: The report prefixed to the annual return of experiments indicates the steps which are taken to secure observance of the Act. In addition the Home Office has always been able to rely upon the active co-operation of the responsible heads of laboratories, medical schools, etc., in ensuring that experiments are not performed by unauthorised persons. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative; the Home Office has had no reason to suppose that any such contravention of the Act has taken place within the period indicated.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (ROAD FUND).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to give consideration before the next Budget to the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure that the Road Fund should be abolished?
    Major ELLIOT: As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the whole question of Parliamentary control over road expenditure is the subject of recommendations in the recently issued reports of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committees. These reports are under careful consideration by the Government.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCIAL RELATIONS).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the annual contributions paid to the British Exchequer by the Northern Ireland Government since 1926 and the annual sums remitted by the British Government in the same years; and the subjects upon which the contributions were paid and the purposes or subjects for which the sums were remitted?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. McEntee) on 27th June, and would add that the figures there given of the payments made to Northern Ireland since 1926 include the cost of providing the Parliament buildings, Law Courts and other public buildings, the Land Purchase Annuities collected in Northern Ireland, and the contribution payable under the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Acts, 1926 and 1929. The Imperial Contribution paid by Northern Ireland is fixed as a single amount each year by the Joint Exchequer Board and is in respect of such Imperial liabilities as National Debt charges, Defence expenditure, Diplomatic services, etc.

    IRISH LAND ACTS (FINANCE).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the powers and conditions under the title "general finance" in the Irish Land Act, 1903, and of Sections 1 and 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, were repealed or amended?
    Major ELLIOT: It would be impossible, within the limits of an answer to a question, to set out in detail the extent to which the Land Purchase Acts may have been modified or affected in consequence of the establishment of separate Governments in Ireland. Stated very shortly the

    443
    position is that, while new purchase agreements have been arranged and financed under post-Treaty legislation in the Irish Free State since 1923, and in Northern Ireland since 1925, the main provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, taken together, remain substantially intact, particularly in regard to such matters as the service of the stock issued, and the purchase annuities payable, under those Acts.

    INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (INQUIRY).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is anticipated that the Departmental Committee on Industrial Insurance will make its report: and whether the report will be available for Members of this House?
    Major ELLIOT: In reply to the first part of the question I understand that the committee is now preparing its report, but I am not yet in a position to say when it will be completed. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (GRANT, NORWICH).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds he has refused to sanction a grant to the Norwich city council under the unemployment grants scheme unless the council agree to a reduction of the wages and working conditions paid by the council?
    Mr. HUDSON: A grant has not been refused. It was sanctioned in January of last year on certain conditions including conditions as to the rates of wages to be paid. Certain points arising as regards these latter conditions have been under discussion between the Unemployment Grants Committee and the council, and I understand that an early settlement may be expected.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it the case that the Norwich council can only get a settlement of this matter with the hon. Gentleman's Department on condition that they reduce wages and lower working conditions generally?
    Mr. HUDSON: I would require to go far beyond the limits of the answer to a
    444
    supplementary question in order to explain the whole situation, but, briefly, the difficulty arises owing to the fact that Norwich is, I understand, not classified. The question is whether for wage rate purposes it is in Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to inform the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that it would be better for him to ascertain the exact facts before putting down questions dealing with Norwich?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the Grants Committee refused the Norwich council a grant on the ground that they were not in favour of the wage rates and conditions applying to certain classes of workers; and are we to take it that it is a Government policy now that wages must be reduced?
    Mr. HUDSON: As I have said in my main reply, it is not a fact that a grant has been refused. The grant was made in January.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the question in this form? Is it the case that up till now the grant has not been passed on the ground that the Norwich council wages and conditions of labour are too generous for the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. MAXTON: My correspondent in the city of Norwich says so.

    INDIA (DISTURBANCE. BEHAR).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the attempt by Congress volunteers to hoist the national flag on the police station at Behar and the fact that they were beaten with iron-shod shoes until they fainted, and that on their refusal to apologise pepper was rubbed into their eyes and air pumped into their nostrils; and if he will inquire into the circumstances of this incident?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have no information. If the hon. Member will supply me with further particulars, I will look into it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council say how far he intends to go if the second Resolution of which he has given notice is carried?
Mr. BALDWIN: The second Resolution is in order to get Ways and Means (Committee), which is quite formal, Second Reading of the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill, and the Committee stage of the Extradition Bill.
Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the possibilities of some settlement being arrived at by negotiation in regard to this difficulty with Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw this Bill?
Mr. BALDWIN: No, I am afraid I cannot do that.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that if the first two Votes shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before Ten of the clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten of the clock, under paragraph 7 of Standing Order No. 15."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 41.

Division No. 285.]

AYES

[3.40 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

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

Albery, Irving James

Duckworth, George A. V.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Allen, William (Stoke-on Trent)

Duggan, Hubert John

Hurd, Sir Percy

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Eady, George H,

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Apsley, Lord

Eden, Robert Anthony

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Edmondson, Major A. J.

James, Wing Com. A W. H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Ker, J. Campbell

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Bilndell, James

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Kerr. Hamilton W.

Bower, Lieut.-com. Robert Tatton

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Kimball, Lawrence

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Knight, Holford

Broadbent, Colonel John

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Browne, Captain A. C.

Fox, Sir Gifford

Law, Sir Alfred

Buchan, John

Fraser, Captain Ian

Leckie, J. A.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Leech, Dr. J. w.

Burnett, John George

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Lees-Jones, John

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Leigh, Sir John

Castle Stewart, Earl

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Gledhill, Gilbert

Levy, Thomas

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Liddall, Walter S,

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Goff, Sir Park

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Goldle, Noel B.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Lioyd, Geoffrey

Christle, James Archibald

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)

Clarry, Reginald George

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Grimston, R. V.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

Colville, John

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Conant, R. J. E.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Cook, Thomas A.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

Cooke, Douglas

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Cooper, A. Duff

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Copeland, Ida

Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

McLean, Major Alan

Cowan, D. M.

Hammersley, Samuel S.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hanley, Dennis A.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Cranborne, Viscount

Harris, Sir Percy

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hartland, George A.

Maitland, Adam

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

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

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Crossley, A. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Malialleu, Edward Lancelot

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Hepworth, Joseph

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Curry, A. C.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

Hornby, Frank

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Stones, James

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Storey, Samuel

Milne, Charles

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Strauss, Edward A.

Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Summersby, Charles H.

Moore, Lt Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Robinson, John Roland

Sutcliffe, Harold

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

Moreing, Adrian C.

Runge, Norah Cecil

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

Morgan, Robert H.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Thompson, Luke

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Todd, Capt. A..J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Salt, Edward W.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Mulrhead, Major A..J.

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Savery, Samuel Servington

Ward, Lt.-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)

Nunn, William

Scone, Lord

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Selley, Harry R.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Ormiston, Thomas

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Palmer, Francis Noel

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Pearson, William G.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Wells, Sydney Richard

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Weymouth, Viscount

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

White, Henry Graham

Pickering. Ernest H.

Slater, John

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Pike, Cecil F.

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Potter, John

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Somerset, Thomas

Womersley, Walter James

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Pybus, Percy John

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Worthington. Dr. John V.

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Wragg, Herbert

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Spears, Brigadler General Edward L.

Ramsden, E.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Rankin, Robert

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Rea, Waiter Russell

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

George Penny.

NOES

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Milner, Major James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hail. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parkinson, John Allen

Batey, Joseph

Healy, Cahir

Price, Gabriel

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Buchanan, George

John, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cape, Thomas

Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wellhead, Richard C,

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kirkwood, David

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Cove, William G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Devlin, Joseph

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

McEntee, Valentine L.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

McGovern, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maxton, James

Question put, and agreed to.

BRITISH-BORN ALIEN WOMEN (CIVIL RIGHTS).
Captain CAZALET: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the civil rights of British-born alien women."
I can explain in a few sentences the aims of this Bill, and the reason why I produce it at this late stage of the Session. The piteous, helpless and tragic position of many British-born women who have married foreigners and who, through no fault of their own, have come back to live in this country and make it their home, has long been a matter of deep concern to many people and has created a general demand that some steps should be taken to assist them.
448
Some years ago I introduced a Bill known as the Nationality of Married Women Bill. The object was to give these women equal rights with men as regards nationality. Although the Government at that time and Governments since have given this Measure a good deal of sympathy, unfortunately, like many other Private Members' Bills, it has never proceeded further than the First Reading.
I appreciate the difficulties which confronted that Bill. If such a Bill were passed without similar legislation being enacted within the Dominions, we should be creating dual citizenship within the Empire, which would be very undesirable and bring about difficulties. The present Bill is of purely local and domestic appli-

449
cation, but I wish to say, on behalf of all those who supported the original Measure, which was based on the broad and just principle of equality, that we do not retreat one step from the position we then took up that that was the right solution of the problem. Still, as no further steps along those lines are possible, I introduce this Measure to-day. It deals solely with the question of what civil rights should be given in this country to British-born women who have married foreigners and have come back to this country and intend to make it their home.
Consider for a moment the position of such a woman. She is an alien, she is subject to police supervision, she is forced to register and to inform the police of her movements, she is disqualified for certain benefits under the Insurance Acts, the Old Age Pension Act and the Widows' Pension Act, and although she may pay rates and taxes she has no vote. In other words, she is a foreigner in her own country. I know of hundreds of such cases, and I get a letter almost daily explaining the pitiful position of some women in these circumstances. Here I would like to say that when the attention of the Home Office is brought to any particular case it is my experience that they deal with it, so far as they can, in the most sympathetic and understanding mariner. This Bill will give to these women certain elementary rights of citizenship—freedom from the necessity to register, the full advantage of the social services and the right to vote at local and parliamentary elections.
Although the Bill will not give all that we desire it is a practical step forward in remedying some of the hardships under which these women suffer to-day. The reason I introduce it at this late stage of the Session is that a number of women's organisations are very anxious to see the Bill printed, as having passed its First Reading, before they have their meetings and conferences in the Autumn at which the subject will be discussed. I believe the Bill has the sympathy of the Home Office, and I hope and trust that next Session it will not only have their sympathy but their active support. I cannot imagine that a Measure which gives such elementary justice to this unfortunate section of the community will receive other than unanimous support from all quarters of the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Cazalet, Miss Pickford, Colonel Wedgwood, Sir John Sandeman Allen, Mr. de Rothschild, Sir Alfred Beit, and Miss Cazalet.

BRITISH-BORN ALIEN WOMEN (CIVIL RIGHTS) BILL,
"to amend the Law relating to the civil rights of British-born alien women," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords],
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.
    CLASS VI.

      MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £45.964, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919; Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921; Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924; Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896; Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour; Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund; Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals; and for Expenditure in connection with the Severn Barrage Investigation."

    CLASS III.

      HOME OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £304,123, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and 'Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."
      Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am very pleased that an opportunity is given to us once again to raise some questions with the Home Office. On this occasion it is my intention to devote my remarks almost entirely to the very admirable report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1931. I think the Committee will agree that I am right in claiming that this is an important document when I tell them that it covers 155,000 factories and 95,000 workshops, with at least 250,000 employers and probably nearly 8,000,000 workpeople. That shows that a very large proportion of our popu-
      458
      lation is concerned in the administration of our industrial legislation by the Home Office. This is the first occasion, so far as I remember, on which we have been privileged to get the annual report printed for the previous year in time to debate it before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. Formerly the report has always been 18 months old when it appeared. Still, I do not blame the Department for that delay in the past, because I am sure it was not their fault. Before proceeding to criticise the report I feel that it is our duty, and I am sure that I shall carry every Member of the Committee with me in this, to place on record our admiration for the splendid work which has been performed for so many years by Sir Gerald Bellhouse, the Chief Inspector of Factories, who has just retired from that important post.
      The first criticism I have to offer on the work of the Department relates to the Safety First movement, though I ought to say that everybody interested in the work of the Factories Department must commend any movement in favour of safety in workshops and factories. It is stated in the report that power is given to the Secretary of State, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to make orders requiring the establishment of safety organisations in individual works, and, in fact, a draft Safety in Factories Order was issued some time ago. Later on we are informed that the draft referred to has remained in abeyance because of the fact that assurances have been received that employers have secured the purpose of the orders on 4.0 p.m. a voluntary basis. The first question I want to put to the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote is, how comes it about that the Home Office is relying on voluntary assurances from employers in this connection, when, in fact, they say in the same report that the law requires the Home Office to carry out its obligations under a legal enactment? The second question on that score is this: I understand that our Government were a party to an international Convention on Accident Prevention, 1929, and I am pleased to say that, on the whole, this country stands well in the councils of the nations in regard to industrial legislation. I am afraid, however, it is falling back a little under the present regime, but that is not to be wondered at when we remember the kind of regime we have

      459
      at the moment. Having said that, it would be interesting to know what has happened to that Convention and what is the policy of the Government towards it.
      I do not know how many Members of the Committee have read this admirable report but what astonishes me is that the person who drafted it has plunged headlong into politics. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary whether the Home Secretary, who still declares himself a Liberal, has actually read portions of the report which I am about to quote and whether it expresses the policy of the Home Office with regard to Free Trade and tariffs. I would not be allowed to mention that subject were it not that in this report itself the issue is raised in a very concrete form. The report says:
      "In the textile areas the economic depression was also acute until the departure from the Gold Standard and imposition of tariffs caused an upward movement."
      I wonder whether the Home Secretary agrees with a statement of that kind? Another piece of political philosophy in the report is the following:
      "Other industries which have already benefited or are likely to do so"—
      from these two causes:
      "include leather, gloves, glass bottles, table glass, nails, locks and hinges, bobbins and paper."
      I must confess that I think that a report dealing with industrial legislation is hardly the place to introduce a conflict of opinion as to the benefits or otherwise of tariffs, and I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether he has had anything to do with that part of the report as a tariffist, or whether the Home Secretary stands responsible for statements of this kind?
      Mr. WALLHEAD: Probably he has taken advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's absence.
      Mr. DAVIES: They always do, no doubt. Now I come to something more concrete. The number of factory inspectors employed is 247, and the total number of factories and workshops is a little over 250,000. That is to say, we have one inspector for every thousand factories or thereabouts, if my arithmetic is right. I would like to know how often each factory is visited, because it would take, I should imagine, at least 12
      460
      months for one inspector to visit 1,000 factories, as they are not all in the same area. If these factories are visited approximately only once every 12 months, does the hon. Gentleman think that the industrial laws of this country can be effectively carried out with that number of inspectors?
      Then we have again a very remarkable statement in this document. We are told that by the end of February of this year at least 60 foreign firms had started work in the three London divisions, and that others had acquired premises consequent upon our coming off the Gold Standard and the imposition of tariffs. That is the third time there is a reference to this subject. With regard to those foreign firms, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Home Office make it clear to the foreign gentlemen who own them that our laws in relation to factories and workshops, safety and welfare differ from the laws of the country from which they come?? I think that is a very proper question, because if it is true, as is always alleged by the Tory party in this House, that the industrial legislation of this country is better than that of any other country in the world, it is very necessary that these foreigners should be told exactly what is expected of them when they establish any factories in this land. I put that question, because I, myself, have had complaints from workpeople employed by these foreign firms, although it is not possible to raise the point on this Vote. It is true that these foreign firms will not pay in some cases the rates of wages applicable to the job and which are paid by some of our own firms. The Home Office has no jurisdiction in that respect, but it has jurisdiction very definitely as to the legal enactments relating to safety and welfare, and if these gentlemen do not understand the English language, I want to know whether they get any translation of our legal enactments in their own language?
      Although the report rather glorifies the fact that there has been an increase in the number of foreign firms coming here, it never says a word as to the number of firms that have closed down. I am beginning to think that, although we have the best Civil Service in the world, the Civil Service always has an eye as to the policy of the Government for the

      461
      time being. I have given an indication of how in the report these new foreign firms have been specially chronicled, and, lo and behold, we are told later on, that although there has been an increase of 1,252 factories during the year, there has been a decrease of 7,657 workshops. It does not matter very much what our political opinions may be: we are all sorry that the trade of this country is declining. On the other hand, I dislike boosting up the idea that foreigners are coming here because we have gone off the Gold Standard and have imposed tariffs, and then to find later on that the foreigner here does only a small proportion of the trade of the country.
      If I may turn to another subject, may I say that the Home Office was represented at the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in May, 1931. Two conventions were under discussion there. One of them related to the night work of women, and the other to the age of children entering non-industrial employment. I am very much afraid that the present Government, above all, do not mind in the least sending delegates to Geneva and arguing, proposing and agreeing with conventions, but I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, when they send delegates to Geneva and agree to a convention, what they intend doing in this House to implement that convention These two conventions are very important, and I would like him to tell us what the Government policy is in relation to them.
      One of the most extraordinary pieces of information in this report is that, whereas the economic depression which has crept over this country has reduced the number of persons employed in certain industries, and unemployment has risen to nearly 3,000,000 persons, we have this strange anomaly, that the Home Office last year issued 227 orders for the two-shift system. We have, therefore, the strange situation that tens of thousands of people, probably hundreds of thousands, in full employment are working overtime, and working at night as well, while the unemployed are looking on. If that tendency increases, as is implied in this report, we may well reach a stage when one-half the people of this country will be working at full-speed and the other half idly looking at them doing it. I think we ought to protest against that situation,
      462
      which is condoned by the Home Office in issuing these Orders to work the two-shift system on the ground that it helps to economise in industry, whereas, in fact, the human factor is lost sight of entirely. I have worked nights on more than one occasion when I was a coal miner, and my opinion is that it is very much more natural to work during the day than during the night. If hon. Members were here in the early part of this morning and yesterday morning, I think they will agree with an assertion of that kind. I would like to know, therefore, whether it is the policy of the Government to continue to issue these Orders, because the hon. Gentleman will remember that when the proposals for the two-shift system were first brought before the House of Commons, they were never intended to continue until 1932. He will know that the law intended that the whole scheme should come to an end about three or four years ago, and I am sorry, therefore, that these new Orders have been issued and have been increased in number each year.
      I turn now to a very pleasing feature in this report—the most pleasing of all. It is that the number of accidents reported shows a decrease from 144,758 in 1930, to 113,249 in 1931, and that the fatalities declined in the same period from 899 to 755. We ought to congratulate ourselves on an achievement of that kind.
      Mr. TINKER: Do the figures show the proportion of workpeople?
      Mr. DAVIES: That is a question to which I am coming at once. The figures I have given are, of course, in the main a reflection of the industrial depression, but it would be very much more satisfactory if we were told the percentage of these accidents to the number employed. That is the test. Of course, the hon. Gentleman may not be in a position to tell us, but it is, I think, the case in regard to coal mining, that you can tell the number of fatalities not only in proportion to the number of persons employed, but you can tell the number of fatalities and injuries proportionate to the tonnage of coal produced. Cannot the Home Office give us figures of that kind in relation to factories and workshops? I remember a case in a coal mining district where the hospital was closed entirely because there was a strike

      463
      among the miners. Of course, it is no argument in that case to say that accidents have declined. If all the work-people of this country never worked at all, I suppose there would be very few accidents of any kind.
      Therefore, I return to the point by asking that we shall be provided in future with statistics to indicate whether there is a real improvement, apart from the superficial improvement such as I have already indicated. With regard to fatal accidents, one of the few industries showing an increase in this connection is that of stone and cement, and we ought to be given the reason for that increase, seeing that in practically every other industry there is an improvement in the figures. The same argument applies to fatalities due to transmission machinery where there has been an increase from 36 in 1930 to 44 in 1931. Some of these industries may be new, and consequently the titles of the diseases mentioned are not quite familiar to me.
      There is one reference here to cellulose lacquer, and it is interesting to note that the Trades Union Congress has been making representations to the Home Office for some time past, and have actually put in the code of regulations with a view to preventing workpeople using benzole in this connection. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the representations of the Trades Union Congress have received any consideration up to now, more particularly because the Trades Union Congress has actually drafted that code suggesting how this disease can be prevented. The same authority, the Trades Union Congress, has suggested that notification of dermatitis should be made compulsory so that the full extent of this disease might be revealed. Voluntary notification of industrial diseases has, in my view, failed ignominiously. On the question of dermatitis I would like the Home Office to make its notification compulsory.
      Another disease in which some of my hon. Friends are very interested is silicosis. To show the very serious situation in regard to silicosis, may I say that the number of deaths from silicosis in 1930 was 241; in 1931 it had increased to 319. That is an increase of 78 in a year. It is quite possible that a better diagnosis may be responsible, in part, for these
      464
      figures, but I am assured, on the other hand, that that is not entirely so. I am informed too that the report of the first year's working of the medical arrangements scheme is shortly due, and I believe it will prove a very valuable document to those who are interested in this subject. I press upon the hon. Gentleman to give us a little more information as to what the Home Office intends doing in connection with silicosis to try and reduce the fatality figures as has been done in other categories of disease. I am informed that the Miners Federation itself is far from satisfied with the administration of the Silicosis Order.
      I turn to a very old but deadly friend of mine, a subject in which I have interested myself for many years, and that is lead paint poisoning. It is very pleasant to see that what was said on the Floor of this House some years ago in 1926 when we were endeavouring to ratify the Convention in connection with lead paint poisoning, that the prophecies we then made have nearly all become true. There is a decline in the number of fatalities from lead paint poisoning and there is a decline also in the number of notified cases. I think I am right in saying that whereas the law lays it down specifically that lead cannot be used, in paint in certain conditions for inside buildings, I have seen advertisements myself where the lead paint producers advertise their lead paint for the purpose of painting inside buildings. If the law lays it down that lead cannot be used in paint inside buildings I would like the hon. Gentleman to look at some of those advertisements to see whether or not they are legal. It does not lay it clown in the law that the Home Office should prevent such advertisements, but I think just a nudge from title Home Office would sometimes put these gentlemen right.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The law does not prevent people from using lead paints inside buildings.
      Mr. DAVIES: I may be mistaken on that point, but at any rate the Convention laid down certain specific prohibitions of the use of lead in paint and that is, I think, the main reason why the number of cases notified has declined. I

      465
      want to ask the hon. Gentleman to look at some of these advertisements which may not be illegal, but they are an incentive against what was intended by the Convention. I will leave it at that. There is an increase in the number of cases of aniline poisoning too, and the number of deaths from anthrax is still unsatisfactory. I know that the number of deaths from anthrax is declining, but I should have thought that the work that is done in the disinfection station—I think at Liverpool—that the figures would be very much better than they are.
      I come to another subject affecting workers engaged in factories and workshops, to whom the subject is of immense importance, as I know that employers of labour themselves will appreciate. I turn to flour milling. The vast majority of flour millers in this country have been impressed by the fact that it is very dangerous to continue the 280 lbs. sack. I do not know how many hon. Members have seen a man handling a sack of flour weighing 280 lbs. It is a very hefty task. Most of the flour mills in this country have discarded the 280 lbs. sack in favour of the half weight, 140 lbs., Out there are some employers still who decline to reduce the weight. There have been cases brought to my notice where men have been so injured by handling this heavy weight that they have died as a result of their injuries. A smaller weight would be very much better not only for the flour millers but for the shops to which the sacks are sent, and where they are handled by the shop assistants. It is obvious that the weight should be reduced by one half. I would like to get an answer from the Home Office to the question as to whether they are pressing those flour millers who are still declining to carry out the recommendation of the flour milling industry itself to reduce the weight of their sacks.
      There is indeed in this report another very sad feature. I have never been ab1e to understand that when this economic paralysis is creeping over the country and nearly 3,000,000 people are unemployed why this report should be able to indicate a tendency to an increase in the number of hours worked by people in employment. I should have thought that it ought to be the policy of the employers and certainly of workpeople and of Governments, if there
      466
      is only so much work to do to share that work out among the vast majority. Instead of that we have the tendency, especially in small factories and workshops, for the hours of labour to be increased inordinately. Let me quote what the inspector himself says:
      "In the Reading district as a result of a complaint it was found that three boys had worked in a cabinet works during both day and night, 21½ hours being worked between 8 a.m. Thursday and 12.30 p.m. Friday."
      The Home Office I know full well are not responsible for all this, but I hope that they will come down with a heavy hand upon people who are exploiting boys and girls and working them such long hours. Let me give another case:
      "In the Nottingham district male young persons were found employed in a hosiery finishing factory at night. They have worked 74 hours in a week."
      Just imagine, in the year 1932, when we are talking of a 48 hour week and about ratifying the convention of a maximum 48 hour week; when the Czechoslovakian Government is talking of introducing a Bill to reduce the hours of labour to 40 hours a week, here in the centre of an important industrial country are found boys working for 74 hours a week. That is monstrous.
      Mr. STANLEY: I hope the hon. Member will read the succeeding words. Court proceedings followed.
      Mr. DAVIES: The fact that proceedings followed does not destroy the fact that it happened. I know the hon. Gentleman does not stand for it, but it is worth while pointing out what can happen in a country like this in spite of all our legal enactments. Here is another case:
      "In a case in the East Lancashire district women and young persons were employed for a fortnight from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. All the 80 persons employed in the factory have worked these hours."
      If these cases are found out by an average of one visit per annum to the factories by the inspectors, what must happen when the inspectors are not there? Let me say one or two words on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the Under-Secretary is with me on this issue. 1,563 charges of illegal practices were brought into the courts, and the gross fines imposed amounted to only £3,098, approximately £2 each. In Moscow I suppose they would be shot. Here they get a

      467
      fine of as. 6d. or 5s. The reason may be that there are too many employers of labour on the magisterial bench dealing with these cases. I know that the Home Office cannot help that, but I think that magisterial benches in this country ought to take a very much more serious view of infractions of industrial laws than they are doing at the moment.
      I want to conclude by asking one or two more questions, one of which relates to the Truck Acts. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there has been considerable discussion in Lancashire over the administration of the Truck Acts. There is reported in this document a case during 1931 where deductions amounting to 17s. 6d. in one week were made from a worker's wages because he was alleged to have spoiled the material he produced. Seventeen and sixpence wages in some cases is nearly all the worker gets, and is too much by far. In any case, I wish Parliament had come to the conclusion that efficiency cannot be got from workpeople by fining them. There are other methods of securing efficiency apart from that. I have concluded my observations on that factory report, except to say that I hope that the Home Office will not at any time be lax in pursuit of those who break some of the very excellent pieces of legislation that we have for safeguarding the interests of our workpeople.
      4.30 p.m.
      Turning from that, I want to say one thing on another subject and then I will sit down. In 1931 I am informed there were about 191,000 persons killed or injured in street accidents caused by vehicles. About 50,000 of those were pedestrians. I would like the hon. Gentleman to follow me in this rather difficult point.. I am informed that the police in the Metropolitan district have received information as to how to deal with case of injury in this connection, but this is the result, not only in London, but, I believe, elsewhere—
      Mr. STANLEY: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, if the question he is going to ask me is a question of police administration, I shall have to ask you, Captain Bourne, whether I shall be in order in replying to it, because the Police Vote is not under discussion.at the moment.
      Mr. DAVIES: On that point of Order. I was given to understand that the Metropolitan Police might be discussed here. If I am wrong, I will, of course, resume my seat at once.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Police Vote, of course, is not before the Committee, but I was not quite certain how far the hon. Member wanted to go in developing his point, and I was listening to hear what he had to say. I am afraid that at this moment I am still not sufficiently clear on the point to say definitely whether he would be in order or not.
      Mr. DAVIES: I think I may put myself in order by proceeding. The point that I wanted to put was that the police are not taking as much care in securing the names and addresses of witnesses as the driver of the vehicle who may be responsible for the injury to a pedestrian. I will leave the matter there, simply asking the hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to look into it.
      To return to the main theme of my remarks, I sincerely trust that the Home Office will watch these tendencies to extend the hours of labour, sometimes beyond the legal regulations, and will at any rate make it perfectly clear that, if we are to continue to boast, as we have in the past, that our industrial legislation is the best in the world, the present Government will do nothing at all to prevent that claim from being substantiated in the future.
      Mr. LEWIS JONES: I join with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in congratulating the Home Office on this report of the Chief Inspector. I should like to say a word or two about what the hon. Member has said before I proceed to my main remarks. In the first place, he made an appeal to the Home Office to take every possible step to prevent extended hours of working in industry generally. I want to reecho that request, because every decent employer of labour in this country finds growing within himself a tendency to reduce hours of labour rather than to extend them, and I can safely say that, in the iron and steel industry generally, the hours of work per week are probably shorter than in most other industries. I would remind the hon. Member, however, when he speaks of the desire and need

      469
      for sharing work among workers in view of growing unemployment, that, even when employers, in districts where industry has not suffered so much as it has generally throughout the country, are prepared to do this, we find that very often the obstacle in the way of sharing work arises more from the trade unionists themselves than from the employers. I am not saying that unkindly; I am just reminding the hon. Member of it. I hope that what he has said about sharing work will be taken to heart, not only by employers generally, but by trade unionists also.
      Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I very much doubt whether, in those cases of extremely long hours of labour which are mentioned in the report, there are any trade unions at all.
      Mr. JONES: I leave the matter there; I am not approaching the subject in a critical attitude at all. The hon. Member dealt with the question of "Safety First," and rather deplored the fact that the resolutions at Geneva have not been adopted and put into operation in this country, or rather, that, instead of our "Safety First" work in industry being carried out by compulsion or Order, the Home Office has agreed that this scheme of safety work should be carried out on a voluntary basis. I think that, as the object is to attain increased safety for workpeople generally, a voluntary system is altogether superior to a compulsory system. We have had, in the basic industries of this country, a voluntary "Safety First" organisation for some years—an organisation which has received the blessing of the Home Office and of the Chief Inspector and his assistants, and the present report of the Chief Inspector bears testimony to the wonderful success of that organisation on a voluntary basis. It must be admitted that, once a compulsory system of safety working is introduced in industry generally, it is bound to become stereotyped. With the multitude of varying industries in the country, some more mechanised than others, it is impossible for a Government Department like the Home Office to introduce a system of "Safety First" organisation by Order which will fit into every set of circumstances, and, consequently, we are convinced—and we are as keen on this work as hon. Members on the other side of the House—that the
      470
      only satisfactory system is one which is voluntary in its efforts, because then we are able to adapt it to meet various industries, and also to adapt it to the varying size of factories within a particular industry.
      I am convinced that the success of our voluntary "Safety First" system in industry is due to the fact that we are able to have the hearty co-operation of employés generally. I know that the hon. Member for Westhoughton will agree with me that no one detests Government Orders and Government interference in the daily routine of his work more than the workman himself, and I am convinced that very often a body of working men in a steelworks or any other factory will take more notice of the friendly cooperation of their employer than they will of the instructions of a Government inspector. I am satisfied that no compulsory system of safety organisation could be formed to meet the individual needs of every kind of industry in the country. As an instance of the success of the voluntary system, I would point out that on page 20 of the Chief Inspector's report special reference is made to an industry which I know very well, the tinplate industry of South Wales, in which this voluntary "Safety First" organisation was adopted some years back. The reduction in the frequency rate and in the severity rate, and the amazing reduction in the number of lost-time accidents, is shown in the last line of the table. The number of lost-time accidents in 1927 was 4,475, while in 1931 it had gone down to 2,599. I consider that that is ample testimony to the wonderful success of this voluntary system of "Safety First" which has been adopted in the iron and steel trade of South Wales.
      The hon. Member for Westhoughton made reference to the work of the factory inspectors, and in that connection I should like to say that, whatever industries or whatever works may be neglected by factory inspectors, we see them in our steelworks and in the iron and steel trade generally much oftener than once a year, and it is a testimony to the inspectors that their visits are always welcome. The type of individual representing the Inspection Department of the Home Office at the present time makes him a very welcome visitor at all times in steelworks, tinplate works, and factories generally in South Wales, because we appreciate

      471
      his attitude of mind. These are days of improvement and of increased mechanisation in industry generally, and, as a result of that increased mechanisation, workmen become more prone to accidents. We find, however, that the factory inspectors are always willing to co-operate with us and assist us generally.
      The hon. Member also referred to some conventions in which I am very much interested. We are particularly proud in this country of the standard of life of the British working man generally, though no one pretends that this minimum standard of life and comfort is what we would like it to be. I suppose we shall never be satisfied, and shall always he aiming at something better, but I think we are all prepared to admit that the standard of factory legislation in this country to-day, and the standard of life generally, are very much in excess of those on the Continent. We had hoped that, as a result of the formation of the International Labour Office at Geneva, we might have persuaded some of these competing countries to adopt standards of life and standards of industrial legislation more akin to our own, and I think that Great Britain has taken part in the work of the International Labour Office really in the hope that some such step would result in the improvement of industrial conditions on the Continent.
      I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a question; I apologise to him for not having given him notice of it. I am particularly interested in one matter which has been before the International Labour Office, affecting the question of the employment of women at night in industrial occupations. I would refer him in particular to Article 32 of the convention, which was ratified by Great Britain, and with which our law conforms at the present time. There arose a problem of peculiar interest to Great Britain, as a result of the higher education of women and the entry of women into industrial occupations. It was discovered that, where a women qualified, for example, in the profession of electrical engineering, she was, as a result of the operation of this convention, prohibited from taking a post as supervisor or manager of, say, the electrical department of a power-house, and it was thought by those interested in the matter that some interpretation of the
      472
      convention in this regard should be given by the International Labour Office. Great Britain appealed to the governing body of the International Labour Office on this matter, and it was suggested that the convention should be revised so that, in cases such as this, where women were employed in supervisory work or in management, and were not actually doing any manual labour, they should be exempted from the operation of the convention.
      Those who have been interested in following the discussion of the International Labour Office will have noticed that, very strangely, two points of view were expressed. On the one hand it was suggested that the convention did not apply to such cases as I have mentioned, and that, therefore, there was no need for a revision of the convention at all; while, on the other hand, it was suggested that this convention should apply, and was intended to apply, to such cases. The British Government representative was, as the result of this difference of opinion, more satisfied than ever that an interpretation should be given of the convention, and, as a result of the pressure exercised by him, it was decided that the whole matter should be referred to the governing body of the International Labour Office. Unfortunately, however, just as this matter was being discussed by the conference, Belgium put forward another point in connection with the definition of what was to be regarded as night work, and, as a result of these two questions coming before the conference at the same time, the issue was clouded. Then the British representative demanded that the matter should be referred to The Hague. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can tell us whether a reply has yet been received, or whether a decision has been arrived at.
      There is one other matter affecting conventions which I think rather important. A convention was adopted at Geneva this year dealing with the age of admission into non-industrial occupations of boys between 12 and 14. A questionnaire was submitted to countries within the International Labour Office in order to obtain the views of the various Governments as to the operation of such a convention and, based upon their replies, a draft convention was submitted to Geneva. Unfortunately, as the result of action taken by a Labour representative of this country, important

      473
      variations were made in Clause 3 of the convention, with the result that it is feared that very few countries will be able to ratify. I am glad to think that Sir Malcolm Delevingne, on behalf of the British Government, took rather strong objection to the Clause. This is what he said:
      "These Amendments represent a very sincere effort on the part of a number of Governments which are specially interested in this question and which have for a long time past made a study of it to bring the draft convention into a form in which it will have the best prospect of acceptance by a large number of Governments. I must say quite frankly that the combined effect of the alterations made by the Committee to Article 3 would, if they are confirmed by the Conference, make it impossible for my Government to accept the Convention either now or probably for a long time to come."
      As it is the desire of Labour representatives generally in this country to raise the standard of industrial conditions in Continental countries somewhere nearer those of our own, it is unfortunate that a step taken by Labour representatives at Geneva has resulted in the production of a convention which Great Britain itself cannot adopt, and which it is certain no other country in Europe will ratify. I hope steps will be taken by the British Government to ensure that some agreed policy is adopted by British representatives when they go to Geneva in the hope that the adoption of a convention will have the result of improving the standards of life generally on the Continent, and will approximate to those enjoyed by working people generally in this country. I am sorry to have touched on these matters, which may not be of general interest. I hope the Home Office will be able to deal with them.
      Mr. TINKER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman need apologise for his very interesting and informative speech. We all appreciate the points that he made. He referred to the work of inspectors. I should have liked the report of the chief inspector to be free from political bias. I should like him to be independent in making his report rather than to show which way his political inclinations lie. He said that owing to tariffs certain things have improved. I think he might have left that out. I have intervened in order to challenge the Home Office on the collection of statistics, and particularly in not providing the House with the
      474
      fullest information in regard to Workmen's Compensation. I asked a question on 28th June in regard to the number of colliery companies which had failed to meet their liabilities, and I was told that since January, 1927, there had been 12 cases where there had been liquidation and a permanent loss of compensation affecting 390 workmen altogether. These included two Lancashire cases affecting 63 men and, in addition, there were II cases, affecting possibly 500 to 600 men, where the position was still uncertain. These included two Lancashire collieries affecting about 160 men. There was no further information.
      I quite agree that it is rather difficult by question and answer to get full information, but I want to see if anything can be done in the matter. I have figures showing that in the case of the Worsley Mesnes Colliery, which closed down 2½ years ago, 31 men are affected, and the matter has not been settled yet. It has been in the hands of the official receiver all that time. The amount of compensation agreed upon by the courts is £6,945, and the assets were £10,525. The latest figures that we have show that the men will not get 10s. in the £, the remainder being swallowed up by fees and that kind of thing. It seems to me and to the workmen that it is an unnecessary waste of time and money belonging to the workers. If the matter had been settled immediately, they would have got 20s. in the £ There is another case of the Ashtons Green Colliery in Lancashire, which closed down last November. We have 150 cases up to date and the agreed amount of compensation, if they paid the capital value, would amount to £44,000. The assets, if everything is realised, will only come to about £17,000. That is still being dealt with by the official receiver, and it is most unlikely that they will get anything like the £17,000. We do not know how long it will go on, probably months or, judging by other cases, a year, and all the time the money is being eaten up. It seems a sad case of maladministration of what ought to go to the workers. I want to show what happened to the colliery company prior to this taking place. I have here a newspaper report of a meeting of creditors:
      "Ten injured miners, including two on crutches, listened at a creditors' meeting to an accountant who described them as ' men

      475
      thrown on the industrial scrap heap like pieces of broken machinery.' This was at the meeting of creditors of Messrs. Bromilow, Foster and Co., Ltd., Ashtons Green Colliery, St. Helens, which took place on Friday at Liverpool, and was presided over by Mr. H. Bromilow (chairman of the directors). It was stated that 131 injured miners ranked as creditors for compensation purposes, and their claims amounted approximately to £45,000. These are preferential creditors, but it was stated that, even when the assets had been realised, it would be very doubtful whether the unfortunate men would receive a single penny."
      This company a few years ago had a bank balance of £84,000. Nothing was done to provide for the evil day for the injured workmen. This is something for which colliery companies ought to be on the watch. When balancing their accounts, they put certain amounts into reserve to meet their liabilities. We claim that, if there are a number of injured workmen, they ought to put on one side a capital amount to protect these men. The shareholders took big dividends as long as they could, then trade declined, the company closed down and the unfortunate workmen were thrown on the scrapheap and nothing was done for them.
      5.0 p.m.
      Let us see where it gets to eventually. I wrote to the Minister of Health and asked if these men who had been deprived of compensation could go on to National Health, and he said they could. That brings us to this point, that National Health is bearing a burden that it ought not to bear. What becomes of those who are not totally incapacitated? They try to get on to the Employment Exchange. If they are not capable of work, they are struck off. In December last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said there were signing on at the Employment Exchanges 600,000 who might be termed industrial derelicts, who would never get work in the industrial market unless there was a tremendous revival of trade. I wonder how many of these belong to what are termed compensation cases? In a highly industrialised country like ours it is up to the Home Secretary to find out how far this is eating into the life of the nation. If industrial cripples are being driven on to the Poor Law and the Employment Exchanges, transitional payment or National Health, something will have to be done. I do not think anyone who examines the.facts will deny that a man injured in
      476
      industry is entitled to recompense. Hon. Members will admit that if he has given his services to industry and he is genuinely injured, the industry should provide for him and he should not be cast out to seek relief from public funds. That is the fundamental principle underlying the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Anybody who has read the Debates leading up to the Workmen's Compensation Acts will realise that that is the whole idea behind them. My admiration is aroused when I read the speeches delivered in 1893 by the late right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the father of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer —and all credit to him. He stated that industry must be constituted in such a way as to provide for men who were cripples. He laid down that principle, and stage by stage our legislation has been built upon it. But at the present time we seem to be missing the central point of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. My remarks are intended to drive home to the Home Office the need for collecting all possible statistics and finding out what this really means to the life of the nation. Then, if they feel that the present Acts of Parliament are not sufficient to meet the position to-day they should set to work to bring in legislation in order to put every injured working man on the footing to which he is entitled.
      Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I was peculiarly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and I wish to say a word or two to supplement what he has said. There is no doubt whatever, particularly in regard to the colliery business, that there is a great deal of suffering at the present time brought about by failures and liquidations of colliery companies. One of the difficulties in the situation upon which I do not think the hon. Member touched is in connection with the way in which a great many of the colliery enterprises are insured. As I understand the position, most of the colliery companies at the present time are included in mutual indemnity societies. They pay a levy at the end of the year based upon the payments out during the year, and in that way there is a form of mutual insurance, but, as I understand the position—and I am dealing with it at a moment's notice as it were—there is a

      477
      difference between the form of mutual insurance, in the case of collieries particularly, and ordinary insurance against workmen's compensation risks. Where a man is insured against ordinary workmen's compensation risks with the ordinary insurance companies, the premium paid covers the whole risk. Therefore, if a man is insured he is entitled to continuing payments. After all, the most serious case under the Workmen's Compensation Acts is the case of the man who is permanently injured and must depend, probably during the whole of the rest of his life, upon a weekly payment. The insurance company takes on the liability from its inception, and is bound to continue the payments until such time as the man is no longer entitled to workmen's compensation.
      Unfortunately, in connection with a number of those mutual indemnity clubs, the liability taken by the club is only a liability for the payments of the year. Therefore, although a man appears to have an insurance beyond the funds of his employer, the fact is that if his employers are a limited liability company and go into liquidation, or if he is employed by a private employer who goes into bankruptcy, the chances of the claim of the man against a so-called insurers' mutual indemnity club come to an end for all practical purposes with the bankruptcy or liquidation. It is a very serious matter from the point of view of the workmen. I express the hope which has been expressed throughout the colliery districts and by many of those who have had anything to do with administering workmen's compensation, that the Home Office will make some inquiry into the extent to which workmen have been left stranded under those conditions.
      I have always been rather against compulsory insurance, but, frankly, the extent to which men have been left penniless and helpless by that type of insurance has led me to think that the time is coming when on inquiry it will become necessary for some form of compulsory insurance to be adopted, and, of course, it must be a compulsory insurance which will cover those men in reality, and not be something which leaves them stranded when their particular employer goes into liquidation or becomes bankrupt. I know how serious the question is, and I hope that the Home Office will take such steps
      478
      to make inquiries as will give the necessary information, because I am sure that when they get it they will realise how necessary it is to take steps to ensure that injured men are insured in such a way as to make them a charge upon the particular industry, and so prevent them from being a charge upon the Poor Law.
      Mr. PRICE: We have reason to be very thankful to my hon. Friend who has raised this important question. There never was a time when it was more necessary, particularly as regards the mining districts, to draw the attention of the Home Office to the general administration of the compensation laws. At the moment thousands of men are affected in the coalfields. In my county of Yorkshire, and in other mining areas, large numbers of men are affected by the administration of compensation, and their position is such that I hope that the Home Office will make special inquiries into the question of compensation insurance and other matters. I think that it is true to say there are thousands of men who, owing to the activities of various organisations responsible for insurance, have been deprived of their compensation rights. Many of these men suffer from miner's nystagmus. They cannot get employment at the collieries, with the result that they are often left at the mercy of the Poor Law. I believe it will be agreed in these days of civilisation that the men who are injured in industry ought to be properly cared for.
      If the Home Office could obtain statistics relating to the conditions of insurance in regard to various limited liability companies the information would be of interest. Many instances similar to those stated by my hon. Friend who represents the coalfield of Lancashire can be enumerated. The Home Office should immediately set on foot an inquiry with the object of seeing that men are not thrown upon the scrap-heap and have to apply for assistance to the Poor Law. The position of some of the men whose compensation has been reduced is such that they cannot obtain work. Something should be done, even if it means, passing additional legislation, as these-men are entitled to protection. When they are injured, the liability should be placed upon the companies and firms which employ them. Great difficulties arise in cases where compensation has

      479
      been reduced and the injured men are asked to seek light work. This is particularly so in the mining industry. I have not been able to find any light work at any colliery, for there is none. In the present state of the labour market our men cannot get work elsewhere, and often they are compelled to seek relief from the Poor Law. I appeal to the Home Office to make inquiries and help to put the position of these men upon a sound foundation, and to see to it that the insurance companies with whom the men are insured, and the firms for whom they work, make special provision, whatever emergency may arise, so that when any men receive injuries in the various industries they shall receive proper care.
      Mr. LYONS: I should like first to touch upon one or two angles of the pressing matter of insurance, and to endorse what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) when he spoke of the need for immediate inquiry and, if necessary, reform. If the Home Office feels that it is powerless in the present state of affairs to probe into the mysterious way in which coalowners and other people may escape, and if in some cases as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), are escaping from the liability due to those who are crippled in industry, I hope that it will come to this House and ask for powers to deal with the situation. Speaking for myself, I should be happy to give my support to machinery and to measures which would prevent that very grave disaster to those who can no longer fend for themselves. The position of the incapacitated must be a high charge upon industry. The hon. Member for Leigh spoke of the difficulty there was in getting light work for someone who at his old work had become, to some extent, incapacitated. One finds in the practice of the Workmen's Compensation Acts that the only light work going is the light work offered and kept by employers for "compensation men" of their own, and there is no chance at all of such light work being given to men who are injured in firms outside the places where they are keeping their own vacancies. I hope that my hon. Friend on behalf of the Home Office will consider, in the depression through which trade is passing to-day, that the position of injured men must be
      480
      one of the first claims upon official consideration.
      I want to add to what has been said by every Member who has spoken in the Committee this afternoon my word of compliment to the Home Office for its very full and detailed report. It is a matter of great satisfaction to learn at the outset that the progress which has been made in the study of industrial diseases has been so marked, and that there has been a substantial decrease in the number of accidents. We on this side of the Committee, as much as anybody welcome the co-operation which is taking place in the maintenance of Safety First organisations. Safety work is an essential part of industrial efficiency. I am very gratified to learn that so many exist and that such organisations are receiving so much support from all ranks in industry, and that they are bringing about better conditions generally. We read in the report that there are many new Safety First organisations in factories and in works, and that in dangerous trades conferences are encouraged by those who own the factories and by those who have to work at those dangerous trades. We must realise, and those of us who are here representing industrial constituencies must appreciate, particularly when new advances or inventions such as chromium plating are made of more use and utility, more men and women are put in danger from such new and fresh employment which is more dangerous in its incidence. From that angle I am glad to read in the report that in that particular industry, as well as in other industries classified as dangerous trades, there is every precaution taken and that there is encouragement for co-operation in the way of conference between the two sides of the industry. There must be complete assistance and encouragement in this one aim for safety. I hope that everything will be done by all ranks in trade and industry to bring about still more co-operation and more conferences, in order still further—and very much further—to reduce accidents and injuries in various trades and industry.
      Despite the industrial depression through which the country has been passing during the last few months, increased attention has been paid to welfare arrangements. Whether it be in the form of the more humble canteen or

      481
      mess room, or whether it be in the form of the more elaborate cafeteria, there seems throughout the country in every industrial organisation to have been considerably more attention paid to mealtimes and to the amenities generally of those who are employed in large industrial concerns. I hope that that spirit of making better provision for those people—men, women and young riersons—at work, as well as better provision in the shape of more efficient and more modern machinery, will continue throughout our industries. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) made reference to the overworking of certain persons in respect of prosecutions mentioned in the report. I think it is only right to say that the Home Office, apparently, have taken every step to bring to prosecution those who have offended in this respect, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us, as I have no doubt it is the ease, that whenever circumstances are brought to the notice of the Home Office which show that there has been prima facie some offence against the labour laws of this country, proceedings have been and are put into motion straight away to bring about prosecutions for those offences.
      In a somewhat cavalier fashion the hon. Member for Westhoughton remarked that the fines were very small and that the smallness of those fines was due to the presence on the bench of those who were controlling certain departments of industry. I hope that ay hon. Friend was entirely wrong in that assertion. I hope that no such thing exists. As one who in other places has not hesitated to criticise the work of the magistrates when circumstances have so justified, I do not think it is right to state that such a thing does take place. If such cases were brought to the notice of the Home Office I feel sure that they would be dealt with at once by official activity, because there must be no such thing in the courts of this country, whether dealing with the provisions of our labour laws or anything else, as intervention with the proper course of justice and the prevention of adequate fines in proper cases, because of some tampering with the tribunal. One hon. Member said that we pride ourselves upon our working conditions, and so we do, and we pride
      482
      ourselves no less upon our traditions of our criminal justice. It would be a terrible thing, and I hope it will never for one moment be allowed, if there were any interference with the course of justice in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. If the Home Office, having regard to the seriousness with which these offences are properly considered and the great need there is for protecting men, women and young persons in their employment, are of the opinion that the law is not sufficiently strong, I hope they will ask for further powers from the House to strengthen the law for the protection of the people in their employment.
      I would add my endorsement of the hope that has been expressed that from the International Labour Office there may arise a bettering of conditions all over the Continent. If the Home Office can tell us next year in their report that they are bringing about better relations with other countries with a view to improving their conditions of life and labour and making them conform more with the very highest conditions, I am sure that we shall again express our appreciation of the work of the Department. I hope the time will come soon when the question of the ratification of the Washington Convention will be before us as a real thing and not merely as an ideal. The Report of the Home Office deals with industry from every angle. It shows a different conception of industry from that which prevailed years ago, and I hope that in that spirit of co-operation, good will and mutual endeavour we shall get from all sides engaged in industry a real anxiety to work together for one common good, and general prosperity.
      Mr. ESSENHIGH: I do not intend to detain the Committee very long, because I understand the intention is to get on to other business, but as the representative of a constituency adjoining that represented by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) I desire to associate myself with what he has said, and also with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). Having had some little experience of workmen's compensation cases in that industrial area, particularly colliery cases, I desire to say, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood, that the indemnity clubs con-

      483
      cerned are only concerned with compensation and the fighting of cases. They are only concerned with payment in fatal cases. In other cases the compensation is borne entirely by the employers so that when, as unfortunately has happened in St. Helens, a company goes into liquidation one finds a company being quite unable to pay any compensation because a proper market value cannot be obtained for the colliery in question.
      In fairness, one must say of the colliery owners in that district who are running other collieries that when that occurred and I made inquiries what they were doing the colliery owners told me that they were working out schemes whereby that sort of thing would not happen in the future. One must realise at the present time to ask these owners or the clubs to come along and try to find the necessary amount of capital money which is required would be extremely hard not merely on the colliery owners themselves but upon the clubs and would have a most adverse effect upon the finances of the mutual clubs. They have informed me that they are doing their best in the circumstances and have empowered me to indicate to the Home Office that they are looking into this matter and doing their best to see that this sort of thing shall not happen in the future.
      I should like to say a few words on the question of miners' nystagmus. One meets with a tremendous lot of these cases in the Lancashire courts. So far as these cases are concerned, except for those colliery companies which have failed, they are paying weekly, monthly or yearly the compensation. It is extremely difficult for employers to get these cases of nystagmus off their books. Once a man has got nystagmus it is extremely difficult to get such men off the compensation books. So long as miners are suffering from nystagmus so long will they continue to be paid workmen's compensation. It may be that there are some cases where they prefer to take a lump sum in settlement, but that lump sum has to be approved by the registrar of the county court, and if he is not satisfied it must be approved by the county court judge. As one who has had some experience in these matters I can safely say that either the registrar or the county court judge sees to it that the workman is properly treated. Having regard to
      484
      what has happened in Lancashire, in St. Helens and close to Wigan, I felt that it was only right that the employers' side of the case should be put, in order to show what they are doing.
      Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I should like to draw attention to the position of nystagmus cases in Scotland, particularly in Lanarkshire. If a man is unable to follow his employment as a miner in Lanarkshire on account of nystagmus, when he has been for some short time in receipt of compensation he is certified fit for light employment, but there is no employment to be got in the colliery. The coalowners are insured through insurance companies and such a man can find no employment in any pit. If he goes to a colliery and is successful in finding employment, the manager makes inquiry and he must sign a certificate that he has never suffered from nystagmus. If he denies that he has suffered from nystagmus and he gets work and the nystagmus recurs and he claims compensation, he is refused compensation on the ground that he has fraudulently obtained employment. I do not know a worse instance of injustice to men willing to work and doing their utmost to get work than that they should be refused employment unless they sign an untrue statement. If such men do obtain employment and the disease recurs, as it frequently does, they are deprived of their compensation. I should like to know whether the Home Office, with their knowledge of these cases, are prepared to have the law amended to some extent in order to make it possible for a man who is suffering from this disease to be allowed to work when he is fit for work, and if not that he should be continued in compensation. It is about time that this question was dealt with and the anomaly removed in some way or other.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. EADY: I should not have taken part in this discussion but for what has been said about the employers. As an employer of labour I feel that it is my duty to point out that the things which have been said against employers are not true. No one welcomes this report, upon which I congratulate the Home Office, more than the employers. It is all to their interest that machinery should be protected and the working people looked after. Nor is the employer always

      485
      against the employé; indeed it is generally the reverse. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to the working of two shifts and tried to suggest that the same people worked on both shifts. These shifts are worked from six o'clock until two, and from two o'clock until 10, and instead of reducing the wages in proportion to the reduction in hours it means that the employer pays wages on the rate of the full 48 hours week. It is not to the advantage of the employer as far as wages are concerned so much as he is able to use his machinery to the best advantage in turning out more work. It provides work for two sections instead of one. Unfortunately, owing to the depression, which is what I would term a seasonal depression, because I do not believe it is as acute as some people would have us suppose—I think it is a seasonal depression which takes place every year—
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the hon. Member if he means that the general depression is a seasonal depression.
      Mr. EA DY: In certain trades they work up to what is termed the spring season, and then after a certain time there is a holiday appearance in the trade; work generally comes to an end after what is called the spring season. In fact, nine months out of 12 you have pretty regular employment and three months during which it is of a very indifferent character. That has been the case for many years past. The hon. Member for Westhoughton would also have us believe that the inspectors are not carrying out their duties. I object to such a statement. I know that the inspectors are doing their work splendidly, they are interested in their work, and to talk about one inspector visiting a factory once a year is almost an insult to the way in which they are carrying out their duties. Then there is the question of the magisterial bench. For a speaker like the hon. Member with his ability and capabilities, to make such observations, I thought was a little bit too low. The magistrates in this country are above suspicion, and to imagine for a moment that a man would so belittle himself as to give a verdict against an employé for a small offence is not worth consideration. As to the number of accidents I am sure that we ought to con-
      486
      gratulate ourselves that they are so few. It only shows that we have the most wonderful system in the world; and the report bears that out in every particular.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to enforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). I do not know whether the treatment he described regarding miners in Scotland who are temporarily affected by nystagmus is the same throughout the coalfields of Great Britain, if so it is really time something was done. It is no use for this Government and individuals in the Government being nice and affable—
      Mr. STANLEY: I must rise to a point of Order. I do not want to curtail the discussion, but I am in a position of some difficulty because the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) are discussing a question which would require fresh legislation and I do not know whether, when my turn comes, it will be in order for me to discuss a matter which requires fresh legislation?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the question which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised—
      Mr. STANLEY: I was not referring to the hon. Member for Leigh, but to the question of nystagmus referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Hamilton.
      Mr. D. GRAHAM: I did not discuss it. I asked for information as to the intentions of the Government.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that matters which entail legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, but I am a little uncertain as to the exact working of the Act. I think the hon. Member is entitled to refer to the working of the Act although he must not go into details. He may ask whether it is practicable to take any steps, but he must not go beyond that.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I can assure you that I have no desire to go into the matter. All I wish to do is to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that this Government is of no use. It has done nothing to deal with the hardship of the working classes; it

      487
      has not touched the hem of the garment. That is my point, and with all due respect to the Under-Secretary, for whom I have a great regard, you will see that I got under his skin at once—the truth always cats keener than a two-edged sword. I have accomplished all I wanted to do. This is a tragedy which is being enacted in working-class life. We raise the question of this disease and the treatment of the miners from time to time, and we get no further. If we could live on promises we should all be well off; but we cannot. The Under-Secretary could use his influence with the Government to do something definite in this matter. He tells us that it would require fresh legislation. We know that; and we have to use every legitimate means within our power in order to worry him, just as worried the Secretary for Mines yesterday, to do something. There is no doubt that this Government promised what they would do for the people of the country, but if there is one section for which they have done nothing it is the miners, whose condition to-day is worse than ever it was—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have finished—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The condition of the miners, except as far as workmen's compensation is concerned, does not arise on this Vote.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is just what I am coming to. I want compensation. But I will leave that now. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Eady) did not need to tell us that he was an employer of labour. It was quite unnecessary. Immediately he started to make his speech anybody knew that he was not a member of the working classes and that he was speaking on behalf of the employers. I appreciate a man who comes here and says what he thinks. He says that employers of labour welcome this report. I have known employers of labour for 40 years, and they would never welcome this report. He also said that they welcomed the safeguards which the Board of Trade insist on being put on machinery. Did anybody ever hear such nonsense? We have had to fight the matter out in the House of Commons, and have been fighting it since my boyhood days.
      Mr. EADY: On a point of Order. There is no machinery turned out by any machine maker to-day which is not properly protected by the safeguards required by the Home Office.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will leave that point of Order with you, Captain Bourne. The hon. Member says that every machine that is turned out to-day is provided with safeguards in order to fulfil the requirements of the Board of Trade. That is perfectly true; but it was because we had to come to this House, before I was a Member of Parliament, and lobby Members and ask them to block a certain Bill in order to see that proper safeguards were put on all machinery; on machinery that was going into Bradford. Nobody knows that better than the hon. Member for Central Bradford himself. So much for the guards. The hon. Member said something further which astonished me. I interrupted him when he said that he did not agree that there was a general depression abroad. He said that it was only seasonal, that we had been suffering from the seasonal depressions for many years. He mentioned the spring season. He said it was in the spring quarter of the year that the workers would be unemployed. To me that would be Merrie England in earnest, but I have searched this land from one end of it to the other in vain for that country that I have read so much about, Merrie England, and neither you, Mr. Chairman, nor I have yet discovered it so far as the working class is concerned. But the hon. Member for Central Bradford gave us an indication that it existed, because he said that the workers were off for three months in the year.
      Mr. EADY: I did not say so.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: You read your speech to-morrow and you will see that that is what you said, that the men were off for three months and were working for nine months, and that that had gone on for years. That would be an ideal state of affairs. Three months holiday. That is what I have been striving to get for my class for 40 years. But it does not exist. This Committee knows perfectly well that the depression is a general depression. Even the Government make out my case when they try to excuse the thing. They tell us that we are better off than those in Germany, that

      489
      every country is worse off than we are. Therefore the depression is not just local or national, but is a depression all over the world. Again the hon. Member said that the depression is something that has come on us in the last year or so. My answer is that the depression has been going on to my knowledge for 10 years. My own trade union, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, has spent £11,000,000 in unemployment benefits to its members. My trade is just like every other trade. All trades have been hit.
      Mr. EADY: I said, "Why do we work two shifts?"
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have no work to do. The present Prime Minister when he took office with the Labour Government started a new Department to find work for the unemployed. But the Government could not find work for the unemployed, and the present Government cannot find it now. When they dispensed with that Department they appointed a committee.
      The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must remember that this is not the business of the Home Secretary.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, but with all due deference to you, Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled to reply to a speech to which I have just listened, and that is the line on which the hon. Member for Central Bradford went. I do not wish to cross swords with the Chair unnecessarily, but I hold that I have my rights as a Member of this House, sent here by tens of thousands of votes, not by a few votes, and representing one of the most powerful trade unions in the country. I do not think I should just be turned down immediately I rise to reply to another hon. Member. I try to keep within the rules, and I do not want simply to be put down because my method of approach may not happen to suit certain individuals. I want to tell you that I was not five minutes on my feet, not two minutes, before the man in charge, the Under-Secretary, got up and drew the attention of the then Deputy-Chairman that he
      490
      thought I was not in order. I protest that if it is to be a fight for my rights in this House there is no one more capable of fighting for them and going the whole road. But I do not want to do anything of the kind. I resent the idea that we have to sit here and listen to individuals because they claim to be employers of labour—to listen to them absolutely insulting my class. I am not going to stand it. If I am to defend my class in a decent, intelligent, straightforward and constitutional fashion, I will do it. Am I going to be held up on every occasion when rise to put the point of view of the workers? Have I not a right to reply to statements made by hon. Members opposite?
      The CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, as the lion. Gentleman has said, I was not here during the previous speeches or at the beginning of his speech. I do not want to stop him from answering anything that was said, but at the same time it did occur to me, when I took the Chair just now, that it was very difficult to find a connection between this Vote and the hon. Member's speech. There is still less connection between the Vote and the hon. Member's admirable qualities as representative of his constituency. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will leave that subject and answer what he wants to answer.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your manner of approach. I know that this House has a great regard for dignity as a House, but I have my dignity also, and I have my rights. I feel that you would not deprive me of my rights. I feel that that is true. But there is no doubt that the hon. Member for Central Bradford was allowed to go along certain lines. I have sat here and listened to the speeches, and I think I am justified in replying to what the hon. Member for Central Bradford stated. As far as I was able to understand, and as far as the workers in the workshops understand, the things the hon. Member said are not the case. But I have no desire to speak longer and delay the Committee, for we have a good deal of business to do. I have accomplished all that I set out to accomplish, and I thank both you and the Committee.
      Mr. STANLEY: Hon. Members will agree that there is a general desire to proceed to the very important business

      491
      which is to be discussed later. Therefore I make no apology for rising now to answer the numerous questions which have been put to me. I am sure that hon. Members will neither expect nor desire that I should make anything in the nature of a general statement or explanation of this report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, but would wish me to confine myself to such points as have been raised. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with his usual courtesy supplied me before the Debate with notes of the points that he wished to raise, and I hope to deal with the more important of them. First of all I would thank him and join with him in the tribute that he paid to the late Chief Inspector of Factories, Sir Gerald Bellhouse, whose last report this is. All those who came in contact with Sir Gerald or watched the work of the Department during the last few years when he was in charge, have realised how much he added to its prestige, and how much he improved the standard of work. I am sure the hon. Member for Westhoughton would like to join with me in wishing to Sir Gerald's successor equally good fortune and equal success in the conduct of the Department.
      But, having paid such a tribute to Sir Gerald Bellhouse, the hon. Member for Westhoughton rather proceeded to take away from it by alleging that the report and the introduction to it, which Sir Gerald signed, were tainted with political bias. In support of that he made some references to a passage in which it is stated that owing to the Gold Standard and to tariffs certain industries have improved. Apparently the hon. Member thought that that was a political statement. I would rather say that it was a statement of fact, and that no one could deny that by the imposition of tariffs certain industries have improved. I certainly have never met a Free Trader—a few years ago I used to meet a great many Free Traders—who denied that the imposition of tariffs would help certain industries. The only question was whether the imposition at the same time that it helped some industries, would not injure others. I really cannot think that the hon. Member for Westhoughton was serious when he alleged some form of political bias in the Chief Inspector in stating that certain definite and specified
      492
      industries had benefited from the imposition of a tariff.
      I think the hon. Member need not be frightened that there has been any widening of the political gulf between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, and that that widening is in any way shown in the passage in this report. The agreement to differ still remains and has not been extended. The hon. Member alleged that while this prominence was given to certain industries where, owing to these political measures, conditions have improved, nothing was said about the general condition of industry, and that the general depression was glossed over. There, again, I feel that the hon. Member cannot be serious. He has only to look at page 8 of the report to see a full statement as to the general industry of the country. It begins—
      "Employment in industry generally was very bad during the greater part of the year."
      6.0 p.m.
      He alludes to the immense decrease in the number of workshops but he will realize that that is not a phenomenon peculiar to this year or connected with this year's depression. It has been a phenomenon for many years in the past and largely denotes the passage of the small-scale unit of production and the increase of the large-scale units. I now pass from what I may perhaps describe as the less serious part of the hon. Gentleman's speech and come to the more serious points raised by him. First, with regard to safety in factories, he complained that we were getting, what I believe he will agree is a very satisfactory and improving standard of safety in factories, not by the imposition of a compulsory safety order but by co-operation with the employers. If he is satisfied that the standard now is a good one and is rapidly improving, I cannot see why he should want to act in the teeth of the employers and by compulsion rather than in co-operation with them and with their help. I believe, and, in this view I am reinforced by the excellent speech of the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones), that there is much more to be got out of the present excellent relations between the Home Office and the employers on this point than by the sudden introduction of a compulsory order which

      493
      might only have the effect of upsetting a great deal of the advantage now being secured.
      Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is always easier to have voluntary agreements between large-scale employers and the Home Office, and that it is the very small employers, as is shown in this report, with whom it is difficult to make such agreements?
      Mr. STANLEY: As far as I am aware, we have had very satisfactory co-operation with all kinds of employers, and I feel certain that the hon. Gentleman himself will agree that if the system has been giving good results, we ought not to consider the possibility of changing it until we begin to see those results disappearing. I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the employers organisation which has co-operated with us in this matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to what he called an international Convention on the prevention of accidents, but he is under a misapprehension in terming it a convention. It was nothing more than a general recommendation and did not require legislation or ratification. In substance, the recommendation confirms the basis of the safety provisions which, with the co-operation of the employers, we are gradually introducing. He also mentioned the question of foreign firms who are establishing themselves in this country, and I think he permitted himself something which he would not permit to the Chief Inspector when he added "as a result of the tariff."
      He asked us what steps we were taking to see that these firms knew the law with regard to factories. He will understand that we cannot and will not do anything which would detract from the obligation of everyone, foreigner and citizen alike, to know the law. We cannot allow it to be thought that it is not necessary for a foreign firm which is established here to observe the factory laws, until the factory inspector has been round to tell them what those laws are. We expect them to carry out the ordinary obligation which is on anyone who settles in this country to ascertain what the laws are, but we take the earliest possible opportunity of visiting any new factory established by a foreign firm, to see that the law is being observed. The hon. Gentleman, with all his fervour on the subject, was not able
      494
      to produce any complaint that any foreign firm had disregarded the provisions of the Factory Acts. It is true he complained that they had disregarded trade union rates of wages, but that is not a matter which comes within the purview of our inspectors.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: I have received information that certain foreign firms recently established here are working girls for as long as 14 hours a day. Is that matter which would come within the purview of the Department?
      Mr. STANLEY: It certainly would, and if the hon. Member knows of such cases it is not only his privilege but his duty to hand on to us the information which he has received.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: I will have it authenticated as far as possible and let the hon. Gentleman have it.
      Mr. STANLEY: If there is any ease of that kind I shall be only too glad to have information which will enable us to inquire into it and, if necessary, take action. The hon. Gentleman referred to the two-shift system. We had a very full discussion on that point on the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and on that occasion I permitted myself a little surprise at the courage of the hon. Gentleman in making such a vigorous attack on the system. When he tells us that this system was never meant to be anything but temporary, and that it was intended by Parliament that it should come to an end three or four years ago, I can only remind him that of the three or four years by which its life has exceeded the contemplation of Parliament, two or three were under the auspices of a Government of the party to which the hon. Member himself belongs. The number of orders granted under the two-shift system, within the tenure of office of the Labour Government, was only limited by the lack of applications and not by that Government's dislike of them or refusal to grant. them.
      The reason, of course, for the sudden increase in recent months is not any change of policy on the part of the Home Office with regard to the granting of these applications. It has resulted from the tremendous increase in the number of applications which followed leaving the Gold Standard, and the sudden impetus

      495
      then given to the export trade, particularly in the textile industry. This meant that orders for goods were given suddenly and had to be executed suddenly or else refused. It is in those circumstances that the two-shift system is of value in our industrial life. It enables firms to execute rush orders by working in two shifts, instead of working overtime. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that of the two alternatives the two-shift system is the better one. It also enables an industry, such as the textile industry, which has been going through a period of great depression and which is suddenly faced with rush orders to fill those orders on existing machinery and not to embark on the installation of further machinery until they are assured that the sudden impetus has something continuing behind it and is going to result in a lasting improvement which will justify such an installation. I think, indeed, that the two-shift system has justified itself during this period. We shall, of course, continue to see that the interests of the workers under it are safeguarded and that it is used to make certain that better welfare accommodation is provided, and that in no case is an application granted unless the free and uncompelled assent of the workers has been obtained.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned one point with regard to the accident figures. He commented that, although the figures for accidents had decreased and appeared to show an improvement, it was impossible to tell whether the improvement was real or fictitious unless we knew the number of people employed. I think that, there, he is wrong. I do not think that figures of the number employed would give any clearer picture of the situation than is given now. It depends, not on the number of people employed but on the number of hours worked by the number of people employed. In other words, the only figures which would give a real basis of comparison would be the figures of man-hours worked, if we were able to give them. There are certain industries—an increasing number—keeping statistics of that kind which are made available to us and which we, in these reports, make available to the public. But we feel that for the present it is too elaborate a system of statistics-keeping to impose upon industry as a whole. We
      496
      shall endeavour to persuade other industries to start this system but I cannot hold out any hope that we shall impose it as by law upon industry generally.
      I now come to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman in regard to industrial diseases. I did not quite understand his reference to the return of anthrax cases. He said he was disappointed with the figures, but it seemed to me that the figures in that particular table are about the most satisfactory of all the returns of this kind showing as they do that between 1930 and 1931 there has been a fall of over 50 per cent. in the number of cases, following a fall in previous years.
      Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I thought these cases would disappear entirely.
      Mr. STANLEY: We cannot expect miracles in a moment. It is satisfactory, at any rate, that there has been in past years a steady decline and in the last year a sharp decline in the number of anthrax cases. In regard to silicosis, he mentioned the dissatisfaction of the Miners' Federation with regard to certain aspects of this question. I am aware of that dissatisfaction because I have been approached by the Miners' Federation as to receiving a deputation. Naturally I have expressed my willingness to do so, and we are, at the moment, trying to fix a date which will be convenient to both parties as I understand that the Miners' Federation have rather important conferences in the immediate future.
      Then with regard to lead paint poisoning, I think the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. He referred to advertisements of lead paint for use inside buildings and asked me to do something about them, on the ground that the use of lead paint inside buildings was illegal, and therefore these advertisements were inciting people to do something against the law. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There is no la at against the use of lead paint inside buildings. No doubt it is prohibited by the convention, but the convention was not ratified by this country. We have proceeded without prohibition, but by means of regulation. With regard to flour milling and the use of the 280 lb. sack, I may say that the use of these sacks has been abandoned by practically all the mills in the country. There are, however,

      497
      a few which, although they themselves use the smaller type, still supply these larger types at the request of customers. In response to a request made by an hon. Gentleman opposite we have undertaken that inquiry shall be made into the special circumstances which have led to the retention of this custom by a few firms and when we are in possession of the facts it will be possible to see what steps can be taken.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the small amount of the fines resulting from prosecutions under the Factory Acts and made a suggestion which, I frankly confess, I think he ought not to have made unless he is prepared to substantiate it with something a great deal more definite. That was the suggestion that the smallness of the fines was due to the presence of a large number of employers on the bench. I think the hon. Gentleman himself, when he thinks over this matter, will deprecate the use of generalities of that kind unless one is prepared to substantiate them with definite cases. I assure him and the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) that in my belief there is no foundation for such an accusation. Of course the Home Office has nothing to do with the amount of the fines which are imposed, and I agree that the sum total is small. But I will say that whether the fines imposed are small or large, prosecution still remains an effective deterrent, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the ordinary firm in this country extremely dislikes being prosecuted for breaches of the Factory Acts, even if eventually the fine imposed is only small. They dislike the publicity which is entailed when they are haled before the court, whether the fine imposed is small or great. The hon. Member raised a case with regard to the Truck Acts, and the particular case he referred to was of a 17s. 6d. fine for damaging material. I understand that in that case the money was refunded. As a matter of fact, the reports we get from the inspectors with regard to breaches of the Truck Acts show that such breaches are very rare indeed.
      Now I will pass from the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, which, if I may say so without offence, was not only extremely helpful in tone, but showed a real knowledge of the subject, to the equally helpful speech of the hon. Member for West Swansea. I am sorry
      498
      he is not in his place now, because, employer as he is, it was particularly gratifying, not only to me but to the Department, to hear his tribute to the factory inspectors and that he looked upon the visit of an inspector not as an irritating process of law, but as the visit of someone who really could be of help. In his absence, I will not answer the particular questions he raised.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member is referring now to an employer who is a big employer and who welcomes the factory inspector. The charge of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and my charge is that it is not the big employers, but the small employers who do not welcome the factory inspectors, and we want the inspectors to look after them and to see that they are brought up to scratch.
      Mr. STANLEY: I think the hon. Member has rather missed the point of what I said. We do look after the small employer, and we look after the big one too, but it is gratifying to find that an hon. Member who is an employer, whether large or small, looks on those visits, not as an irritating process to see that he is keeping the law, but as something helpful. The hon. Member will agree that whereas large employers now welcome factory inspectors' visits, that would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago, and what large employers think to-day, small employers may well be induced to think to-morrow.
      I want now to refer to the most important point, raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), namely, the unfortunate results of colliery liquidations on those workmen who are entitled to accident compensation. As the hon. Member will appreciate, I am in a considerable difficulty when I discuss this matter, because he will realise that what he asks for and what anybody could ask for is not within the administrative power of the Home Office, and that it would need full and detailed discussion and legislation if this subject were really to be tackled. But let me say at once that I fully appreciate the great injustice and the great suffering which are caused to these men, who are suddenly deprived of the settled income to which the law has found them entitled, by the failure of a colliery company over which they have no say whatever. I shall not refer to the two cases which the hon. Member men-

      499
      tioned, because he was not able to give me notice of them, and I am not cognisant of the details, but—
      Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that he cannot deal with the delay that takes place?
      Mr. STANLEY: I did not deal with the two cases to which the hon. Member referred because he had not given me notice of them, and I cannot be expected to say whether in those cases the bankruptcy proceedings have been unnecessarily delayed or not, but I will naturally promise that what lies within our power, in my office, to speed up bankruptcy proceedings shall be done, although I must say offhand, without consideration, that it seems to me that it has nothing to do with my Department; but I will convey the matter to the Department whose concern it is. There is something much more serious than the mere delay, and that is the general question. One way of dealing with it is by dealing directly with the compensation. I do not think I could go further than to say that my right hon. Friend, almost from his coming into office, has been particularly interested in this question. The difficulties are very great, as hon. Members opposite who were associated with the inquiries which were made during the Labour Government's tenure of office will agree. We are at the moment in touch with the Mining Association with regard to this question, and until we receive their reply it is impossible for me to say anything to the Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member opposite that I fully realise the gravity of his case. It is a case which largely concerns the coal industry, because, so far at any rate, we have had few examples outside that industry. It is a matter of which we certainly will not lose sight, even if delay is necessary to overcome the many difficulties which are in the way, and I am sure the Committee will be grateful to the hon. Member for Leigh for having raised this very difficult but very important question.
      The only other point that I wish to deal with was that raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), with regard to miners' nystagmus. I cannot deal with matters requiring legislation, but he will no doubt be aware that a scheme was proposed a year or two ago, that it was submitted both to
      500
      the owners and to the men, and that it was not found acceptable by either of them. At the moment a special inquiry is being carried out by the Medical Research Council, and it is possible that as a result of that inquiry we may have further proposals to submit to both sides. We realise the great difficulties that we or anybody else who has tried to tackle this problem are under to-day owing to the almost impossibility of finding jobs above ground for the nystagmus worker and the undesirability of his returning below ground.
      Mr. D. GRAHAM: I am more particularly interested in the case of the man who finds work and later is deprived of compensation owing to having signed a form by which he secured the work.
      Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will agree that that is a case with which we could not deal without legislation, and from the difficulties which I have had with legislation of that kind in another case, I very much doubt if it is a case which can be dealt with by legislation at all. We are having a special inquiry made by the Medical Research Council, and we will consider the whole matter. I think that has dealt with the principal points raised in the Debate, but if any have been left untouched, I shall be only too glad afterwards to have a word with hon. Members about them. In view of the general desire of the House to proceed with the important business which awaits us, I hope the Committee will now be prepared to give us this Vote.
      The Chairman then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this Day, forthwith to put sererally the Questions (which he is directed to put at Ten of the clock under paragraph 7 of Standing Order No. 15), That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimate and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, Army, Air and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

    CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1932.

      CLASS I.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,220,544, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the

      501
      sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Estimates for Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      £

      1. House of Lords Offices

      25,695

      2. House of Commons

      226,724

      3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts

      150,000

      4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

      180,717

      5. Privy Council Office

      6,455

      6. Privy Seal Office

      1,782

      7. Charity Commission

      26,154

      8. Civil Service Commission

      15,395

      9. Exchequer and Audit Department

      89,250

      10. Friendly Societies' Deficiency

      6,065

      11. Government Actuary

      21,815

      12. Government Chemist

      44,266

      £

      13. Government Hospitality

      6,000

      14. The Mint

      100,000

      15. National Debt Office

      687

      16. National Savings Committee

      55,682

      17. Public Record Office

      24,448

      18. Public Works Loan Commission

      90

      19. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

      38,890

      20. Royal Commssions, etc.

      42,140

      21. Miscellaneous Expenses

      708

      22. Secret Service

      100,000

      23. Scottish Office

      51,860

      24. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

      5,721

      £1,220,544"

      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 327; Noes, 45.

      Division No. 286.]

      AYES.

      [6.27 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Glockstern, Louis Halle

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

      Cooke, Douglas

      Glyn, Major Ralph G, C.

      Albery, Irving James

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Goff, Sir Park

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

      Copeland, Ida

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

      Courtauld, Major John Sewell

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Cowan, D. M.

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Graves, Marjorie

      Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

      Craven Eills, William

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanlev

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro',W.)

      Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Grlmston, R. V.

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaineb'ro)

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Crossley, A. C.

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Curry, A. C.

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

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

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hartland, George A.

      Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

      Denville, Alfred

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

      Blindell, James

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Hasiam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastie)

      Boothby, Robert John Graham

      Dickle, John P.

      Headiam, Lleut.-Cof. Cuthbert M.

      Bossom, A. C.

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Boulton, W. W.

      Donner, P. W,

      Hepworth, Joseph

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

      Doran, Edward

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

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Hornby, Frank

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Dundale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Bracken, Brendan

      Eady, George H.

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Edge, Sir William

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

      Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thrt'd., Flexham)

      Edmondson, Major A..J.

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

      Burghley, Lord

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

      Burnett, John George

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      James, Wing.-Coin. A. W. H.

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Janner, Barnett

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Jennings, Roland

      Caine, G. R, Hall-

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Carver, Major William H.

      False, Sir Bertram G.

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Cassels, James Dale

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Christie, James Archibald

      Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Clayton Dr. George C.

      Gault, Lieut.-col. A. Hamilton

      K night, Holford

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Colville, John

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

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Leckie, J. A.

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Nunn, William

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

      Lees-Jones, John

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Slater, John

      Levy, Thomas

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Lewis, Oswald

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Smith, Louis W, (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

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

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Smithers, Waldron

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

      Pearson, William G.

      Somerset, Thomas

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Penny, Sir George

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

      Petherick, M.

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

      Potter, John

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster. Fylde)

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Pybus, Percy John

      Stones, James

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Storey, Samuel

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Mc Ewen, Captain J. H. F.

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Ramsden, E.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Rankin, Robert

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Magnay, Thomas

      Rea, Waiter Russell

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Maitland, Adam

      Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

      Templeton, William P.

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

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

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Remer, John R.

      Thompson, Luke

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Meller, Richard James

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Merriman. Sir F. Boyd

      Robinson, John Roland

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Mline, Charles

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Mline, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Runge. Norah Cecil

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Moore, Lt. Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      White, Henry Graham

      Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Morning, Adrian C.

      Salt, Edward W.

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Womersley, Walter James

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Munro, Patrick

      Scene. Lord

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

      Nall, Sir Joseph

      Selley, Harry R.

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Nation, Brigadier-General J J. H.

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersfild)

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.

      Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

      NOES

      Adams, D. M. (Popias, South)

      Groves. Thomas E.

      Milner, Major James

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Batey, Joseph

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Price, Gabriel

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Healy, Cahir

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

      Hirst, George Henry

      Thorne, William James

      Buchanan, George

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

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Cape, Thomas

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Wallhead, Richard C,

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Kirkwood, David

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Cove, William G.

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Daggar, George

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Devlin, Joseph

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)

      Edwards, Charles

      McGovern, John

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Maxton, James

      Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

      CLASS II.
      "That a sum, not exceeding 1,904,279, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
      504
      year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      505

      £

      Foreign Office

      114,927

      2. Diplomatic and Consular Services

      593,456

      3. League of Nations

      76,000

      4. Dominions Office

      33,525

      5. Dominion Services

      57,824

      6. Empire Marketing

      220,000

      7. Oversee Settlement

      41,400

      10. Colonial Development Fund, etc.

      450,000

      £

      11. India Office

      81,110

      12. Imperial War Graves Commission

      236,037

      £1,904,279"

      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 330; Noes, 44.

      Division No. 287.]

      AYES.

      [6.37 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Crossley, A. C.

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

      Albery, Irving James

      Curry, A. C.

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

      Hunter. Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Allen, William (Stoke on Trent)

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

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

      Asks, Sir Robert William

      Despencer Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Janner, Barnett

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Dickle, John P.

      Jennings, Roland

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M,

      Donner, P. W.

      Johnston, J. W. (Ciackmannan)

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Doran, Edward

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Eady, George H.

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Edge, Sir William

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portstm'th,C.)

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

      Eillston, Captain George Sampson

      Knight, Holford

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      girl, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Bilindell, James

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Bossom, A. C.

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Boulton, W. W.

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Leckie, J. A.

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Fella, Sir Bertram G.

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Lees-Jones, John

      Bracken, Brendan

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Broadbent. Colonel John

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Levy, Thomas

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Lewis, Oswald

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

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Liddall, Waller S.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Browne. Captain A. C.

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilfte

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Lieweityn-Jones, Frederick

      Burghley, Lord

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Burnett, John George

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

      Locker Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Lurnley, Captain Lawrence R

      Caine, G. R. Hall-

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Goff, Sir Park

      Mabane, William

      Carver, Major William H.

      Goldie, Noel B.

      MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

      Cassels, James Dale

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Chalmers. John Rutherford

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Graves, Marjorie

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Christie, James Archibald

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Mckie, John Hamilton

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddiesbro', W.)

      Maclay, Hon Joseph Paton

      Clayton Dr. George C.

      Grimston, R. V.

      Mc Lean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Mai nay, Thomas

      Colfax, Major William Philip

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Maitland, Adam

      Colman, N, C. D,

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Colville, John

      Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

      Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Cooke, Douglas

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Hartland, George A.

      Martin, Thomas, B.

      Copeland, Ida

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

      Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John

      Courtauld, Major John Sewell

      Hasiam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

      Meller, Richard James

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Cowan, D. M.

      Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Hepworth, Joseph

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Craven-Ellis, William

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

      Milne, Charles

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Hornby, Frank

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Crockshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Mitcell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Howard, Torn Forrest

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

      Remer, John R.

      Stones, James

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

      Storey, Samuel

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Robinson, John Roland

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Munro, Patrick

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Nall, Sir Joseph

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Templeton, William P.

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Salmon, Major Isldore

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

      Nunn, William

      Salt, Edward W.

      Thompson, Luke

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on T.)

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Pearson, William G.

      Scone, Lord

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Penny, Sir George

      Selley, Harry R.

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      Petherick, M.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Potter, John

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn Sir A.(C'thness)

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Pybus, Percy John

      Slater, John

      White, Henry Graham

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

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

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Smithers, Waldron

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Ramsden, E.

      Somerset, Thomas

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Rankin, Robert

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Womersley, Walter James

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Reed, Arthur C, (Exeter)

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Lord Erskine.

      NOES

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Price, Gabriel

      Batey, Joseph

      Healy, Cahir

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Bevan, Aneurfn (Ebbw Vale)

      Hirst, George Henry

      Thorne, William James

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

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

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Buchanan, George

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Wellhead, Richard C.

      Cape, Thomas

      Kirkwood, David

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Cove, William G.

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Lunn, william

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Dagger, George

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Devlin, Joseph

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Edwards, Charles

      McGovern, John

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Maxton, James

      Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

      Groves, Thomas E.

      Milner, Major James

      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLASS III.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £7,542,184, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the suns necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      £

      2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

      42,585

      3. Police, England and Wales

      4,906,025

      4. Prisons, England and Wales

      394,110

      5. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales

      98,684

      6. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc

      90

      £

      7. County Courts

      90

      8. Land Registry

      90

      9. Public Trustee

      90

      10. Law Charges

      73,064

      11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

      6,428

      Scotland.

      £

      12. Police

      837,452

      13. Prisons Department for Scotland

      70,127

      14. Reformatory and Industrial Schools

      32,643

      15. Scottish Land Court

      4,868

      16. Law Charges and Courts of Law

      28,785

      17. Register House, Edinburgh

      90

      Ireland.

      £

      18. Northern Ireland Services

      5,677

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

      2,111

      20. Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

      1,039,175

      £7,542,184"

      CLASS IV.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £32,137,161, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will' come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      £

      1. Board of Education

      26,892,676

      2. British Museum

      82,982

      3. British Museum (Natural History)

      58,530

      4. Imperial War Museum

      7,615

      5. London Museum

      3,674

      6. National Gallery

      14,702

      7. National Portrait Gallery

      4,744

      8. Wallace Collection

      6,961

      9. Scientific Investigation, etc.

      122,541

      10. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

      845,000

      Scotland.

      11. Public Education

      4,092,771

      12. National Galleries

      4,660

      13. National Library

      305

      £32,137,161"

      CLASS V.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £88,775,369, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

      £

      1. Ministry of Health

      13,336,320

      2. Board of Control

      81,715

      3. Registrar-General's Office

      87,060

      4. National Insurance, Audit Department

      108,610

      5. Friendly Societies Registry

      30,554

      6. Old Age Pensions

      24,778,000

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

      7,000,000

      8. Ministry of Labour

      39,458,000

      9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

      2,300,000

      Scotland.

      10. Department of Health

      1,572,002

      11. General Board of Control

      11.120

      12. Registrar-General's Office

      11,988

      £88,775,369"

      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes. 341; Noes, 46.

      Division No. 288]

      AYES.

      [6.49 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Albary, Irving James

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (LIverp'1, W.)

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Allen, Lt.-Col..J. Sandeman(B'k'nh'd)

      Burghley, Lord

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Allen, William (Stoke on-Trent)

      Burnett, John George

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Crossley, A. C.

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Apsley, Lord

      Caine, G. R. Hall-

      Curry, A. C.

      Asks, Sir Robert William

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Atholl. Duchess of

      Carver, Major William H.

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Cassels, James Dale

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Benne, Sir Adrian W. M.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Denville, Alfred

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      pickle, John P.

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Christie, James Archibald

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Donner, P. W.

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Doran, Edward

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Duatiale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Duncan, James A, L. (Kensington, N.)

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Dunglass, Lord

      Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

      Colville, John

      Eady, George H.

      Bilndell, James

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Eden. Robert Anthony

      Bossom, A. C

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Edge, Sir William

      Boulton, W. W.

      Cooke, Douglas

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Copeland, Ida

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Courtauld, Major John Sewell

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Broadbent. Colonel John

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Erskine, Lord (Weston super-Mare)

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Cowan, D. M.

      Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Robinson, John Roland

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Falls, Sir Bertram G.

      Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Mebane, William

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

      Salt, Edward W.

      Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Gilmour, Lt Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Scone, Lord

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Selley, Harry R.

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Goff, Sir Park

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Magnay, Thomas

      Shaw. Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Maitland, Adam

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Makino, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

      Granville, Edgar

      Mender, Geoffrey le M.

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Slater, John

      Graves, Marjorie

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Smith, Louis W, (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Grentell, E. C. (City of London)

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

      Meller, Richard James

      Smithers, Waldron

      Grimston, R. V.

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Somerset, Thomas

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Sotheron-Esteourt, Captain T. E.

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Milne, Charles

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster. Fyide)

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

      Stones, James

      Hartland, George A.

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Storey, Samuel

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

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Haslam, Henry (Lindsay. H'ncastle)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral M array F.

      Hepworth, Joseph

      Munro, Patrick

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Hornby, Frank

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersl'Id)

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Templeton, William P.

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Howard. Tom Forrest

      Nunn, William

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

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Thompson, Luke

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

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Hume. Sir George Hopwood

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

      Pearson, William G.

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

      Penny, Sir George

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Janner, Barnett

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Jennings, Roland

      Petherlek, M.

      Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      Jesson. Major Thomas E.

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)

      Wallace, John (Donfermline)

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

      Potter, John

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Jones. Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Pybus, Percy John

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      White, Henry Graham

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Ramsden, E.

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Rankin, Robert

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Womersley, Walter James

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Leckie, J. A.

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Reid. James S. C. (Stirling)

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

      Lees-Jones, John

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Remer, John R.

      Levy, Thomas

      Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

      Lewis, Oswald

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Major George Davies and Commander Southby.

      Liddell, Walter S.

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      512

      513

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Groves, Thomas E.

      Maxton, James

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Milner, Major James

      Batey, Joseph

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Healy, Cahir

      Price, Gabriel

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

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Buchanan, George

      Hirst, George Henry

      Thorne, William James

      Cape, Thomas

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

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Cove, William G.

      Kirkwood, David

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Wedgwood, Rt Hen. Josiah

      Daggar, George

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Williams Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

      Edwards, Charles

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      McGovern, John

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLASS VI.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £8,877,666, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

      £

      1. Board of Trade

      84,690

      2. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

      90

      3. Mercantile Marine Services

      239,450

      4. Department of Overseas Trade

      252,773

      5. Export Credits

      90

      6. Mines Department of the Board of Trade

      144,595

      7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

      22,190

      8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

      1,195,918

      9. Beet Sugar, Subsidy, Great Britain

      2,350,000

      10. Surveys of Great Britain

      74,340

      11. Forestry Commission

      287,000

      13. Road Fund

      2,750,000

      14. Development Fund

      225,000

      15. Development Grants

      550,000

      16. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

      315,399

      17. State Management Districts

      90

      Scotland.

      18. Department of Agriculture

      336,647

      19. Fishery Board

      49,394

      £8,877,666"

      CLASS VII.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £5,255,101, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      £

      1. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

      237,600

      2. Houses of Parliament Buildings

      64,410

      £

      3. Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain

      412,720

      4. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

      100,400

      5. Osborne

      9,970

      6. Office of Works and Public Buildings

      382,170

      7. Public Buildings, Great Britain

      757,540

      8. Public Buildings, Overseas

      96,140

      9. Royal Palaces

      46,900

      10. Revenue Buildings

      842,300

      11. Royal Parks and Pleasure 'Gardens

      126,120

      12. Rates on Government Property

      1,021,730

      13. Stationery and Printing

      1,060,730

      14. Peterhead Harbour

      18,000

      15. Works and Buildings Ireland

      78,350

      £5,255,101"

      CLASS VIII.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £31,048,860, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      £

      1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

      223,523

      2. Ministry of Pensions

      29,743,800

      3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

      169,804

      4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

      911,733

      £31,048,860"

      Crass IX.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £27,546,459, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933 for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class IX of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

      £

      1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

      23,860,000

      2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

      3,686,459

      £27,546,459"

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1932.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £45,977,785, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933. for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

      £

      1. Customs and Excise

      3,430,200

      2. Inland Revenue

      4,859,585

      3. Post Office

      37,688,000

      £45,977,785"

      NAVY ESTIMATES, 1932.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £32,529,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

      £

      3. Medical Establishments and Services

      380,700

      4. Fleet Air Arm

      1,025,000

      5. Educational Services

      218,400

      6. Scientific Services

      473,800

      7. Royal Naval Reserves

      350,000

      8. Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., Personnel

      6,324,700

      Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., Matériel

      4,464,750

      Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., Contract Work

      5,193,200

      9. Naval Armaments

      3,488,200

      11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

      641,250

      12. Admiralty Office

      1,104,300

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

      3,093,500

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

      4,727,800

      15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities

      1,043,700

      £32.529,300"

      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 355; Noes, 43.

      Division No. 289.]

      AYES. [7.3 p.m.

      [7.3 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

      Caine, G. R. Hall-

      Dickie, John P.

      Albery, Irving James

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

      Carver, Major William H.

      Donner, P. W.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

      cassels, James Dale

      Doran, Edward

      Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Duckworth, George A. V.

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

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)

      Apsley, Lord

      Christie, James Archibald

      Dunglass, Lord

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Eady, George H.

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Eastwood, John Francis

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Balille, Sir Adrian W. M.

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Edge, Sir William

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Colville, John

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Cooke, Douglas

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

      Copeland, Ida

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Courtauld, Major John Sewell

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

      Cowan, D. M.

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Blindell, James

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Bossom, A. C.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Boulton, W. W.

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Bracken, Brendan

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Gault, Lleut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Crossley, A. C.

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Brocklebank. C. E. R.

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

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

      Curry, A. C.

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

      Goff, Sir Park

      Burghley, Lord

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

      Goidle, Noel B.

      Burnett, John George

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Granville, Edgar

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

      McLean, Major Alan

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Graves, Marjorie

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Salt, Edward W.

      Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

      Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)

      Magnay, Thomas

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Grimston, R. V.

      Maitland, Adam

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

      MakIns, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Mallaileu, Edward Lanceiot

      Savory, Samuel Servington

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Mender, Geoffrey le M.

      Scone, Lord

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Margeeson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Selley, Harry R.

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zeti'nd)

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Mellor, Richard James

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Hartland, George A.

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Sinclair, Mal. Rt. H n. Sir A. (C'thness)

      Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

      Milne, Charles

      Slater, John

      Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncestie)

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

      Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

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

      Hepworth, Joseph

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Smithers, Waldron

      Hats, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

      Somerset, Thomas

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

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Sornervell, Donald Bradley

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Hornby, Frank

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N,)

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

      Mass, Captain H. J.

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Horebrugh, Florence

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Munro, Patrick

      Spender-Clay, Rt. lion. Herbert H.

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Nall, Sir Joseph

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Stones, James

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Storey, Samuel

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Hurd, Sir Percy

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)

      Nunn, William

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Janner, Barnett

      O'Donovan, Dr. William James

      Sugden, Sir Wlifrld Hart

      Jennings, Roland

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

      Tale, Mavis Constance

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Palmer, F panels Noel

      Templeton, William P.

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

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pearson, William G.

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

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Penny, Sir George

      Thompson, Luke

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Petherick, M.

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)

      Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Potter, John

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Pybus, Percy John

      Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Leckie, J. A.

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Waterhouse, Captain Charies

      Lees-Jones, John

      Ramsden, E.

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Levy, Thomas

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Lewis, Oswald

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      White, Henry Graham

      Liddell, Waiter S.

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonei George

      Locker- Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

      Remer, John R.

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

      Womersley, Walter James

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Mebane, William

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

      Robinson, John Roland

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Ross, Ronald D.

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Captain Sir George Bowyer and

      Lord Erskine.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Batey, Joseph

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

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Cape, Thomas

      518

      519

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      John, William

      Thorne, William James

      Cove, William G.

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

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      wailhead, Richard C.

      Daggar, George

      Kirkwood, David

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Edwards, Charles

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      McGovern, John

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Milner, Major James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Healy, Cahir

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Price, Gabriel

      Macdonald.

      Hirst, George Henry

      Salter, Dr, Alfred

      ARMY ESTIMATES, 1932
      "That a sum, not exceeding £16,722,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:—

      £

      2. Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

      4,001,000

      3. Medical Services

      895,000

      4. Educational Establishments

      769,000

      5. Quartering and Movements

      1,287,000

      6. Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts

      3,896,000

      £

      7. Clothing

      1,019,000

      8. General Stores

      1,166,000

      9. Warlike Stores

      2,000,000

      11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

      879,000

      12. War Office

      810,000

      Ordnance Factories

      100

      £16,722,100"

      Questions put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 46.

      Division No. 290.]

      AYES.

      [7.15 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Christie, James Archibald

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Albery, Irving James

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Falle Sir Bertram G.

      Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Ford, Sir Patrick.J.

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Colville, John

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Apsley, Lord

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

      Cooke, Douglas

      Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Balley, Eric Alfred George

      Copeland, Ida

      Gault, Lleut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Goff, Sir Park

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Crcokshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Crossley, A. C.

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Granville, Edgar

      Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

      Curry, A. C.

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

      Blindell, James

      Daikeith, Earl of

      Graves, Marjorie

      Bossom, A. C.

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Boulton, W. W.

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

      Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

      Bower, Lieut.-Com, Robert Tatton

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

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (MIddlesbro',W.)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Grlmston, R. V.

      Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Dickie, John P.

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Donner, P. W.

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Doran, Edward

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W,(Orkney & Zeti'nd)

      Burghley, Lord

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Burnett, John George

      Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Dunglass, Lord

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Eady, George H.

      Hartland, George A.

      Caine, G. R. Hall-

      Eastwood, John Francis

      Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Eden, Robert Anthony

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

      Carver, Major William H.

      Edge, Sir William

      Hasiam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastte)

      Cassels, James Dale

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      EIliston, Captain George Sampson

      Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Hepworth, Joseph

      Hope, Capt. Arthur O.J. (Asten)

      Meller, Richard James

      Scone, Lord

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Selley, Harry R.

      Hornby, Frank

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Milne, Charles

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Shcpperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Slater, John

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)

      Mulrhead, Major A. J.

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

      James, Wing) Com. A. W. H.

      Munro, Patrick

      Smithers, Waldron

      Janner, Barnett

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Somerset, Thomas

      Jennings, Roland

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      lesson, Major Thomas E.

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fid)

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

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

      Nunn, William

      Silencer, Captain Richard A.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      O'Donovan, Dr. William James

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)

      Ker, J. Campbell

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Stones, James

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Storey, Samuel

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Stourton, Hon. John J.

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Pearson, William G.

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Penny, Sir George

      Wickland, Captain W. F.

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Petherick, M.

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Biloton)

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Leckie, J. A.

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Lees-Jones, John

      Potter, John

      Templeton, William P.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Levy, Thomas

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

      Lewis, Oswald

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Thompson, Luke

      Liddall, Waiter S.

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Ramebotham, Herwald

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Ramsden, E.

      Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Locker.Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)

      Rea, Waiter Russell

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Methane, William

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Wallace,Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Ramer, John R.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Waileend)

      MeCorguodale, M. S.

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Wells, Sydney Richard

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

      Robinson, John Roland

      Weymouth, Viscount

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      White, Henry Graham

      Manley, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Ross, Ronald D.

      W hiteside, Borras Noel H.

      McLean, Major Alan

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Macguisten, Frederick Alexander

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Magnay, Thomas

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouih)

      Wornersley, Waiter James

      Maitland, Adam

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Making, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Salmon, Major Isldore

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot

      Salt, Edward W.

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Mender, Geoffrey le M.

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Young, lit. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Captain Sir George Bowyer and

      Lord Erskine.

      NOES

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Edwards, Charles

      Kirkwood, David

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Batey, Joseph

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Lawson, John James

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Logan, David Gilbert

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

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Lunn, William

      Buchanan, George

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Cape, Thomas

      Healy, Cahir

      McGovern, John

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Cove, William G.

      Hirst, George Henry

      Maxton, James

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      John, William

      Milner, Major James

      Daggar, George

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

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Price, Gabriel

      522

      523

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Thorne, William James

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

      Wailhead, Richard C.

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

      AIR ESTIMATES, 1932.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £3,997,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

      £

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

      1,590,000

      5. Medical Services

      295,000

      6. Technical Training and Educational Services

      423,000

      7. Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

      516,000

      £

      9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

      242,000

      10. Air Ministry

      645,000

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

      286,000

      £3,997,000"

      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 45.

      Division No. 291.]

      AYES

      [7.26 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

      Cooke, Douglas

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Albery, Irving James

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Goff. Sir Park

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

      Copeland, Ida

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Allen, Willam (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Cowan, D. M.

      Gower, Sir Robert

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

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Granville, Edgar

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Graves, Marjorie

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Grentell, E. C. (City of London)

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Grimston, R. V.

      Balille, Sir Adrian W. M.

      Crossley, A. C.

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Culverwell, Cyril Tom

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Curry, A. C.

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetlind)

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsmith,C.)

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

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

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hartland, George A.

      Blindell, James

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

      Bossom, A. C.

      Dickle, John P.

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

      Boulton, W. W.

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Hasiam, Henry (Lindsay, Hincastle)

      Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

      Donner, P. W.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Doran, Edward

      Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Hepworth, Joseph

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

      Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

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

      Dunglass, Lord

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Eady, George H.

      Hornby, Frank

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Eastwood, John Francis

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Burghley, Lord

      Edge, Sir William

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Burnett. John George

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Elmley, Viscount

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Calne, G. R. Hall-

      Emrye-Evans, P. V.

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Caporn, Arthur Cecil

      Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

      Carver, Major William H.

      Essenffigh, Reginald Clare

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

      Cassels, James Dale

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)

      James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Janner, Barnett

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      False, Sir Bertram G.

      Jennings, Roland

      Christie, James Archibald

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Fraser. Captain Ian

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

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

      Collox, Major William Philip

      Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Colville, John

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Slater, John

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Nunn, William

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Smith, F. W. (Aberdin & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Law, Sir Alfred

      O'Donovan, Dr. William James

      Smithers, Waldron

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Somerset, Thomas

      Leckie, J. A.

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Sotheron Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Lees-Jones, John

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Pearson, William G.

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Levy, Thomas

      Penny, Sir George

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Lewis, Oswald

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Spender-Clay. Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Petherick, M.

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)

      Stones, James

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Storey, Samuel

      Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Stourton, Hon. John J.

      Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Potter, John

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Pybus, Percy John

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      MacAndrew, Capt..J. O. (Ayr)

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlethian)

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Summersby, Charles H.

      McCorguodale, M. S.

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Ramsden, E.

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Templeton, William P.

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

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Thomas, M ajar L. B. (K ing's Norton)

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

      Thompson, Luke

      McLean, Major Alan

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on T.)

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Remer, John R.

      Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

      Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

      Rentoul, Sir Cereals S.

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Magnay, Thomas

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Maitland, Adam

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot

      Robinson, John Roland

      Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Meller, Richard James

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      White, Henry Graham

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Milne, Charles

      Salt, Edward W.

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Womersley, Waiter James

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Savory, Samuel Servington

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Scone, Lord

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Selley, Harry R.

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Shaw, Harry R.

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Muithead, Major A. J.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Munro Patrick

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Captain Sir George Bowyer and

      Mr. Shakespeare.M

      NOES

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Groves, Thomas E.

      Mixton, James

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Milner,Major James

      Batey, Joseph

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Healy, Cahir

      Price, Gabriel

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

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Thorne, William James

      Buchanan, George

      Hirst, George Henry

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Cape, Thomas

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

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Cove, William G.

      Kirkwood, David

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Dagger, George

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Edwards, Charles

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Greaten, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      McGovern, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. John.

      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

      HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS.
      Considered in Committee.
      [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
      Resolved,
      "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £304,790,226 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Major Elliot.]
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

      IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
      I think there will be general agreement that no detailed statement is necessary in order to show to the House and the country how reluctantly we feel compelled to introduce this Bill. On Monday last I endeavoured to give to the House the history of the negotiations between the Irish Free State and this country. However wide was the breach at the onset, however much we may have felt resentment at the method and manner in which negotiations were conducted on the other side without regard to us, no one, I feel sure, will deny that the Government up to that moment, and, I may say, as I shall endeavour to show, up to this moment, were and are genuinely and sincerely anxious for a peaceful solution of this difference. But the Bill, probably unprecedented in Parliamentary history, and taking, as I quite frankly admit, unlimited and drastic powers, is, I submit, the only alternative left to the Government in these circumstances.
      I say that it is the only alternative because, throughout the Debate on Monday and the previous Debate, no one challenged for one moment the fact that in the Budget of the year there were included millions of pounds that we had the right to expect would be paid to us, and, although there were, and are to-day, criticisms of our action, no one in any quarter of the House suggested any alternative; no one has said to us, "We,can give you a better means of obtaining
      528
      this money." Therefore, I want to emphasise clearly and definitely that, so far as the Government are concerned, we object and we refuse to call upon the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country, who are already very heavily burdened, to shoulder a further burden which, we are satisfied, they ought not to be asked to bear. On that simple issue, those who object to this Bill must, I submit, either show an alternative way of obtaining the money—must tell us exactly what they would do other than the course we propose—or face the responsibility of admitting that in their judgment the British taxpayer must meet this obligation. We do not intend that that should be done if we can avoid it.
      The object of the Bill is to provide the amount of default; that is to say, whatever be the figure due to us for the Land Annuities, or any subsequent figure which only a few days ago for the first time we heard was challenged, whatever may be the amount due under this legally and morally binding agreement, we intend by this Bill to recoup it if we can. We are not desirous of continuing to operate the Act a moment after we receive our just dues or arrive at any other means of settling this unfortunate dispute. The Bill is so framed that it gives the Government absolute power to collect the amount in the manner least inconvenient to trade and to the consumers in this country. I am not going to pretend that we are not fully alive to the inconvenience, and I am not going to disguise from the House for a moment that the powers which are asked for, and which will be exercised if it is necessary to exercise them, include everything that is imported into this country from the Irish Free State. It is only fair that I should leave the House in no doubt upon that point. I do not propose to differentiate between the value of one commodity and another. I do not propose to argue the merits of livestock or foodstuffs. Being reluctantly driven to take the necessary steps to recoup ourselves, I ask the House of Commons frankly, boldly and with confidence to trust us that we will not in any way abuse the powers conferred by the Bill.
      On Monday certain suggestion were made with a view to making our position clearer and less open to doubtful interpretation. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), for instance, drew

      529
      attention to the fact that the word "loss," unless it was more specifically defined, could be held to apply to anything outside the particular dispute. We have no desire whatever to introduce into our action anything outside the immediate matters in dispute. I have, therefore, included the expression "direct loss" in order to meet that point. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) also drew attention to a very important point. He said, in substance, that, while the Bill left the power in the Treasury's hands, there were many Government Departments other than the Dominions Office whose advice and experience ought to be supplied to the Government. Again, I have met that point and the necessary change is made to include all the Government Departments that are likely to be affected.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) raised a very important constitutional point, namely the prerogative right of the House of Commons to challenge any matter at any time. We have endeavoured to meet that point also. We were, therefore, not blind to what I might call legitimate Parliamentary points. We have endeavoured to meet criticism which we assumed was genuinely intended to improve the Bill and not to hamper us. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says we have not met his point. It is impossible to meet his point. It is impossible, in submitting legislation of this kind, to do other than indicate in the most clear and definite way that is open to Parliament the Government's view of what they believe to be the wishes of the mass of the British people. One of the Dominion States, having repudiated their solemn obligation, having intimated that they propose withholding moneys that we believe to be legally and morally due, we say, "Although we feel that our claim is unanswerable, although your predecessors have without question accepted that liability, we, with a single-minded desire at this time above all others that there should be no further friction, offer you arbitration." I, having striven probably more than anyone else to avoid this breach, and being still anxious to avoid it, cannot understand the mentality of people who feel as keenly and as strongly that they are right as I feel that I am right. We refuse to believe that within
      530
      the British Commonwealth of Nations there are not people competent, impartial and honest enough to arrive at a decision which everyone would be compelled to accept.
      8.0 p.m.
      It will not be suggested that there has been any delay on my side in putting forward what I put to the other side. Although the despatch was received only on Monday morning, the reply of the Government is at this moment on its way to Ireland. In that reply I draw attention to the fact that on the question of the Land Annuities the issue is now reduced to the simple one of the form of arbitration. In our judgment, the tribunal should be that unanimously recommended and agreed to by the Imperial Conference of 1930. I say "unanimously" because it included the chosen representative of the Irish Free State. In his last despatch Mr. de Valera included other items than the Land Annuities, and I read out to the House on Monday a large number of other financial items that he traversed. I gather from conversations with him that his objection to these other items is not on the merits of the particular items. They are items which, he says, were not specifically brought for ratification before the Irish Free State Parliament. I think that that is a fair statement of his objection. I am not entering into the wisdom of that objection, except to observe that every Member of this House will know perfectly well that Governments not only can but do make all manner of agreements which cannot possibly always be brought to the House of Commons. But there is always a Parliamentary method by which they can be questioned or challenged. Indeed, in regard to the particular items—and to which I drew Mr. de Valera's attention—to my personal knowledge those items have been challenged in the Dail and there has been a General Election upon them. But that is his case. Curiously enough, the recommendation of the Imperial Conference upon this, what I call for short, Imperial tribunal—the tribunal which I, on behalf of the Government, have offered to the Irish Free State—was before both the Dail and the Senate and unanimously adopted. In other words, the specific recommendation of the Empire tribunal, whatever may be the merits of those other matters which were challenged be-

      531
      cause they were not ratified, was unanimously adopted by the Dail and the Senate.
      Mr. ATTLEE: Voluntarily?
      Mr. THOMAS: What does the hon. Member mean by "voluntarily"?
      Mr. ATTLEE: The point was that while a form of tribunal was set up which would be the one to be used if the two parties wanted to go to arbitration, it was not obligatory upon two members of the Commonwealth who had a dispute to go to that tribunal.
      Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend, apparently, is not following my argument. I have not come within miles of that yet. Do follow the point I am making now. The point I have endeavoured to make is that I understood Mr. de Valera's objection to some, if not all, of these items was on the ground that they had not been submitted for ratification to his Parliament. All that I am pointing out now is that the Imperial Conference recommendations were submitted to and approved by the Irish Parliament.
      Mr. ATTLEE: Exactly.
      Mr. THOMAS: If it is "exactly," then we are exactly right—[Interruption.]
      Mr. ATTLEE: The point I was making to the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly relevant. He was saying that a certain thing was submitted to the Dail and approved, but the only point I made was that it was an agreement not for obligatory but for voluntary arbitration, which is quite another point.
      Mr. THOMAS: That being so, we need not lose temper at all, but I respectfully submit to the hon. Gentleman that the point he raises at the moment is not the point with which I am dealing. I will come to the question later as to whether it was obligatory or not. I am showing that Mr. de Valera's first objection to the other items was on the ground that they had not been submitted to Parliament, and I am now saying to the House that this particular item, namely, the Imperial Conference recommendation, was submitted to and ratified by both Parliaments. I will give the point that it is not obligatory, but in my experience of the trade union movement and of all industrial negotiations, I have
      532
      often come to a general meeting and to a delegate meeting and said, "It is not obligatory on your part, but it is a recommendation of those who negotiated for you."
      That is the commonsense of the situation. When it is boiled down we know perfectly well that, while it was not binding, the recommendation meant that in the judgment of those who made the recommendation, or the Government of the day, that in their view was the fairest way of dealing with the situation. I do not put it any higher than that. [Interruption.] Very well, if they did not ratify it, it meant that they had no confidence in the judgment of those who recommended it. In this case they showed that flu had confidence by both Houses of Parliament adopting it. That is the answer. In order that there shall be no doubt and no obstacle in regard to this point, in the despatch which is on its way to Dublin at this moment I have intimated, on behalf of the Government, that on the question of Land Annuities and on the question of arbitration in respect of Land Annuities, although there was a unanimous recommendation of the Imperial Conference we, the British Government, are ready now to consider any variation in this form acceptable to the Irish Free State, with the only one, final and definite qualification that the representatives must be drawn from within the British Commonwealth of Nations.
      Let me put to the House and to the country what that means. We do not ask that there should be so many British and so many Irish and others. We do not say the numbers, or whence they shall be drawn. We even go beyond the recommendations of the Imperial Conference, and I have intimated to Mr. de Valera that even at this moment we will vary even the Imperial Conference recommendations. But from the one essential I repeat—and let us have no ambiguity on this—there will be no departure as far as the British Government are concerned. We have gone to the limit. We will do everything we can, but we will not be a party to any foreign tribunal to settle what is essentially a domestic matter and ask anyone outside the British Commonwealth to determine our differences. That being so, I ask the House, as I have asked the Irish Free

      533
      State Government in my latest despatch to them, "Could we go further than that?"
      Is there anyone in this House genuinely and sincerely anxious for peace, but also anxious to preserve the sanctity of agreements and what is fundamental in business life, yes, and is essential in good government—who thinks that any Government would have gone to a further length than that to which we have gone in our anxiety to find a peaceful solution? [An HON. MEMBER: "Too far!"] No, it is never too far to make a real effort for peace. I entirely repudiate the suggestion that there are any sections of our people who welcome this conflict. I do not believe that they do. I do not believe for a moment that on that side of the House or on this or outside this House there is anybody worth calling a citizen who would not genuinely and sincerely desire peace. Therefore, I will not for one moment admit that in the steps we are taking—or have already taken—we are doing other than what we ought to do—to strive until the last moment for a peaceful solution.
      That was the issue with regard to Land Annuities. Let the House observe, as I said at the onset, the remarkable difficulty under which we are placed. The first intimation of the difference in regard to Land Annuities was not conveyed to me in a despatch. It was made in a speech in Dublin.
      Mr. MAXTON: To his own people.
      Mr. THOMAS: To his own people, I know, but I should rather resent an employer writing to other employers and saying, "I am going to withhold the dues of my workmen." It would be his own people, but I should object to it. It was not made to us. It was not made to the British Government who were signatories to the Agreement; it was made in Dublin. I put that point in order to emphasise the second point which is as follows: Although our first despatches were dated 22nd March, it was only in the despatch on Monday last, 4th July, that I received an intimation of all those other matters. There was no reason given and no statement as to why they were withholding payment. We were not told whether it was for this, that or the other reason. There was just the bald
      534
      statement that that was their intention. Again—and I say this with a view of emphasising what I want the Opposition to keep in mind—we could have resented that method. That is not customary between foreign countries, but we do not resent it, and in my despatch that has gone to Mr. de Valera to-day I make it clear. I say:
      "With regard to the further payments referred to in Mr. de Valera's latest despatch, we still do not know the grounds on which the liability of the Irish Free State is disputed. If, however, the Irish Free State Government will indicate the grounds on which the agreements relating to these payments are challenged, and they are considered suitable for reference to arbitration, we on our part, in order to show our desire for a friendly settlement of the financial questions, will consider the advisability of agreeing to arbitration on those questions on the same basis and by the same tribunal as we have already proposed in the case of the land annuities."
      Never mind thinking of the matter from the standpoint of the Government or of the Opposition. Let us view it from the standpoint of those returned to the House of Commons to do the right thing, to do the honest thing, and to do the thing that we are satisfied will redound to our credit. Could any Government do more than we have done and could any Government have gone to the limit for peace more than we have gone? I put it quite clearly to the House that, having considered every means and every avenue open to us, no one has yet suggested any other course than the one we are pursuing. That is apparently challenged, and I can only assume that it is challenged on the alternative that the House is called upon to consider tonight by the Opposition Amendment. The Amendment says:
      "That this House, taking note of the fact that the Government of the Irish Free State are paying disputed funds into a suspense account pending arbitration"—
      I make no comment on the remarkable way in which that intimation was given to the House. I only observe that when it was given I did not hesitate to seize the opportunity of saying that if it provided a, bridge I was ready to take it. Seeing that the Opposition have put that point on paper as the basis of their official Amendment, they might at least have taken the trouble to ascertain the facts. It is not English law that deals with this matter: it is Irish Free State legislation. I am sure that the Opposi-

      535
      tion cannot have observed that the Irish Free State—not the English—Land Act of 1923 makes it compulsory by statute law that this money shall be paid into-a suspense account. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite do not seem to observe the point. Up to now I have been dealing with the Irish Land Act. Up to last Monday the only dispute with the Irish Free State on the financial side—I am not bringing in the Oath—was in regard to the Irish Land Annuities. Do not let hon. Members forget the importance of that fact.
      It was only last Monday that the other issues became issues. Up to that stage I was dealing on these financial matters with the land annuities alone, and the land annuities are by statute compelled to be placed to a suspense account. On Monday we received an intimation with regard to the other disputed points, but in the letter of Mr. Dulanty it was stated quite clearly that that was done because they were not compelled to pay these moneys into a suspense account. They were compelled by their own statute law to place the land annuities in a suspense account, but they were not compelled to place the other funds in any special suspense account. The importance of that fact is this, that it gave a clear indication that so far as they were concerned, I put it no higher, they had in mind arbitration. I think that is a fair statement of the case. That being so, I stated straight away that that narrowed the issue. The Amendment emphasises how narrow is the difference on that particular point, and goes on to say:
      "and realising that the free association of nations within the British Commonwealth depends upon the maintenance of good will, declines to assent, etc."
      No Member of this House on either side will challenge the wording of that Amendment, namely:
      "That the free association of nations within the British Commonwealth depends upon the maintenance of good will."
      Am I putting it too high when I say that good will ought to have following it, if it is to be honest and clear, the observance of agreements? You cannot have good will within the British Commonwealth or anywhere else unless the principle of the observance of agreements is frankly recognised. I regret
      536
      the circumstances that have compelled me to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Just as in my appeal to Mr. de Valera to-day on behalf of the Government, I have made one final effort to urge and plead with him, as I plead now, to recognise the facts of the situation, so equally I say to the House of Commons, desirous and anxious for peace as we are, that we are left with no alternative to the course that we now propose.
      Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
      "this House, taking note of the fact that the Government of the Irish Free State are paying disputed funds into a suspense account pending arbitration, and realising that the free association of nations within the British Commonwealth depends upon the maintenance of good will, declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill for the precipitate adoption of economic reprisals against the Irish Free State."
      The Secretary of State for the Dominions when he reads his speech tomorrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT will probably agree that some portions of it are rather over-emphatic. He has been at great pains to tell us how firm the Government are and that they are not going to budge on certain propositions. In his long experience he must have heard similar speeches many a time and have seen the persons who have made such speeches climb clown many a time. However firm and determined the Government are I am quite sure, unless the Irish Free State is determined to break right away, that some means will be found to solve the difficulty which faces us. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have gone to the limit of concessions, as a matter of fact on one point upon which the Irish Free State is standing out the Government have made no concessions whatever and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman really ought not to talk about concessions. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted our case in regard to what happened at the Imperial Conference. The essential thing to remember is that there was disagreement as to the setting up of this tribunal, and the Statute of Westminster was passed in this country and in other Dominions without any tribunal. If agreement could have been found to refer all disputes within the

      537
      Commonwealth of Nations to a Commonwealth Tribunal the method of appointing it would have appeared in the Statute of Westminster, and would have been ratified by the Dominion Parliaments and ourselves.
      On his own showing to-night this Parliament never ratified even a voluntary agreement, and, therefore, it is not fair to continually bring it up as if the Irish Free State Government was repudiating something to which they had agreed. They agreed to a perfectly voluntary arrangement, if the parties could agree. That was our case; and the right hon. Gentleman to-night has conceded it. (Interruption.] If hon. Members will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow they will find that the right hon. Gentleman has told the House that it is not obligatory, and was not accepted as obligatory, that differences between the Dominions must go to a Dominion tribunal. I am glad that that matter has been cleared out of the way. We are as conscious as the right hon. Gentleman that the British nation will have to find this money if the abitration goes against us. We are conscious also that if the Lausanne Conference is successful and the American Government does not forgive us what we owe them that the British taxpayer will have to pay a considerable sum each year which we get out of reparations. Rather than keep up the business of reparations we are forgoing them. Sometimes it is better not to collect, but to forgive. We do not want to impose new burdens on our people if we can find other means of securing justice and fair play between ourselves and the Irish Free State.
      8.30 p.m.
      We take up the attitude we do to-night because we believe that the policy of the Government will lead to harm more than to anything else. The right hon. Gentle- man continually takes the point that here is a fair tribunal and that because we say it somebody else who disagrees with us ought to accept it. In his long experience he has many a time fallen out with the personnel of a tribunal, and it is not good enough for him to say to us or to the Irish Free State: "Are you going to say that you cannot get half-a- dozen just men within the British Commonwealth of Nations?" That is not enough. Mr. de Valera may say: "Are there not one or two men in the world
      538
      outside the British Commonwealth that you can trust?" That sort of argument leads nowhere, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should use it. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Amendment. We are asking the House to take note of the fact that the money in dispute is not being used. When this matter has been discussed in the House and in Committee the assumption has been that the Irish Free State were getting away with this money, were acting dishonourably and doing something which put them outside the pale of ordinary civilised States. The right hon. Gentleman has told us tonight that he and his advisers apparently knew that under Irish Free State law this money must go into a suspense fund. If he had that information the other night I do not see why we should not have had it also.
      Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman must bear this difference in mind. The Land Annuities by Statute must go into a suspense account; but it was the other matters which were challenged for the first time to which I drew attention.
      Mr. LANSBURY: The point I want to make is that when we heard of this, and we only heard of it through the discussions with Mr. Norton, we thought that it was well to have it brought out and stated in this House. I have seen a statement in the Press to-day that the other moneys are being paid into a suspense account. The Irish Government are not taking it for granted that arbitration when it takes place will be in their favour. They are taking it for granted that they may have to pay the money, and in the dispatch of the 5th of April, sent to this Government by Mr. de Valera, he says quite clearly:
      "The Government of the Irish Free State is not aware of any such undertaking"—
      That is an undertaking to pay the money in —
      "but the British Government can rest assured that any just and lawful claims of Great Britain or of any creditor of the Irish Free State will be scrupulously honoured by its Government."
      The fact that this money was going into a suspense account—if the Press reports are correct other money that is being withheld is also being put into a suspense account—proves conclusively that the Irish Free State, instead of wanting to rob us of this money, is simply saying:

      539
      "We dissent from you as to our legal obligation to pay this money, and until that dispute is settled we are putting the money into a suspense fund." I do not think that anyone can for a minute grumble or complain, or charge the Free State with dishonesty. In any dispute between two firms who are going to court the money is put on one side till the judgment is delivered. It is no use any of us saying that because one Government in the Free State has said that this money should be saved, a new Government should not take the other view. I do not intend to argue the merits, but so far as I can judge the Free State case is that their own Parliament has not ratified the agreement that was made between the right hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the representative of the Irish Government.
      Mr. THOMAS: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised that, because it is the very point. But do let my right hon. Friend observe that it is not a new point. I put it specifically to Mr. de Valera myself and it was not challenged. This agreement that is in dispute, on the Land Annuities, was challenged in the Dail on two occasions, and then a general election took place, and Mr. Cosgrave was returned after having made his appeal.
      Mr. LANSBURY: I really must not give way any more, because the right hon. Gentleman has not met the point at all. He has admitted now, quite incidentally, not categorically, that the agreement made between the right hon. Member for Ripon and the representative of the Irish Free State was not ratified by the Irish Parliament either under Mr. Cosgrave or under the present Government. It is equally true, I believe, that it never came before this House. I call attention to these facts, because it is that kind of question that the Free State Government asks shall be arbitrated upon. It is no use our thinking that this is a dishonest dispute. I do not know who it was, but during the last Debate one hon. Member pointed out that ever since the Revolution was settled in Ireland by the treaty there has been more or less civil war in that country. Everyone knows that the party represented by Mr. de Valera has always challenged certain of the agreements that were made at that time, and have always said that if they came
      540
      to power they would challenge the right of those who made the agreements. We must try to put ourselves in their shoes, as it were.
      The Dominions Secretary is not tired of telling us again and again how he has striven in the industrial world for peace, and how often he has felt himself up against a brick wall. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have said behind his back, and that is that in my judgment the reason for any success he has had in negotiations has been the fact that he has been able to see the point of view of those with whom he was arguing. I am not stating anything unfairly when I say that the Tight hon. Gentleman in negotiating a railway settlement has always been able to see the position of the shareholders and the directors, and the whole case, as it were, with which he had to deal. I want him to do the same with the people of Ireland, at least that portion of the people of Ireland for whom Mr. de Valera speaks, and he speaks for a considerable number.
      Mr. de Valera comes to us and says: "These things are burdensome to us. These are matters to which we never agreed, and after 10 years' fight we are in power and we are going to have them settled." From the beginning he has not said a single word to indicate that he would not have arbitration. I want the Dominions Secretary and the House to remember that there are many men, relatives of those who are backing Mr. de Valera to-day, many hundreds of whom gave their lives in this business—[Interruption.] Many of them certainly did. The hon. Member opposite who smiles could not give anything to anybody. I cannot imagine anyone scorning those who give their lives for a cause, however mistaken they may be. These men sacrificed blood and treasure. I am trying to make this House understand that this business in connection with this money is only incidental, that there are many people in Ireland who for years have fought and struggled to get into the position in which they are now. I want the House to realise that, and to realise the background of all this business. Few of us will agree that bloodshed and that sort of thing are of any real ultimate service to mankind, yet you must take into account the fact that it is Ireland, and that these men and women have sacrificed what they believed was the very

      541
      best. This dispute is an honest dispute; it is not a mere question of money. It is a question of the Irish people believing that they have been unjustly dealt with, and now that they are in a majority they want to get the matter settled in a satisfactory way to themselves. If we were in their place and had the same feeling, there is not one of us who would not struggle for the same end. Englishmen, so far as I know anything about them, are good fighters.
      Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: And they keep their word.
      Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member has only just come in.
      Mr. BEAUMONT: I have been here during your speech.
      Mr. LANSBURY: Then the hon. Member must really be quiet for a minute or two. I want this dispute to be settled on lines of good will. You must first of all appreciate the other man's point of view. When you are given a guarantee of good faith you must stop all talk about dishonesty. We have to treat the Irish as equals. [Interruption.] Certainly. We have to treat them in exactly the same way as the Dominions Secretary would treat a board of directors. He treated them as people who were worthy to negotiate with. The representatives of the Irish Free State have a right to be treated in the same fashion as a board of directors or anyone representing those with whom the Dominions Secretary wanted to negotiate a wage agreement. I object altogether to this situation being treated as a. deadlock. If the right hon. Gentleman or whoever takes up the threads of this business when he leaves the country is going to treat the matter as having been brought to a finish, as one on which there is no more to be said, then I think we are in for a very bad time—this country as well as any other country. I mean Ireland or anywhere else in regard to which you put up a similar set of propositions.
      I repeat that the, right hon. Gentleman ought to consider how long it has taken the nations of Europe to deal with what is, of course, a much more difficult position. I often think of the Prime Minister and of the other Foreign Secretaries who have wrestled with the problem of reparations and debts. I think of the months and the years which they have
      542
      given to the problem when Germany has broken her pledged word—when she has not kept her pledged word because she could not do so. Time after time it has looked as if the whole business would break down. Even within the last fortnight, day after day, the consideration of that problem has gone on, and apparently the Prime Minister has said, "I am not going to let go. I am going to keep on whatever the difficulties are." He has made no threats. He has not talked of dishonesty though Germany is defaulting, though she is breaking her pledged word and doing everything that people say the Free State is going to do. Yet the leading statesmen of Europe are wrestling with the problem and trying to find a settlement. It may be said that the two cases are not on all fours, but they are exactly on all fours. The Germans signed certain documents. It may be said that they signed those documents under duress. Mr. de Valera says that the documents in this case were signed under duress, or that they did not understand them, and he says, "Let us have them inquired into. Let us have an arbitration upon them."
      That is exactly on all fours with the other case in regard to which the statesmen of Europe are endeavouring to find a way out. We ought not to deny the same sort of treatment to the Irish people. This is not a question of the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. de Valera. It is a question of our people here and the people of Ireland and if the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else thinks that you can penalise the Irish people by these taxes and collect something from them to which they say you have no night, I say that you will not do it in that way. You will pay as much as they will pay. In the end you will beggar one another, no doubt. The miners will lose another coal customer; the people who feed store cattle will be hit, and the people who have to sell or to buy Guinness's beer will be penalised also. So it will be right through the whole business. Our view of that is that it is not worth while.
      There is much more to be said on this subject but in conclusion I may recall that I have listened to Debates here on the Irish question for the last 40 years. I heard all the big speeches on it from 1880 and even earlier down to the present time. Believe me, the same vein

      543
      has run through them all—the suggestion that, in some way the Irish people are different from other people, that they will be provocative, that they will have their own way and so forth. Nature makes us all different from each other but somehow or other we have to live together. We have all to be in this world together. Does anyone think that the method proposed in this Bill will bring peace? Does anybody here believe that you are going to win out by this method? I do not believe that there are two people in the country who believe that the right hon. Gentleman will succeed. Years ago, a great Irish orator, Shiel, standing in the old House of Commons called attention to the fact that on the field of Waterloo, Irishmen, Scotsmen and Englishmen fell together—
      Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And Welshmen.
      Mr. LANSBURY: And Welshmen. I have a memory and the right hon. Gentleman opposite I am sure has it too, of two men in this House—one, a grandson of Mr. Gladstone, and the other Willie Redmond, who was one of the choicest souls that was ever on this earth. Those two were sacrificed on the fields of Flanders with thousands of others—Irishmen who were Home Rulers and Irishmen who were Protestants and against Home Rule, Englishmen who were for it, and Englishmen who were against it. They all fought, as they thought, for freedom. Now, years after the War, the sort of thing which Willie Redmond imagined he was helping to obliterate and blot out for ever by joining up, is springing up again. It is a most terrible thing I think for this House to visualise and it is no use saying that it is Mr. de Valera's fault. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] It is no use saying who did it. There it is; there is the problem, there is the difficulty that has to be solved. In this House, whether we are Irishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen or Englishmen it makes no difference in our relation one with another. We tolerate each other and we enjoy each other's company. We know that the Irish race as well as every other race in the world has given its contribution to art and science and all that goes to the building up of human society. Yet this House to-night is going to pass a piece of penal legislation which can only engender hatred and bitterness. If I
      544
      thought any appeal was any good I would make it, but I feel it is almost useless. Yet on the simple narrow issue of who shall arbitrate and who the chairman shall be, I challenge whoever is going to reply to say, if South Africa and Canada had a dispute, would anyone dare to stand at that Box and declare that, if they chose to go outside the Empire the British Government could prevent them?
      Mr. THOMAS: No.
      Mr. LANSBURY: Then, right away, that knocks the bottom out of all of this argument about breaking up the Empire by going outside it. If South Africa has the right, if Canada has the right, so has Great Britain and so has Ireland. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, finally, that when history comes to record what is being done to-night it will be said that a strong and powerful nation, with good will on its lips, embarked on the enterprise of trying to coerce and crush a weaker nation into submission.
      Mr. THOMAS: For the purpose of correcting only, because it is very important not to allow any misunderstanding, I answered in the affirmative to my right hon. Friend's question if South Africa or Canada claimed that they wanted to go outside the Empire—
      Mr. LANSBURY: No, you are so impatient. What I said was that if there was a dispute between Canada and South Africa, and they chose to go outside the Empire for a tribunal to arbitrate it, neither you, Mr. Secretary of State for the Dominions, nor the Prime Minister, nor this House has any power to prevent them; and, therefore, that smashes the idea that there is any moral or obligatory right to keep it within the Empire.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It would be a very unfortunate thing if the parties in this country were to array themselves along the lines of the parties in Ireland. I do not think we are ever going to find any solution of our difficulties if the sort of party lines are going to be re-echoed here that find themselves in Ireland. To-night we have listened to almost legal quibbles, and the House of Commons never likes legal quibbles, especially when they are indulged in by people who are not lawyers. I should like to get a little further than that on this

      545
      question. I am half English and hat Irish, and I suppose there are almost millions in this country who have the same feelings as I have on this subject and who love each country as mush as the other.
      When the Treaty took place we all hoped that all those disputes between this country and Ireland were over and that in future politics in Ireland, although perhaps just as violent, were going to be questions of internal policy and of that alone. We handed over to gentlemen in Ireland the Government of Ireland, and I confess that we did not think much of them at the time. They were revolutionaries and gunmen, but, from the point of view of their country, nobody did better than they did for 12 years. Nobody at that time thought that such devotion and such building-up of the country would take place. But people get tired of the best of Governments. I do not think the Treasury Bench there, in spite of all the wonderful Things which they do, will not one day become unpopular; and so it was with Mr. Cosgrave's Government, not because Mr. de Valera put forward to the country anything attractive. His two points were the Oath and the Land Annuities, two trivial points.
      9.0 p.m.
      I am quite a typical Irishman, in that I am hopelessly illogical. I am quite prepared to give my miserable life for the country if they want it, but I loathe taking off my hat to the colours of a regiment as they walk down the street. It is a funny idea, but I hate doing it. I take my hat off because other people dislike my not doing it, but it annoys me. I know people in this House of Commons who loathe taking off their hats to the Cenotaph. I do not mind doing that. I do not know why, but it is the funniest sort of psychological peculiarity, and all this talk that we have had in former De-hates on the Oath leaves me quite cold. People can be as loyal as anyone, and yet not want to take the Oath. But please notice the trap that Mr. de Valera has set. Mr. de Valera is a true revolutionary, a man with no sense of humour, but how he must laugh at the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who falls into his trap every time. He has two points, both of which are anti-English, and, if he is ever to get into power again, he roust stir up all the anti-English feel-
      546
      ing in his own party. And who is helping him to do that but the right hon. Gentleman, with all his pompous speeches and all this making into a big issue of what is not a very big point? He is stirring up all those old animosities which we hoped had died down for ever. I cannot really go back to Ireland and face those people who are trying to do their best for Ireland, to create wealth, and breed cattle, and make trade, when those very people, the friends not only of this country but of their own country, are hit by a Bill like this. What is going to be the reaction on them? Are they going to blame Mr. de Valera, or are they going to blame the English? The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us which way that is going to swing. We may, by this legislation, just be pushing the people of Ireland into the de Valera camp. We know how divided the country is to-day, and the issue at the next election in Ireland may he a whole Republic or nothing. It all depends on the votes of 100,000 people which way that result will swing. If it swings towards a Republic, the right hon. Gentleman is more responsible than anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Well, I refuse to go to Ireland and tell them that I voted for a penal piece of legislation against those who are trying to create wealth in Ireland, who are trying to keep the peace and trying to trade with this country. I will not vote against the Government, but I really cannot support them in this matter.
      Mr. HEALY: I should like to recall the House to the point. This dispute has arisen out of the Treaty, and the Treaty was registered at Geneva. When Mr. de Valera, therefore, asks for an impartial arbitration, he is on perfectly good constitutional ground. This is a dispute between two nations. That they are two nations in the British Commonwealth does not matter. Mr. de Valera's point with regard to the acceptance of a neutral tribunal is dictated by his experience of the action of another tribunal set up under the Treaty, known as the Boundary Commission. The words in regard to the Boundary Commission were as specific as they could possibly be. It was said that the wishes of the inhabitants should be consulted. The wishes of the inhabitants were not consulted, but the chairman of the Boundary Commission, who was a dis-

      547
      tinguished colonial judge, took it upon himself to say that he was not obliged to interpret that as the wishes of the inhabitants, and he said he interpreted it as being the wishes of the Boundary Commission, which in reality meant his own wishes. Mr. de Valera has a memory of that time, and the Irish people ought to be very chary of accepting any colonial tribune.
      The Dominions Secretary, in introducing the Money Resolution on Monday, spoke of the liberality of this country in the matter of Irish land purchase. Let me sketch in brief a little of the background of that liberality. The landlords who owned the land in Ireland, from whom the Land Acts sought to transfer it to peasant proprietors, were the descendants of people who went to that country as followers of Cromwell or in Elizabethan expeditions. They were soldiers who, in default of receiving pensions or remuneration from the Exchequer in this country, received the land of the people. In the usual way pensions terminate with the life of the holder, but the pensions of these crusaders went on for ever—at all events, they would have gone on for ever if the people had not risen and endeavoured to regain the land from which their forefathers had been dispossessed. What really occurred, therefore, was that when the Government saw that the issue between the peasants of Ireland and their faithful garrison in the country was going to result in a victory for the peasantry, they hurriedly introduced legislation.
      The effect of that legislation, as the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said, was to transfer from the landed proprietors to the peasantry the land of the country. From the Irish point of view that was no gesture of generosity. It was a question of necessity. The Election last year in Ireland was fought on two issues—the question of the Oath, which the Irish people regard as a purely domestic question; and the question of the Land Annuities, which they hold they are not legally bound to pay. The Treaty of 1921 assumed that Ireland would be responsible for a share of the public debt, but there was to be a set-off against it. The words in Article 5 are:
      "Having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off and counter claim."
      548
      That counter claim arose in this way. The Childer's Commission of 1896, which was a British Royal Commission, unanimously held, after taking evidence over a long period, that Ireland had been overtaxed to the extent of £2,000,000. The Irish negotiators therefore had that point in mind when Article 5 was put into the Treaty. The Dominions Secretary has pointed out two matters only, namely, the letters of agreement of 1923 and 1926. I would point out that neither of the agreements on which he is basing his claim were made by Ministers who had the approval of either the Parliament in Dublin or the Parliament here, and they remained unratified. The main issue and the main agreement is the one of 1925, which really repealed the agreement of 1923 on which Great Britain is now relying. The agreement of 1925 said that it was an agreement drawn up by Ministers on both sides, and that:
      "The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligations under Article 5 of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability mentioned therein."
      In other words, Ireland was absolved from paying any sums towards the National Debt. Therefore, the Irish people logically held that they were not bound to pay the Land Annuities, because up to 1924 they formed part of the National Debt. The Treasury was responsible for the flotation of the loan; the Consolidated Fund was responsible for the loss; and the stockholders looked, not to the peasant proprietors, or to the Land Commission, but to the English Government for recoupment. I should like, in passing, to refer a little more to the agreement of 1925. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in his correspondence with Dublin has deliberately omitted all reference to it. Why should he omit reference to something which has had the approval of the Dail and of this Parliament, and refer, on the other hand, to two agremeents, one of which is expressly repealed by the ratified agreement of 1925, and the other of which is not even signed on behalf of the respective Governments? Article 5 of the Treaty presupposed that Ireland had a claim still on this country, because it must not be assumed that this country was bankrupt at the time of the Treaty, nor was she bankrupt in 1925. All that Ireland got under the Treaty were debts and liabilities. She received no assets. Nay more, the Post Office

      549
      buildings and the Government buildings in Dublin were actually charged against the Free State. On the other hand, the Free State had no right to any of the buildings in this country and to none of the assets of the British Empire in which she had been a partner and to which she had been a contributor over such a long period of years.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: They had the British barracks in Southern Ireland.
      Mr. HEALY: They certainly were a liability and not an asset. If you think they are an asset, you can have them still. It may be contended, of course, that the Land Annuities stock forms part of the National Debt of Ireland, but inasmuch as it consists of guaranteed stock, which was brought into the accounts from time to time, I think there can be no doubt that from the stockholders' point of view, and from the Irish point of view, the land stock did and does form part of the National Debt of this country. If there be any hon. Members who have any doubt about that, I would refer them to the evidence taken by the Primrose Committee in 1912. The Controller of the National Debt was asked there by the Chairman why there was so little difference and what was the explanation of it. The Controller said:
      "The explanation is that the Land Stock is a stock which has been watered, as we say. If you keep on increasing the supply the price is hound to go down, and if the supply exceeds the demand, whereas with Consols there is no addition to these."
      Then the Chairman said:
      "I do not quite see why it should be." and the reply was:
      "It is guaranteed by the British Government. It is as good as Consols as regards security."
      There is no question, therefore, that the Land Stock formed part of the National Debt when the Treaty was drawn up. There is no question, either, that the Agreement of 1925 absolved the Free State from contributing anything to the National Debt. Therefore, the Land Annuities, being part of the National Debt, they went with everything else.
      Let me point out the relative position of Ireland under the 1920 Act and the position under the Treaty. Under the 1920 Act Northern Ireland was obliged to contribute £7,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer and the Irish Free State about
      550
      £9,000,000. Northern Ireland has not contributed anything of the kind. Her contributions have been insignificant in comparison with the amount mentioned. I cannot better illustrate it than by giving the figures which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to an hon. Member in this House last week. The contributions to Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 1928–1929–1930–1931 and 1932—five years—amounted to £6,291,013, but the contributions from Northern Ireland, which were an Imperial contribution, amounted in the aggregate to only £4,000,000 odd.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Will my hon. Friend finish reading the answer which I gave?
      Mr. HEALY: Yes, I will. It will be observed that the contributions from Northern Ireland are less by £2,000,000 than the sums Northern Ireland received from the British Exchequer.
      Major ELLIOT: Will my hon. Friend also add that Northern Ireland paid £300,000 a year in addition to those sums?
      Mr. HEALY: The last part of his reply was:
      "Northern Ireland makes payments, by way of deduction from the Northern Ireland share of reserved taxes, for certain services other than the costs of the current administration of the reserved services, namely, for the Judicial Civil and Royal Irish Constabulary pensions, repayments to the Local Loans Fund and Excess and Bonus land stocks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1932; col. 1483, Vol, 267.]
      The Irish Free State have been making contributions under those heads, too, for the same period, and therefore the argument the right hon. Gentleman seeks to point does not apply. The Free State has made contributions toward the Royal Irish Constabulary Pension Fund, to the Local Loans Fund and borne other charges. That the Government here regarded the Land Annuities as part of the National Debt is shown by tin 1920 Act, which says in Section 26 Sub-section (2):
      "In each year a sum equal to the amount payable in that year in respect of purchase annuities shall be paid into the Irish Land Purchase Fund."
      That is in order to recoup the stockholders for the amount of £600,000 which Northern Ireland is retaining. It is a part of the annuities under the 1920 Act.

      551
      Therefore, this curious anomaly arises. Ireland was supposed to have got off scot free from an Imperial contribution by the agreement of 1925 and the Treaty, but she has been sending over to this Exchequer £5,000,000, while Northern Ireland, which was supposed to bear an Imperial contribution of £7,000,000, has actually been receiving in the last five years a net amount of £2,000,000. That is an illogical position. Therefore, the Irish people do not believe, I do not believe and the Free State Government, which has had the best legal advice possible, do not believe that they can legally be called upon to pay this sum. Therefore, why should not the matter be referred to arbitration? Five counsel, some of whom are not in political agreement with Mr. de Valera, have given a reasoned opinion in which they say they do not believe that the Irish Free State is liable to send those Land Annuities here.
      Can it be said that you are going to make war upon a peasant people, a little nation, with which you have so many connections, and so much trade for a small sum of £3,000,000 a year, while there are thousands of millions owing by some of the greatest countries in the world as to which not a single word is said about repayment? It looks to me as if the old, bitter prejudice against Ireland is easily awakened, particularly on the benches behind the present Government. Are you going to let loose the dogs of war on Ireland? That is a question I put to you seriously. You may not trust de Valera, but there is a certain chivalry amongst the Irish people, and if they see this Government deliberately attempting to crush Mr. de Valera when he is standing up for the national rights it may have the effect of rallying behind him all the youth and every man of generous impulse in the whole country. I think, sometimes, that this Government was as much responsible for the failure of Mr. Cosgrave as any other circumstance. They were continually saying what a very skilful negotiator he was while he was making these bargains about annuities and other matters for which there was no legal justification.
      You are asking the Irish Free State to send one-fifth of their whole revenue to you without legal justification, because the agreements upon which these claims
      552
      are made have never been submitted to the Parliament in Dublin nor has one of them ever been submitted to this House. From 1923–32 the agreement on which the Dominions Secretary is now relying lay in the archives of his office and in the pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Finance in Dublin until we were able to bring it to light. I see no reason why that should have been done unless there was something to conceal and something that the Irish people would have resented. Why did not they publish this document like every other document? I went to the Library here when the discussion began and tried to obtain a copy of this document, but I could not secure it. Most unusually, it had never even been printed and did not form a part of the records of this House. There must have been some reason for that, and the real reason for its concealment was that the Treasury officials knew they had driven a good bargain with the negotiator from Dublin. They were unwilling to put him in jeopardy by allowing the Irish people to know what had been done. Therefore, it was the Treasury officials as much as anybody who put Mr. de Valera in the position which he now occupies. The Government praised Mr. Cosgrave for doing such things as I have indicated.
      The repercussion of this matter will probably be far wider than you imagine. You are anxious to secure the good will of America. As a matter of fact, I think you are anxious to secure some remission of your own debt and that is considerably more than £3,000,000. Do you think it is likely to help you to go about and stir up a dispute with the Irish people, not only in Ireland but in other countries? We have been told in a recent communication from America what the repercussions are going to be there. Do not you think you are throwing away a salmon to catch a sprat? I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the one thing necessary in a matter of this kind is good will. There is a tremendous volume of trade between this country and Ireland, and it is not merely a coal trade but a trade which permeates every part of the national life. There is a vast sum coming from Ireland to insurance offices in this country. Any feeling that they are being victimised and that it is a national matter will produce such a revulsion of feeling in Ireland that one does not know at the

      553
      moment where exactly it will end. It may be that the Irish people will suffer. I do not see why they should. It may be that the people in this country will suffer, but I think it is likely, at all events, to have such a world repercussion that you should hesitate seriously before you embark on a policy so unwise.
      9.30 p.m.
      Sir PERCY HARRIS: I do not speak on this matter without a sense of responsibility, for when we deal with our domestic questions the effect is only on our own country where our problems are understood and therefore not liable to misinterpretation. Whenever the Irish question has been dealt with by this House the effect has been far wider than the relations between this country and Ireland. The Liberal party has always been intimately associated with the principle of self-government for Ireland and has always insisted on the policy of trust in the Irish people. For 20 years between 1885 and 1905, the Liberals made it the principal plank in their platform. Mr. Gladstone made it the primary purpose of his career to try and solve the Irish question. We are justified in that attitude by our experience in other parts of the Empire. The experiment in Canada which was very much doubted at the time because it gave self-government to the French-Canadians with their different history, different language and different religion, was one of the principal justifications of our case for fighting the cause of Ireland. If any vindication for our policy is wanted, there is the lead in Empire policy given by that great Canadian Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
      The last thing I want to do is to go back to ancient history. We have something very much nearer home—the great experiment in South Africa. It was a great gesture, and there was a good deal of criticism of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at that time, for handing over responsible self-government to South Africa after the long and bitter struggle which had taken place. Then we had the wonderful sight, which astonished the world, of General Botha, followed by General Smuts, our recent enemies in the battlefield, heading the Government in South Africa and becoming part of our integral system of Empire. There is even a more marvellous example, that of General Hertzog who was then not con-
      554
      verted to the principle of remaining part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Our people were very nervous when he became head of the South African Government. The experience of to-day in Ireland is very much that of South Africa. Difficulties arose, and there was nervousness between South Africa and this country when Hertzog, whose attitude in the War was not to our liking, became the head of the State, but by conciliation, good will and tact on the part of the negotiators, we now find south Africa as much part of the Commonwealth of Nations as Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
      When the great experiment in Ireland took place in 1922 our people viewed with the fear and trepidation what would happen. The prophets of ill saw dangers ahead. Then after a cruel civil war we saw the country under President Cosgrave becoming a State, showing that the Irish people could govern themselves, tints justifying the principle which the Liberals had preached for so many years. [Interruption.] Yes, for 10 years. Economically, socially and politically, progress was remarkable in that period, and goodwill between this country and Ireland was growing year by year. But there has always been some evil genius that has caused friction between the two countries.
      The economic blizzard which has caused misery right throughout the world, has not only affected us and every European country, but has reached Ireland, and distress has been pressing upon the agricultural community. In every democratic country, people need an alternative government. In Ireland there was only one alternative government to that of President Cosgrave, and that was the opposition led by Mr. de Valera. Let us be realists in the matter. To understand is to forgive. To realise a situation, is to find a cure. Mr. de Valera—it is dangerous to make comparisons—has been the General Hertzog of Irish politics. He has been the no-compromiser. He has been the last to surrender and the last to accept the new state of affairs. It was a great triumph for the experiment that Mr. de Valera did give up his revolutionary attitude, and that he took up his position in the new Parliament, adopting constitutional action and constitutional opposition. What has happened is the result of that. His alternative Government has assumed power,

      555
      after a bitter election, when pledges were made. We have had some experience of election pledges, of policies made to the electors in our own country, by long experience and during a long experiment in self-government, centuries old. It is not surprising that Mr. de Valera committed himself to policies which every thoughtful person saw at the time were bound to lead to friction between the two countries.
      Now I will refer to the question of collecting the revenue of the land bonds. I represent a working-class constituency typical of many working-class districts in the country. It is terribly over-taxed. The burdens of taxation and distress are enormous. I put it to every hon. Member, am I justified in relieving Ireland of its liability'? I once represented an agricultural constituency. There the rent problem and the agricultural question were very real and live. My constituents had not had the chance, by means of land bonds, of buying their own holdings. Are we justified—and it is a very simple question to ask—however good the cause of Ireland is, and however anxious we are to get the good will of Ireland, in asking our own over-taxed people to carry the whole of this burden, without our making some reasonable attempt to put the burden where it rightly should lie I might put another question. This country is suffering from a terrible burden of debt. I do not think that any fair-minded person would question that Ireland made a very good bargain in getting out of her share of the National Debt. You may say that, owing to the fact that she did not have her share—or she had her share but she did not accept our Parliamentary system—she was not liable, but still, it is a great thing for a country, starting on a new basis to find itself free from any National Debt, except a liability for which she has immense assets in the ownership by her peasants of their own land.
      I take the line that we have to look after the interests of our own people. I do not think that can be doubted by any reasonable man. On the other hand, I do not like the proposals in this Bill. This is from an English point of view. I recognise the point made so well by the Dominions Secretary, that we who object to this system ought to put forward alternatives. We do not know exactly what the proposals are. They are
      556
      left in the sky, and in the clouds. A few years ago such a state of affairs would have been impossible, but we have learned methods of doing things by means of Treasury Orders. I suggest that if the Government feel that they have a strong case to collect this money, and they cannot do it by arbitration in the right way, they should place their cards on the table, take the House of Commons and the people of England into their confidence, and say exactly what they propose to do and what food they propose to tax, so that the nation that has to find the money, through the House of Commons, should know upon what policy we have embarked. That is not an unreasonable proposal. We have made some progress in that direction, in that if the taxes are imposed they are now to be subject to the approval of the House of Commons within 28 Parliamentary days. We are going into the Recess. I think that before we part with this Bill the Government ought to make clear what they are going to tax, and how they are going to raise the money.
      It is disputed as to whether these taxes will be paid by the exporter or whether, as old-fashioned people like myself believe, they will, in the long run, be paid by the importer. When you analyse, as has been done in recent Debates in this House, the imports from Ireland, it is found that they are practically all either foodstuffs or livestock. There is £16,000,000 worth of livestock imported from Ireland every year. That gives an immense amount of labour in this country. I happened to represent a part of Leicestershire for two or three years in the House of Commons. The farmers of Leicestershire earned their living by fattening Irish stock and by buying store cattle. The same is the case in South Scotland. Livestock is going to be subject to taxation, and that not only means injury to our own farmers but must be reflected in an increase in the price of fresh meat. I know that it is arguable, but I suggest that it is not a, very sound argument, that there are other sources of supply. That is open to question. While we import £16,000,000 worth of livestock from Ireland, we import only £500,000 worth from Canada. Canada is a long way off. The cost of carrying cattle from Canada to Great Britain must be heavy, and the cattle deteriorate in the course of carriage.

      557
      I suggest that, before we pass this Bill, it would be fairer to this country, to Ireland, and to everyone concerned, that the exact form of taxation proposed should be told us—whether it is to be a high tax or a low tax, whether there is to be a general tariff on all articles imported, whether it is going to include livestock, or what particular commodities are to be covered. I would remind the House, also, that, while we import these important commodities from Ireland, and while Ireland is very vulnerable to taxation from this country on her goods, we are equally vulnerable from Ireland. In 1930 we bought from Ireland goods to the amount of some £42,000,000, and we sent to Ireland £44,000,000 worth. It is true that, owing to their tariff policy, there has been a fall in our trade with Ireland, but, undoubtedly, if we engage in a tariff war as a result of these duties, we are open to as much damage as Ireland is. One hundred per cent. is a long sword with which to fight a fellow-member of what I would like to regard as the family of nations making up the Commonwealth of the British Empire. I still think it would be wiser for us to make quite clear what we propose to do, so that Ireland may know exactly where she is.
      The dispute now is narrowed to comparatively small limits. As I understand it, the tribunal recommended by the Imperial Conference has been accepted, save for one small but very important exception, namely, the limitation of its membership to the British Empire. Mr. de Valera objects, to use his own words, to its being solely formed of citizens of the British Empire. I suggest, that, if t he Irish people realise what the British Commonwealth consists of, they must see that they are more likely to get justice and a sound decision from a tribunal drawn from the Empire, because it seems to be forgotten that the Irish themselves played a big part in building up this Empire. Whether you go to Canada, to Australia., to New Zealand or to South Africa, hundreds of thousands of Irishmen, recognising still their Irish origin and history, are to be found, taking their part in the institutions of those countries—in Parliament, the Government, the Civil Service, the police, and every branch of industry and trade. Surely, therefore, someone could be found, say in South Africa or Canada, who have recently had to deal with the
      558
      same problems and to face the same issues, who could be accepted and trusted both by this country and by Ireland.
      Mr. SOMERVELL: I, like, I think, everyone who has spoken in this Debate, regret the circumstances which have forced the Government to take the action which they have taken. I still hope that the powers which they are asking the House to confer upon them may lead to this dispute being settled in an amicable way on the conditions laid down, rightly it my opinion, by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Those conditions are wholly reasonable, and it is always difficult to convince oneself that wholly reasonable conditions will not he accepted. I regret, also, that the conciliatory and straightforward manner in which, in my opinion, the Government have handled this matter, is not going to receive, as I understand, the unanimous support of all parties in this House, and I have some difficulty in following the connection between the general principles which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite lay down and the conclusions and the actions which, apparently, they base on those principles. The Amendment which they have on the Paper says that it is based on a realisation
      "that the free association of nations within the British Commonwealth depends upon the maintenance of good will;"
      and one naturally asks oneself what are the necessary conditions in a matter of this kind upon which good will can be maintained. One essential condition of the maintenance of good will between nations freely associated is that, in disputes and in matters of common interest and difference, there is one method and one method only—that of discussion, negotiation, and co-operation. It would be out of order, I understand, to make more than a passing reference to the attitude of the present Irish Government on the question of the Oath, but I think that that passing reference is relevant. because, in considering the action which this House is being asked to take to-night, I think it is right that we should bear in mind the attitude which the Irish Government have taken up on both of these questions during the last few months. I suggest to the House and to the Members of the Opposition that when, over the

      559
      question of the Oath, Mr. de Valera said at the outset:
      "There is no obligation on us to consult Great Britain with respect to the action that we are taking,"
      he was putting forward a proposition which is quite inconsistent with the maintenance of good will between nations freely associated.
      I come, rather more expressly, to the question of the Annuities. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State for the Dominions would welcome a compliment on his legal attainments or his legal opinions but reference has been made by several speakers to the two conflicting and complicated opinions which have been written in Ireland on this matter of the Annuities, and I venture to suggest that the Dominion Secretary's first Note contained a shorter, better, and more relevant opinion on the legal aspects of this matter than is contained in the other more complicated opinions which considered it from a different aspect. He said:
      "The Irish Free State Government are bound by the most formal and explicit undertaking to continue to pay the Land Annuities to the National Debt Commissioners."
      I believe that that is the beginning and the end of the legal question involved. But let me assume for a moment that I am wrong about that, and that there are questions which lawyers can properly debate, and on which Mr. de Valera believes he can base a case on arguable legal issues. What in fact has be done? We know that these Annuities have been paid for 10 years by the Irish Government. If they believed that they were under an obligation to pay, that, I should have thought, at any rate raises a presumption that there is an obligation to pay. The present Irish Government, in advance of any settlement and in advance of any decision that these Annuities are not payable to the National Debt Commissioners, have retained them, and in that way they have, as I understand it, forced the Government of this country to find, out of the revenues of this country, money which for 10 years past has been found by the transfer of these Annuities. There has been much talk above the Gangway about precipitancy. That talk had better be addressed to those who, in advance of any settlement or any arbitral
      560
      decision, have retained money which has been paid over for 10 years under what both parties regarded as an agreement and a settlement of the matter. I was a little surprised to read this passage in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S Cripps):
      "The suggestion that we make is that some form of arbitration must precede that decision by the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1932; col. 115, Vol. 268.]
      It might be said with even greater force to Mr. de Valera, that some form of arbitration should precede a disturbance of the status quo.
      10.0 p.m.
      May I say a word or two as to Mr. de Valera's reply on the question of arbitration. Members of the Opposition have been at some pains in this and the previous Debates to demonstrate that, in Mr. de Valera's own language, the recommendations set out at the Imperial Conference of 1930 were permissive and not mandatory. Be it so for the purposes of the argument. It seems to me to have really very little relevance. What the House has to consider is the reason that the Irish Government give for not adopting those recommendations. I think it is not unfair to say that that objection can only mean that they are asking the Government to accede to this proposition, that in the whole Commonwealth there is not one just man who can be found to whom a dispute of this kind can be entrusted. It is not in the least a question of two Dominions finding a suitable person to arbitrate on some particular dispute. Nor is it in the least a, question of our suggesting that there are none suitable in the rest of the world. It is a fundamental matter that one cannot remain in the Commonwealth and at the same time take up an attitude which, it seems to me, is saying that there is no one in the Commonwealth fit to be appointed arbitrator or umpire in a dispute of this kind. The Opposition have made their attitude clear. In taking the line that they are going to take they will not be forwarding the principle that conciliation, negotiation and co-operation are the necessary basis not only as between independent nations but even more so between component parts of the Empire. They will, no doubt, follow that action to the end, but I believe the action that the Government are taking, and the

      561
      powers that they are asking the House to give them, will receive the overwhelming support not only of this House but of the country.
      Mr. MAXTON: I wish to make it plain that I and my friends, while supporting the reasoned Amendment of the official Opposition, will vote for the complete rejection of the Bill as a mark of our complete antagonism to the policy which the Government have adopted on this issue from the commencement. I think Mr. de Valera and the Irish people, if they have fully thought out their way of life for their nation in the future, are perfectly entitled to take the step which they are taking and I presume, having regard to Mr. de Valera's political record, that he knows perfectly well what he is doing and is prepared to deal with any difficulty that may arise. I pay him that tribute. There are two statements that have been made by the Dominions Secretary in these discussions. He has repeated again and again that he has shown no resentment at various things that have happened. I cannot see that he has done anything else but show resentment. From the very first day there was a hoity-toitiness, an offended dignity, an attempt to enlarge the issue into one of the greatest magnitude, and a spirit which seemed to me entirely out of proportion to the importance of the issue involved, and certainly out of keeping with the allegation that Ireland is a part of the. British Empire, and that we desire it to be part of the British Empire.
      The other point that I wish to refer to is his reiteration that he has gone to the absolute limit of compromise. From the beginning I took upon myself the responsibility of questioning him on this issue and pressing for a Debate on the subject. He has said to-night precisely the same things as he said to the very earliest question I put him. [Interruption.] I will sit down to permit any hon. Member standing up and telling me what the Dominions Secretary has offered to-night that is different in any respect from what he said at the very beginning.
      Mr. JANNER: I think the hon. Member will recollect that a big advance was made in the statement that we were prepared at this stage to offer arbitration irrespective of the conditions laid down, entirely apart from the one question of the arbitrators being citizens of the
      562
      Commonwealth. It was agreed at the Imperial Conference that there were to be two arbitrators on each side. That apparently is to be foregone, and certainly in the opinion of everyone an advance of a very substantial nature was made.
      Mr. MAXTON: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his perspicacity, but what the right hon. Gentleman from the very earliest point was prepared to offer was a Dominions arbitration, and to-night what he is prepared to offer to Ireland is a Dominions tribunal. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with that?"] I will tell the hon. Member in a minute what is wrong with it. The point with which I am dealing is that the Dominions Secretary has said to-night that he has gone to the very limit of concession. The point I am making is that his statement to-night shows absolutely not one scrap of concession or compromise as compared with the first statement he made in the House. The hon. Member across the way tries to make me believe that he is very free and easy about the personnel, and would go a long way to meet Ireland's demands. That is not my contention, because at the beginning that issue was never raised. What the Dominions Secretary said at the beginning was an Empire tribunal. What he says to-night is an Empire tribunal. The good Conservatives in the House whose view the right hon. Gentleman is speaking are satisfied that that is the case. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Liberals, too!"] Other Liberals who may not be quite as good are very anxious to try to get something which seems to indicate a Liberal and not a Conservative attitude on this particular question. [Interruption.]
      The first point is that the right hon. Gentleman and the House have shown resentment of this issue from the start, a touchiness, and—if I may use the word—a pettiness which seem to stand out in very bad colour as compared with the utterances which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have been making on the Continent. Very large statements are being made, and very large views are being taken. All the talk is of friendship, good feeling, the wiping out of the sores and the debts of the past. Next week they go to Ottawa, and again the big sweep, the large scope, the world way of looking at things; but here,

      563
      narrowness, pettiness, and anything but friendly feelings. My second point is that no compromise of any description has been made. No concession has been made. In fact, the popularity of the policy of the Dominions Secretary with the large majority of the Government's supporters lies in the fact of no compromise. It is the strong man's policy. I regret for the first time that it is the right hon. Gentleman who is Dominions Secretary, because I think that if a Conservative held that office he would not have felt it necessary to be so strong. The right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to be strong since he does not, or did not, share the political philosophy of the majority who sit behind him. I think that a Conservative Minister could quite safely have made compromises and concessions on this issue without having been regarded by the majority over there as being weak.
      The right hon. Gentleman up to now has a reputation for being a strong man, and is to-night earning the cheers of what I regard as the most reactionary political view in this House. He has used, and others have used, parallels from trade union and Labour party experience. He has again and again repeated the question, "Are there not three honest men in the Empire who can be trusted to deal with the situation"? Let me put to him a domestic problem which I am sure he will appreciate. There is a very big difference between him and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting across the Gangway, just as there is a very big difference between the people above the Gangway and myself. Would he agree that the rightness or wrongness of his conduct on Labour matters in recent months, and of my conduct in recent months, should be submitted to a tribunal appointed by the Trades Union Congress or the British Labour party? Neither he nor I would say for one minute that the British Labour party cannot find three honest men, though I admit that it is more difficult since he and I have gone out of it.
      Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman having answered for me, there is no need to reply.
      Mr. MAXTON: Admitted that there are three honest men to be found in the British Labour party, would he submit to
      564
      a tribunal chosen by them a consideration of his conduct from the Labour point of view during the last six months? If he would, I certainly would not dream of submitting my conduct as a Labour representative to a tribunal appointed by the party above the Gangway, or to any tribunal. I should be much more ready to submit it to a tribunal of men of political experience coming from different places, from different parties and from different countries than those who, though perfectly honest, have a particular interest in the matter. And that is the case of Mr. de Valera against submitting this matter to an Empire tribunal. No Empire tribunal is capable, because of its organic connection with the British Empire and with Ireland, of standing completely apart and taking a completely detached view, because every one is well aware that a dispute which may be Ireland's or Britain's dispute to-day may be some other Dominion's dispute tomorrow. It is a case of considering things not on the immediate merits of the case but on precedents and things which have been established. I think that if the British Government wanted to do two things to make peace with Ireland and to raise the whole principle of arbitration as a method of settling disputes between nation and nation, they would not make a petty quibble about having a purely Empire tribunal. They would say, "Yes, we are confident of the rightness of our case." Because that is the case of the Government. They are confident that their case is absolutely watertight in every respect. They would say: "We are so confident in the rightness of our case that we will submit it to any tribunal in the world, and fear nothing." But the right hon. Gentleman and his Conservative supporters are afraid to do that, because they are afraid that such a tribunal would have the dice loaded against them. I have never yet heard any reason put forward in favour of an Empire tribunal as against a world tribunal, except the one that we will not have it.
      I have nearly broken my word, but not quite, and I will sit down without having said all that I might say on this subject. I hope to say something more on the further stages of the Bill. This Bill gives the Minister tremendous power. It gives him power to determine when he is going to impose the duties—this month, next

      565
      month or not at all. I understand that no date is fixed. No way is fixed as to how he must operate. In the previous Debate we raised the question of the effect that this Bill would have upon people in our own land and upon certain industries in which I and my colleagues have special interest in our own part of the country, which we believe will be injuriously affected. Will the Minister who replies for the Government say how it is proposed to operate the duty, at least to the extent of saying what care they are going to take to see that the weapon that is to be used against Ireland shall be merely a revenue collector and not an injurious weapon against various citizens within our own borders. What machinery do they propose to set up for seeing that the tariff does precisely what it is 'required to do under this Measure, and does not do something else that would be objected to by very large sections in this House? I sit down saying that I propose to support the Amendment that has been moved from above the Gangway and also to move the rejection of the Bill.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Much play has been made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in regard to the further concessions that have been made by the Dominions Secretary to-night. I have been rather concerned as to the length that those concessions have gone. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced to such an extent in meeting Mr. de Valera that he is willing to have a tribunal appointed from within the Empire, and from any part of it. Does that mean that the whole of the members of the tribunal would be appointed from the Irish Free State? That seems to me the obvious conclusion, and it is one that I hope will be cleared up before the Debate closes.
      Mr. THOMAS: I will clear it up at once, because a large number of hon. Members are now present who were not in the House when I made the statement. The Imperial Conference made a recommendation of a certain form of tribunal which I had indicated previously to Mr. de Valera as being acceptable to us, but in the despatch sent to-day to Mr. de Valera I have raised that point on behalf of the Government and have agreed to another form of tribunal, with one reservation and that is that the personnel must be limited to the British Empire.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is exactly what I adduced from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the whole composition of the tribunal might come from the Irish Free State. That is a, point which the House should note. When I met Mr. de Valera last, some 10 years ago, there was a certain amount of ill feeling between us. It was a personal matter with me, because two of his minions had tried to shoot me. They failed; but they took my car. Mr. de Valera gave me back the car, showing, I suppose, that he is an honest man, but not for some little time, and afterwards I understood the reason; that there were some rather pressing murders which had to be carried out and he kept my car until they were completed. While my attitude towards him was one of some hostility then, I must confess that it is now one of commiseration because of the protagonists who have selected themselves to represent him and his opinions in this House.
      We have the two hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench. We have the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who tries to weave a web of casuistry in order to cover up a case which he knows to be indefensible. Then there is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) who must have lost something of his abilities during the few months we have been deprived of his presence, because he utterly failed to convince anyone in the House that Mr. de Valera has any case at all. Then there is the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who, most unusual for him, has submitted a mass of inaccuracies, showing a complete ignorance of the subject. For instance, he said that for 10 years Mr. de Valera, has pursued a constitutional democratic method of advocating his policy. What actually happened? Mr. de Valera has carried out his constitutional policy, as it is alleged to be by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, by a policy of murder. Mr. Kevin O'Higgins was murdered after Mr. de Valera started his constitutional policy. I should never accept the hon. Member for Bridgeton as the spokesman of a constitutional policy if that is his idea of a constitutional policy.
      All the speeches which have been made by those who have selected themselves

      567
      as the representatives of Mr. de Valera and his policy in this House have been made for one purpose only, and that is to cloak the obvious intentions of Mr. de Valera, who hopes by bringing in the foreign element into the arbitration to emphasise the gulf which he proposes to fix between this country and Southern Ireland, and thereby to pave the way for a Republic. I have tried on four occasions to intervene in these Irish Debates. I suppose it is my misfortune to represent a Scottish constituency, but I have some little knowledge of the country in which I was born, Ireland, north and south.
      Mr. MAXTON: Surely, that is an inaccuracy.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I claim to have a unique knowledge of the country. I have studied the country at first hand and watched the political developments which have taken place during the last few years. I happened to be there when the Sinn Fein Society was started as a cultural poetical society, but which was later on seized upon by Jim Larkin, the syndicalist, who acquired it for the purpose of furthering his political aims. I went with Sir John Maxwell to Ireland when the Rebellion broke out, and I was stationed there in 1921 when the evacuation took place. Therefore, I have had an opportunity of studying the position at first hand, and I thought that during these discussions it might be possible for me to offer some little contribution which might help in the solution of this very difficult problem.
      The chief difficulty, as I believe the House will agree, in settling the Irish problem, has always been that Englishmen were in charge of the job. That has been the trouble. There is a singular lack of imagination about Englishmen, a singular lack of understanding, a singular lack of sympathy with that peculiar temperament that especially the Southern Irishman possesses. It is very odd that the people who came nearest to solving the Irish problem were Welshmen. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) might have done it but for the fact that he had so much time to spend on conferences abroad and was so frightened of American opinion. He had the guts, but he cer-
      568
      tainly had not the time or the inclination in the end to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary, I must say, has shown every indication of doing well. He has made mistakes, which I propose to point out to him. But at the same time I think that while those mistakes might have led us into almost an impossible trouble, he has been checked in time either by has colleagues or by his own good sense, and for the moment I think he is on safe and steady ground.
      As I have often tried to point out, if you take on a fight with an Irishman you have to beat him first before making friends. That you can take as an axiom. You must not make friends first; beat him first and then give him the hand of welcome, and he will be the first man to appreciate it. If you make friends first he looks upon it as weakness and cowardice and will treat you exactly as you deserve to be treated. That is one thing always to he borne in mind. Unfortunately when England took on this fight with Ireland in 1922 she forgot that. But equally fortunately she had men of strength and courage and bigness like Collins, like Griffith, like Cosgrave, men who were above taking advantage of our asinine stupidity and played the game, and so for 10 years she got away with it, in spite of the fact that Cosgrave was being daily attacked because of his English loyalties. The result of that was the trouble in 1921 and the trouble that we are faced with again in 1932.
      In spite of the many lessons that England has got, she is still behaving exactly the same, without any thought of prudence and dignity, without any thought of loyalty to Cosgrave, who stood by his word and bond so faithfully with us for 11 difficult years. You have got this man, the present head of the Irish Free State, who played the traitor to his own colleagues in 1920–21, you have that man who has been temporarily elevated by a disgruntled community, and you immediately have, hot foot, hat in hand, two British Secretaries of State sent to wait on his doorstep. That was no loyalty to Cosgrave or to the dignity of our country. What has it achieved? In my opinion it has achieved nothing.
      We have to remember that, of course, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said the other day, there is no question ever of this country

      569
      going to war. Some of my Socialist friends here have talked about making war. No such idea has ever entered into the heads of either Ireland or this country. We know that perfectly well. But I do see that there is something behind the Government's point of view and in what is guiding my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in their action on the matter. They see that just as their policy of over-conciliation in India gained them the sympathy and the support and the confidence of the world, and thereby enabled them to go back to the firm government which they should never have departed from, so they may act in this case. They say, "We will treat Mr. de Valera as we treated Gandhi." It is obvious that they gave 10.30 p.m. Gandhi rope to hang himself and he hanged himself. "Now," they say, "give de Valera an equally long rope and let him find a scaffold for himself." I believe that it may be a very wise and a very successful policy. Certainly, if the Government are arguing from that point of view, they deserve every credit for thinking out such a long-sighted policy. One has to remember that the traditional movement in Irish politics has always been "agin' the Government" and the traditional enemy has always been Great Britain. If hon. Members have those fundamentals, they can follow what has happened since. Mr. de Valera has always been clever enough to stress the association of Mr. Cosgrave with Britain, and he has gained tremendous success in that way. He alienated many thousands of supporters from Mr. Cosgrave when it came to the election, by stressing that point. But that attitude was dying, was passing away—that association or linking up of Mr. Cosgrave with Great Britain—and people were beginning to see that Mr. Cosgrave was standing on his own feet—
      Mr. THOMAS: I intervene merely because someone who is speaking as an Irishman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The hon. and gallant Member says that be has a connection with Ireland and I must, on behalf of the Government, protest against his assumption that Mr. Cosgrave is in any way connected with the Government's policy. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will realise that this is a serious Debate. The British Government's case is based upon
      570
      their conception of what their duty is, and I want to make it plain to him, if he has any sense of responsibility in associating Mr. Cosgrave with this matter, that he at least ought to have the decency to keep Mr. Cosgrave's name out of it.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I protest against what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I never for one minute insinuated that Mr. Cosgrave had any connection with. British policy or the British Government. I did say that Mr. de Valera had alienated a number of Mr. Cosgrave's supporters by suggesting to the people of Ireland that Mr. Cosgrave was allied to our policy. That was a very deep-laid scheme of Mr. de Valera's to win the election last year. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest that I was making an accusation which would be the last thing in the world that I would endeavour to convey or wish to convey. I hesitate now to go on with what I was about to say, lest the right hon. Gentleman might take it as a personal matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are not obeying his orders!"] I, for one, am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the attitude which he has taken during the last few months. I think it would have been better to have kept aloof entirely from the position in Ireland. I think the attitude of the Government strengthened Mr. de Valera's hand at that time by restoring him to a position in the country which otherwise he was quickly losing. He gained a certain position at the election and the Eucharistic Congress rather added to that position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep that out of it!"] I am not going to say anything about it. I merely say that it happened and that it rather added to Mr. de Valera's position. When the British Government recognised Mr. de Valera by sending two Secretaries of State to see him and by taking so much notice of his attitude, everyone must have known what the result must have been immediately, especially in Ireland. It immediately diverts in his favour people who will get behind a man in those circumstances if they think that he is being attacked. I would have preferred that the Government had left the matter alone, confident that they always had a

      571
      weapon in their hands, namely, the economic weapon.
      I would like to ask my right hon. Friend, who thinks it is his duty to get back the amount of money which the Free State are failing to pay us, to remember that there are 400,000 Southern Irish loyalists who may be hurt by this policy, and Ulster also may be hurt. I would, therefore, ask him to carry out his promise, made the other day, that he would cease the duties once the necessary amount of money had been collected. It is a point that matters very much to our friends in Southern Ireland, in Ulster, and here. Anything which increases the cost of living to the people of any country must be of great concern to that country, and we have all those faithful friends of ours in Southern Ireland whom we would not like to harm, and, above all, we have our old and most loyal friend, Ulster. I am an Ulsterman, and I think the Government are adopting the right and the only policy, to which they have been driven by the conduct of a man who, had he considered the real good of his country, would never have embarked on such a course. He has forced the Government to take action, which they have sorely regretted to take, but whatever action may be taken in the future, I hope they will remember the loyalty that Ulster has shown to this country, which is above price, and I hope they will repay that loyalty with something equally fine. I am sorry if I hurt my right hon. Friend's feelings. There was no intention to do so on my part.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I think the House must have wondered why the hon. and gallant Gentleman who.has just sat down rose and made that pantomime speech. I was trying to visualise what the purpose of it was. He commenced with a character sketch of his life and gallantry and went on with character sketches of other people. I was greatly struck by the tragic incident which he described in the earlier part of his speech, when he told us how he was seized by Mr. de Valera, that he was held as a hostage, that there was a tribunal called together to know what was to be done with him, and that Mr. de Valera was considerably worried as to whether he would murder the hon. and gallant Gentleman or seize his motor car. Mr. de Valera, as we can gather
      572
      from this controversy, being not only an idealist Irish patriot but a very practical man, came to the conclusion that he would keep the motor car and give the hon. and gallant Gentleman as an asset to the Parliamentary representation of this country. That, I think, was an exceedingly happy arrangement, by which the forces of revolution were strengthened by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's motor car and the forces of intellectual power and development got free play in the Imperial Parliament.
      He also told us, or he tried to tell us, where he was born. He did not make it quite clear whether he was born in the North or in the South, but I take it without any further attestation that he was born somewhere. He is an Irishman, born either in the South or in the North, who represents a Scottish constituency and who is here as a spokesman for Ulster. Has the House of Commons ever seen such a demonstration of personal capacity as that manifested by the speech and the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? I should have thought that, as an Irishman, he might have ceased to make these gross attacks upon his own country. His performance to-day is not new to me. I have listened to him in all the Debates on Ireland, I have watched his performances on the platform, and I have followed his itineries in this business. He has never had a good word to say about his own country—
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is not true.
      Mr. DEVLIN: —and I am not surprised that he has come here to-night to take up the attitude that he has done. He should have confined himself to the issue involved in this matter and have saved the House of Commons from that demonstration which made an Irish poet once declare:
      "Unprized are her sons until they 'have learned to betray."
      I have risen for the purpose of making a short contribution to this Debate. I think that we may take it for granted that the whole of this question has now been reduced to a matter of arbitration. We have discussed the merits and demerits of it. I believe that Southern Ireland is not entitled to pay. I understand that in 1925 there was an arrange-

      573
      ment between the Free State and the British Government that the Free State should bear no financial burden in connection with the National Debt, that the Land Annuities were a portion of the National Debt, and that therefore Southern Ireland was not entitled to pay a single farthing of these annuities. It has been declared on that side of the House, for the most extraordinary reason that I ever heard in my life, that because Southern Ireland over a series of years has made this contribution—Northern Ireland does not pay a single farthing in Land Annuities—they must continue to pay it. The Dominions Secretary has been congratulated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the great legal acumen which he has shown in this matter. It is rather strange that, although we have had a declaration of the most eminent lawyers in Ireland that Ireland is not entitled to pay these annuities, and that it does not owe them to the British Exchequer, we have not had quoted to us the view of any legal authority in this country that Ireland is entitled to pay.
      The Attorney-General is sitting there. He is no silent member of the Ministry. He made the finest speech I have ever heard on the Prayer Book, and I heard him distinguish himself on the opening of picture-houses on Sunday. It will not create any mental or physical revolution in the country whether the Prayer Book is right or wrong. The opening of picture-houses in this country may be a very interesting, but it is not a very vital matter. The Empire does not depend on it. But the Empire depends on this £3,000,000 of annuities. I want to know if the Attorney-General was consulted as to whether England is entitled to receive a farthing of these annuities. No, he is silent. The spokesman of the Prayer Book, the protagonist of the closing of cinema houses in England on Sundays, is silent upon the one matter which is ringing throughout England, from the Press, the platform, and in Parliament, namely, the payment of these annuities. We have not had a single expression of legal view from him throughout these Debates. Therefore I say that, forming my own judgment, and from my exploration of this whole situation, I have come to the conclusion that Southern Ireland is not bound to pay a single farthing of these annuities. But suppose that the
      574
      Attorney-General says we are entitled to pay. He has not said it yet, though I have tried three times to draw an opinion from him. I would pay a portion of the annuities as a, fee for his opinion, if lie gave it. We have not got his opinion of it yet, and therefore we have no legal opinion on the British side that the Free State are legally responsible to pay these annuities to the Imperial Exchequer. But since the overwhelming legal opinion in Ireland is that Ireland should not pay, then I say that for myself, and apart from Mr. de Valera, my opinion is that Ireland ought not to pay.
      Mr. HOWARD: Why have you not said so during the last 10 years that you have been here?
      Mr. DEVLIN: While the hon. Gentleman was engaged as an agent of the Anti-Socialist League I was engaged in the humble pursuit of minding my own business at home.
      Mr. HOWARD: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman denies it, but I have always understood that he has been a Member of this House for at least the last 10 years.
      Mr. DEVLIN: No. The hon. Gentleman was so busy with his anti-Socialist propaganda that. he had no time to watch my performances in other pursuits. I have told the House what is my opinion, but we come now to the question of whether, even if the legal opinion that has been expressed is against these annuities—[Interruption.] Would the Liberal party keep quiet? I have a great feeling of commiseration for the Liberal party, when I listen to these Debates and remember that the Liberal leader was once a man who not only fought Ireland's cause but consecrated the closing years of a great and noble life to doing justice to Ireland, and then hear the speeches from those Gentlemen there, with their half-dozen leaders, against Ireland, and I come to the conclusion that it is indeed a humiliation that the Liberal party have come down from the leadership of Gladstone to the leadership of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot).
      I say that, even if there has been a strong consensus of opinion on the one side that Southern Ireland ought to pay the annuities and a strong consensus of opinion on the other side that she should

      575
      not, I am not satisfied with the tribunal which has been suggested by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and I will tell him why. Once bitten, twice shy, and, if that is true in ordinary life, it is profoundly true in Ireland, because I remember, when the partition of Ireland was about to take place and when it was decided to set up a Commission in Ireland to determine how Ireland was to be divided, there was one of the most cruel national crimes ever committed by one country against another. We owe a great deal of the present position of Irish affairs to the partition of Ireland. You divided the country, and that has roused passions and hatred among all parties, and left sullen and angry even the moderate elements in the country. When you proceeded to discharge that task, how was it discharged? You appointed your Imperialist to be your Commissioner to represent you. He got his instructions from the Treaty that the division of territory was to be determined by the aspirations and voice of the people. We asked him to take a plebiscite, but he refused. We asked him to lay down some rules by which the partition of these territories should be determined, and he refused. Although the Treaty stated that this division ought to be determined by the popular will, as expressed in some form of plebiscite, two vast areas of Nationalist Ulster were put into Northern Ireland. He took two counties with an overwhelming majority in favour of being put in the Free State and put them into Northern Ireland.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: They were there already.
      Mr. DEVLIN: They were there already, and the biggest crime ever committed was to take them away from where they belonged. What are the facts? You divide the country, but do not divide it honestly.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's argument may be used as an illustration but it must not be carried too far.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I merely mentioned it. I was so moved by the memories of it that I wanted to give the House my experience of it. I wanted to tell and enlighten Members of the House, because, although I differ from the majority
      576
      of hon. Members, I must pay a tribute, as an old Member, not only to the intellectual powers I have seen manifested in the House, but of the desire on all sides, as far as I can see, to approach questions of this character with an impartial consideration and a lack of prejudice. I am not a revolutionist or a supporter of Mr. de Valera. I have always been a constitutionalist; that is why I am alone in this House. You destroyed the constitutional movement and killed the constitutional party, and you refuse to listen to the constitutional voice. This is what you have got for it. All I have to say is, if I were giving Mr. de Valera advice—and I am the last person he would go to—I would not trust your Commission any more than he does, because, as I have said, the treatment accorded to us by your Commission in regard to the boundaries was such an outrage on every sense on justice and fairplay and popular feeling that no man ever again would trust a Commission of that sort.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: The attitude of the hon. Member appears to be that if a tribunal decides against Ireland it must be corrupt and unjust.
      Mr. DEVLIN: That is not my point of view. My point of view is that if there is a tribunal, and if I am a consenting party to it, I want it to be a tribunal in which we can place confidence and the result of which will be just to both sides. It was not just, and nobody can defend it, in the case of the boundary. [Interruption.] If it is to be defended, it must be by some greater genius than the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply. I do not want to go into the merits of this question at all. [Interruption.] I do not want to go into the general question. I know perfectly well what I am talking about. I can prove by facts and figures that Southern Ireland is no more entitled to pay these annuities to the British Exchequer than is Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland retains the annuities for herself, and she is quite right. I am an Ulster representative. The only thing in common between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and myself being a northern Irishman and he being a Scotsman, is that we do not believe in payment. I am quite convinced that Northern Ireland is quite right to retain these annuities. Southern Ireland

      577
      has an equal right to retain the annuities, upon the sole ground that, according to the 1925 arrangement, those annuities are to be part of the National Debt, and Ireland was relieved from any responsibility for payments into the National Debt.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) has talked about Ulster and the loyalty of Ulster. Let me tell him this. This is loyal Ulster. When it was decided that she was to have a Parliament and a Constitution of her own, it was agreed that she should pay £7,000,000 as a contribution to the British Exchequer. She is paying nothing at all. She is getting contributions from the British Exchequer, although millions have been paid by Southern Ireland in the Free State, to the British Exchequer. So the less we talk about that sort of loyalty the better. It is not the sort of loyalty that would appeal to my hon. Friend from Scotland on the other side. The less said about Northern Ireland the better.
      I come to another point as to what was said about the Liberals. I noticed that it was a curious thing that the first Vote given in this House in favour of food taxes was given by the Liberal party. I do not know who was the leader in that campaign but I know that Sir John Simon and Sir Herbert Samuel —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Well, I forget what they represent. The first Vote that was given by those gentlemen in regard to food taxes was in order that they might carry on reprisals against Ireland. That is a rather strange position for the Liberal party to take up. Throughout all these controversies they have shown far greater bitterness and far greater anti-Irish feeling than any of the Conservative party. I notice a certain feeling of responsibility on the part of Conservative Members, and a manifestation of a rather sane spirit of hope that there may be some means out of this difficulty. You may put your taxes upon Irish food and raise your £3,500,000, and then Mr. de Valera will call his Dail together, and he will put on taxes against you. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has done it already!"] He will put on fresh taxes—[Interruption.]
      11.0 p.m.
      If there is going to be a war of this character, neither nation will benefit.
      578
      The only result of it will be that it will make the essential commodities of people, the food-stuffs of the people of England, dearer for the English working classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You are going to put on a stomach tax that you may grapple in the fiscal sphere in Ireland. A more insolent piece of political folly I have never heard of. You are holding conferences throughout Europe to consider what is to be done with countless millions of money. Debts are to be forgiven, reparations are to disappear, the finances of the world are to be readjusted. Here, in the midst of all this, when your most important Ministers and representatives are attending European conferences, this mighty Imperial Parliament is discussing here how best we can wage war upon a pacific nation of agriculturists. [Interruption.] I do not say that that is what you intend, but I say flat that is what it really means. If I were satisfied that you would be satisfied that this was a desirable thing from any point of view, I would see some justification for it.
      I have given some warnings in my time in this House. If some of them had been heeded, things might have been different. We advised you to settle the Irish question 40 years ago. If you had done so, the world would have been saved from misery and some of the chaos that exists to-day. We advised you to listen to Mr. John Redmond, who made the noblest speech ever delivered in this House in a most fateful moment of Imperial emergency. I stood by his side and helped to gather recruits to your Army in the time of your Imperial difficulty, until, without conscription, more recruits came from my constituency than from any other place in these Islands. We advised you then to meet John Redmond and to treat with him as a constitutional leader. You discarded his policy and you broke his heart; you destroyed his party; and you then started to settle with other men. The language you have used towards Mr. de Valera, you used about Cosgrave and Arthur Griffith and all the rest. It is the same old story, The hon. Member said one thing that is true. He said, "You Englishmen do not understand Ireland," and that is true. But, worse than not understanding, you have never listened to those who would be your best friends and who have given you advice. I beg of

      579
      you to think, not once, but twice, before you start this war upon this little cousin people, who, no doubt, are not very strong and prosperous. Perhaps you think you can beat them; I do not know; but it will not add to the glory of your Empire, your strength in the world, your capacity for appealing for more considerate and generous treatment from America and other nations, if you pursue this policy.
      It would be a noble act to say, "Let this £3,500,000 go"—[Interruption.] It would be a noble act, and it would be the least expensive thing you ever did. Because it would be a noble act, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will do what I suggested to-day, that is to say, withdraw this Bill and try to come by some other method to some agreement, or at all events, to agree to the proposition in favour of arbitration which has been made, by allowing someone to be selected as has been suggested by Mr. de Valera. If you have a good case, what need you be afraid of? People who are in the right need not be afraid of tribunals. [Interruption.] It is only a question of personnel according to the right hon. Gentleman. For myself, if you want my opinion, I would trust the honour and the sense of impartiality of men within the Empire as soon as I would trust outsiders, but you have to remember previous performances and experiences, and that is why they are suspicious in Ireland to-day. I trust that the Dominions Secretary, having gone so far—I admit that he has gone very far—will, in the spirit that has moved him in past difficult negotiations, try to come to an understanding that will bring about a friendlier feeling and a better understanding between the two peoples.
      Mr. ATTLEE: I want to recall the two main points that are before the House. There is, first of all, the point as to how best we can come to a settlement of the matter, and, second, the question, which has been almost entirely neglected in the Debate, is whether what the Government are doing is necessary and whether it is good or bad. I want to recall to the Dominions Secretary part of a phrase that is a very favourite one with him. I am sure he will not resent it. It is the word "humbug." I thought the way he opened the Debate was the biggest
      580
      humbug I had ever heard. He told the House that the really vital thing in this was that the Government must balance their Budget and-get this £5,000,000, and he asked us what was our alternative way of getting it. That comes from a Member of the Government which has a Budget in which they deliberately made no provision whatever for meeting their own debts to the United States. They have left it entirely open, and their representatives are at this moment bargaining on the Continent with other nations on the assumption that they are going to be let off their debts, and will not have to bring that amount in. The right hon. Gentleman said this was urgent, because, if they did not get this £5,000,000, the Budget would be unbalanced, as if Budgets had not been unbalanced before. Older Members will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had singular ill-fortune in balancing his Budget. He was more than £5,000,000 out. We are not sure yet whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will balance his Budget, because it depends on what happens with regard to the American debt. [Interruption.] I recommend the right hon. Gentleman not to holloa until he is out of the European wood.
      Major ELLIOT: If we are going to lose any more money let us stick to this.
      Mr. ATTLEE: This happens to be a point on which the Dominions Secretary laid himself open to criticism. I am sure the Financial Secretary would not have put forward a weak point like that. The Dominions Secretary challenged the Opposition to say how they would balance the Budget. That is not our business. We do not prescribe until we are called in. That is really not the main matter. Only about one speaker in the Debate has dealt seriously with what the Government are doing. He is an Irishman and gave us extraordinarily cold common sense. We get common sense very often from the Irishman as against the sentimental Englishman. He implored us not to break up the conditions of trade between this country and Ireland. Very little attention has been given to what is actually being done under the Bill, which is really opening up a tariff war. It is going to be a double-edged weapon which will hurt the people of this country as well. There

      581
      was a, dubious amount of support given by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who was temporarily leading on behalf of the Liberal party. He gave an interesting disquisition on Gladstonian Liberalism, and ended up by deciding to support this proposal. But he could not solve the problem as to how much of the amount of taxation would really come from the people of Ireland and how much would come from this country.
      Let me come to the root of the matter which is how to get the matter settled. I was surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell). He gave us a number of legal points, but he seemed to run away from the big point about arbitration. It is no good getting up and saying you have a wonderful arbitral court if the other people will not accept it. The whole point of arbitration is that you must have a court which is accepted by the two sides. Will the hon. and gallant Member also remember that the key note of the speech of his leader the Secretary of State for the Dominions was, "I am prepared to go all the way with the ex- ception of the one thing the other side want." Of course Mr. de Valera can play that game and say "I am prepared to arbitrate on this matter with the exception of one point." It is useless to talk about arbitration, and then to say "I have given away everything" when the whole point of arbitration is agreement.
      We have suggested a possibility in this matter. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons which have been given already by other speakers in the Debate, has played up too much to the need of beating the Imperial drum all the way. He has taken high lines, and the great Imperial Conference! Because a recommendation was made by the Imperial Conference he believes that anyone who differs from it is going against the Conference and everything else. The right hon. Gentleman has put it forward as if it were a question on the one side of accepting the tribunal from the Empire, and, on the other side, a question of going to the League of Nations. That is not the point at issue. The point is whether members of the British Commonwealth of Nations should agree to leave it open as to what the personnel of the arbitral body should be. That is quite a narrow point, and it is a great mistake to try to elevate
      582
      it into something with which if you do not agree you are breaking up the Empire. It has been suggested that everyone who has spoken from this side has spoken for Mr. de Valera. We have not taken a side in this matter.
      Mr. HOWARD: The usual side—antiBritish.
      Mr. ATTLEE: I think the hon. Member had better wait until he has been a Member of this House for a longer period before he interrupts in that way. Everyone who has spoken from the Labour Benches has explicitly said that we are not passing judgment on the merits of the case. We have not said that Mr. de Valera is bound to pay, or that he is not bound to pay. We have dealt entirely with the question of the tribunal. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member doubts it he can look at the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has spoken and I have spoken. If the hon. Member can show me anything in which we have passed judgment on the merits of the case, I will confess my fault. We have taken the ground that this is a justiciable dispute and that it should be brought to arbitration. Here are two people, the Dominions Secretary and Mr. de Valera, each with a point of view which keeps them apart. One object of statesmanship is to get over these difficult points between Mr. de Valera and the National Government. A suggestion has been put forward for getting over the difficulty. The House should try to look at this matter in the light of the conditions of the world to-day. However persuaded you may be of the justice and rightness of your case, you have to remember that it will not be necessarily accepted by everyone throughout the world.
      It may be said that you are standing on the letter of your bond with Ireland, and that at the same time you are asking to be let off the letter of your bond somewhere else. You may think it worth while to set the whole of your creditor country, the United States, against you by the way you deal with a situation when your debtor is Ireland. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong for us to pay America, but that is a question which may come up in time. If the

      583
      right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the question of reparations he would not proclaim his absolute faith that one side was wholly right, and yet his Government are trying to persuade other nations not to stand on the letter of the band. They are trying to persuade France not to insist upon the full letter of her bond in relation to Germany. That kind of work has to be done in the atmosphere of give and take and conciliation, to try to get a practical solution which is in the best interests of the peace of the world. I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is perfectly right, but he knows that in a conference other people do not take the view which we take of ourselves. It may be that by running a quarrel of this description to the lengths
      the Government are doing that you may ruin the chance of settling far wider issues. We believe that the line taken by the Government is short sighted. It is not absolutely vital to get this money to balance the Budget, nor is this the only alternative, the only way. A. little more time and thought, a, little more consultation with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, would, we believe, lead to wiser counsels on both sides and would settle the matter, but if we are going to engage in this form of economic warfare it augurs ill for the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      The House divided: Ayes, 321; Noes, 41.

      Division No. 292.]

      AYES

      [11.22 p.m

      Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Ford, Sir Patrick.J.

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Albery, Irving James

      Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W)

      Fraser, Captain Ian

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

      Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

      Christie, James Archibald

      Ganzonl, Sir John

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

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

      Colfax, Major William Philip

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

      Collins, Sir Godfrey

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Glucksteln, Louis Halle

      Balley, Eric Alfred George

      Colville, John

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Balnlel, Lord

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Cooke, Douglas

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Copeland, Ida

      Greene, William P. C.

      Bateman, A. L.

      Courtauld, Major John Sewell

      Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Grimston, R. V.

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B, (Portsm'th,C.)

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Gritten, W. G. Howard

      Beit, Sir Alfred L.

      Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

      Bernays, Robert

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Sklpton)

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

      Bossom, A. C.

      Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

      Hanbury, Cecil

      Boulton, W. W.

      Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

      Curry, A. C.

      Hartland, George A.

      Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

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

      Braithwaite, Maj, A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

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

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Heilgers. Captain F. F. A.

      Briant, Frank

      Dickle, John P.

      Heneage. Lieut.Colonel Arthur P.

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

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

      Donner, P. W.

      Hornby. Frank

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Dower, Captain A. V. G.

      Horsbrugh, Florence

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

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Dunglass, Lord

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Edge, Sir William

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

      Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Burnett, John George

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Caine, G. R. Hall-

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Elmley, Viscount

      Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H

      Caporn, Arthur Cecil

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth. C.)

      Carver, Major William H.

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Erskine-Bolsi, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Janner, Barnett

      Castle Stewart, Earl

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Jennings, Roland

      Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, Citv)

      Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

      Jenson, Major Thomas E.

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

      Fermoy, Lord

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

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

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Munro, Patrick

      Slater, John

      Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

      Nall, Sir Joseph

      Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Normand, Wiltrid Guild

      Smith, B. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)

      Knebworth, Viscount

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Nunn, William

      Smithers, Waldron

      Latham. Sir Herbert Paul

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Somerset, Thomas

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Leckie, J. A.

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Levy, Thomas

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Liddall, Waiter S.

      Penny, Sir George

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Stones, James

      Llewellin, Major John J.

      Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Storey, Samuel

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n.Bilston)

      Stourton, Hon. John J.

      Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)

      Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Loder, Captain J. de Vere

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Lyons, Abraham Montagu

      Potter, John

      Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Ramsbotham,Herwald

      Templeton, William P.

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassctlaw)

      Rankin, Robert

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

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Thompson, Luke

      McKeag, William

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Thorp, Linton Theodore

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Maciay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

      McLean, Major Alan

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Romer, John R.

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Magnay, Thomas

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Wallace, Captain D. E.(Hornsey)

      Malialieu, Edward Lancelot

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)

      (Hornsey) Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Robinson, John Roland

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Manningham- Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Viledderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      White, Henry Graham

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Mills, Major.J. D. (New Forest)

      Salt, Edward W.

      Wise, Alfred R.

      Milne, Charles

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Womersley, Walter James

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

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

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Savory, Samuel Servington

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Selley, Harry R.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Blindell.

      NOES

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Healy, Cahir

      Maxton, James

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Milner, Major James

      Batey, Joseph

      Hirst, George Henry

      Parkinson, John Allen

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

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

      Price, Gabriel

      Buchanan, George

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Thorne, William James

      Cape, Thomas

      Kirkwood, David

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Daggar, George

      Leonard, William

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Edwards, Charles

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Mc Entee, Valentine L.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      McGovern, John

      Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

      EXTRADITION BILL [Lords].
      Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

      HIRE PURCHASE AND SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know what the Amendments are, and this is the first time that we have had Notice that these were going to be taken.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): These Amendments are of the most formal kind. They affect in no way any of the principles considered and accepted in this House, and they are purely drafting Amendments.
      Mr. MAXTON: At what part on the Order Paper does this appear?
      Mr. SPEAKER: This particular Order is not on the Order Paper, but it is quite an ordinary thing to take these matters that are not controversial without their being on the Order Paper.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: The Government should have given us some formal notice of it.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  MOTOR AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  TRAMWAYS (LOANS).
  TRAMWAYS (LOANS).
  TRAFFIC CENSUS.
  TRAFFIC CENSUS.
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
  ROYAL NAVY (SAIL TRAINING).
  ROYAL NAVY (SAIL TRAINING).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, SHREWSBURY.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, SHREWSBURY.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  ADMIRALTY (CLERICAL STAFF).
  ADMIRALTY (CLERICAL STAFF).
INDIA.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
  MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  NARCOTIC DRUGS MANUFACTURE (CONVENTION).
  NARCOTIC DRUGS MANUFACTURE (CONVENTION).
  EDUCATION (COST).
  EDUCATION (COST).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD GLADSTONE OF HAWARDEN.
Henry Neville Gladstone, Esquire, having been created Baron Gladstone of Hawarden of Hawarden in the County of Flint—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE.
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, K.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O., having been created Baron Hutchison of Montrose of Kirkcaldy in the County of Fife—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Brentford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (SHREWSBURY COR- PORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
KILMARNOCK GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 9 and 16) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, issued by the Secretary of State, to legalise certain marriages solemnized in a
588
Baptist chapel between May and August of last year. There had been a vacancy in the pastorate of the chapel at the time, and the deacons asked another Baptist minister to perform the ceremonies, in the mistaken belief that he was an authorised person within the meaning of the Act. He was not, in fact, an authorised person. There may therefore be some doubt as to the validity of these marriages, and it is in order to remove any doubt that this Order has been issued.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is another Provisional Order issued by the Secretary of State, and the object of the Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order which provides for the Fire Brigade Pension Fund for Newcastle-on-Tyne, under the local Act of 1892, being united with the Newcastle Police Fund. The fire brigade and the police are under similar conditions. The Police Act of 1893 provided that pensions, etc., payable to members of a fire brigade who are constables are to be paid out of police funds, and empowered the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order bringing the provisions of the local Act into harmony with the Act of 1893. Nothing was done at that time. In the Police Act of 1921 these sections were re-enacted, and the local authority have now applied for an Order bringing the local Act into harmony with the original Act. The Order set out in the Schedule of this Bill lays down the procedure which is required.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOPS MARKETING SCHEME, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR) moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Monday last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this hops marketing scheme was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture some time ago. It has been through all the necessary stages, as prescribed in the Act. It has been approved in another place, and it now comes before your Lordships for an affirmative Resolution. Two days ago the matter was considered by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, and although the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, is in the House to-day, and will doubtless want to make some comments on the Report of his Committee, I think it might be right if I referred to the Report of that Committee. First of all the Committee had to decide whether the scheme raised important questions of policy and of principle, and your Lordships will have seen that the verdict of the Committee was that it did raise important questions of policy and of principle, but that those questions of policy and of principle had been discussed at great length and decided upon by your Lordships' House during the debates and Divisions on the Agricultural Marketing Act. It therefore raises no new question of policy or principle on which your Lordships have not already pronounced. Secondly, the Committee had to consider whether the scheme was founded on precedent. The reply to that is that the scheme is not founded on precedent, because it is the first scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
Thirdly, they had to consider whether the scheme was intra vires, and the reply of the Committee to that is that there is at present an appeal to your Lordships' House from the Court of Appeal on this question, and they felt that it was an open point whether the scheme was intra vires or not. On that point—a most important point—a communication was sent to The Times and published this morning, and perhaps I might read the relevant paragraph to your Lordships. It is signed by the gentleman who is responsible for the appeal. It is as follows:
"The Act provides that when once a scheme is approved it is conclusive evidence that the scheme is within the provisions of
590
the Act. It therefore follows that if the scheme is now passed my constitutional right of appeal to the House of Lords will be defeated, and as a citizen I do not see why I should be deprived of that right."
That is obviously a most important point, and requires to be answered. I naturally at once took the advice of His Majesty's legal advisers, and perhaps, as this is rather a technical legal point, you will forgive me if I read this part of my speech. I will in doing so attempt to lay before your Lordships the exact position with regard to this matter.
Sir Walter Berry, in May, applied for a rule nisi for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries from proceeding further with this scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. The rule was heard in the Divisional Court before the Lord Chief Justice of England, Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Justice du Parcq on the 24th May, 1932, when the rule was discharged with costs against Sir Walter Berry. The decision of the Judges, I may say, was unanimous. Sir Walter Berry entered an appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court, which came before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, the 28th June last, before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Slesser and Romer. The case was argued on behalf of the Minister by the Attorney-General and, as a result, the appeal was dismissed with costs. Again, I may remark, the decision of the Judges was unanimous. On Saturday, the 2nd July, notice of appeal was served on the Solicitor to the Ministry, and that appeal will, in due course, come on for hearing before the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity.
Sir Walter Berry has written to The Times on the lines that I have already indicated. Sir Walter Berry fears that he will be deprived of his right of appeal to your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity if your Lordships, sitting in your legislative capacity, pass this Resolution. I am advised that this is not so; that the House of Lords in its legislative capacity has to make up its mind whether or not the scheme shall proceed, and that the House in its judicial capacity will apply its mind to the legal points raised by the rule nisi for the writ of prohibition, and that the fact that an affirmative Resolution has been passed by the House will not prevent the House of

591
Lords determining the points of law raised by Sir Walter Berry in the Courts of Appeal and First Instance. The position really is that Sir Walter Berry can proceed because his appeal is against the decision of a Court—in law, that is—and not against the scheme, and therefore any of the words in the Act in relation to opposition to the scheme do not apply to his appeal against any decision of the Court.
As I say, Sir Walter Berry can proceed with his appeal. What is the likelihood of his success when there have already been decisions of two Courts, with six Judges pronouncing unanimously on the subject, is not a matter for discussion at the moment. But in the event, likely or unlikely, of Sir Walter Berry obtaining a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal from your Lordships' House, then the position is that under paragraph 6 of Part II of the First Schedule of the Agricultural Marketing Act the Minister has power to revoke a scheme if he is of opinion that it is not in the public interest. And I think I can safely give an undertaking to-day that if your Lordships' House, sitting in its judicial capacity, does after all declare that the scheme is ultra vires, then naturally no Minister of the Crown would venture not to use his power of revocation.
So much for the position in regard to whether the scheme is, or is not, intra vires. The scheme has been considerably criticised on the grounds that it has been drawn up in great haste. That is perfectly true. The authors of the scheme who have submitted it to the Minister, the National Farmers' Union, would be perfectly prepared to admit that they have drawn up this scheme in haste. But I put it to your Lordships that the reason why it has been drawn up in haste is that the position in which the hop growers are placed at the moment is a most serious one, and it is vital not only to their prosperity, but also to the existence of many of them, that this scheme of organised and orderly marketing should be brought into force in time to deal with this year's crop. The scheme is wanted, and wanted badly, by the growers. It was submitted to us by the National Farmers' Union, a body which in principle until very lately was in every way opposed to the Agricultural Marketing Act, and yet they were convinced on the merits of the situa-
592
tion in the hop industry, and because of the pressure put upon them by their constituent members in the counties, that it was essential that they should proceed with the preparation of a scheme.
Moreover, supposing we are wrong in our assumption that those who have submitted the scheme are really representative of the hop growers in this country, there is still another stage through which this scheme has to go. There has still to be a poll of the hop growers, and not only has there to be a two-thirds majority of the producers based on the numbers of the producers, but there has also to be a two-thirds majority represented by the amount of produce that is put on the market. Therefore if your Lordships decide to pass this affirmative Resolution, when this scheme passes on to its next stage it still has to run the gauntlet of a poll of the hop producers themselves.
The scheme has been slightly altered since it originated, because under the Agricultural Marketing Act there has to be a public inquiry if objections are made. As there were objections laid, the Minister ordered an inquiry and appointed Mr. Konstam, K.C., to preside over that inquiry, and, as a result of certain suggestions that he has made, the Minister has exercised his power of making amendments in the scheme. Now, the amendments that he has made are really, I should have thought, in the direction of making the scheme more acceptable to those who have hitherto been opposed to it. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, objected particularly to the quota provisions of the scheme, which he felt would result in an undue and undesirable limitation of production. Those quota provisions have now been removed from the scheme, and the manner in which it will operate is this. If there is no surplus of hops then there is no question of any of the features which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has, I think, visualised arising. All the hops can be sold, and every grower will be paid according to what his hops are worth. The problem arises when there is a surplus of hops.
Whether or not there is going to be a surplus of hops this year it is very difficult to say. There are certain factors, such as the decreased consumption of beer, the possibilities either of a heavy or a low crop, which always have to be taken into consideration, but

593
if there is a surplus then what happens is this. All the hops are put into the central pool for sale, and are valued in that pool according to their worth. I am coming back to that point. Let us assume that there is a market for only 80 per cent. of the hops that have been produced and sent to the Board for sale. Nothing that can be done, whether marketing is organised or disorganised, is going to make it possible to force more hops on to the market than can be absorbed by that market, and the only question that we have to consider at the moment is whether that extra 20 per cent. surplus is to be attempted to be forced on the market and thereby destroy the price for the other 80 per cent.— which can perfectly well be sold —or whether there should be some attempt to hold up that 20 per cent. If that 20 per cent. is to be kept off the market the cost of keeping it off the market is to be borne by the growers. If there is only a market for 80 per cent. of the hops surely the fair thing is that 80 per cent. only should be sold for the best price possible, and that then all growers should be paid up to 80 per cent. of the value of the hops they have sent in.
I think so far one would agree, without knowing much about the subject, that that seems fair, but some of those who are in the industry, and some of those who think very much of the possibilities and the necessity of improving the standard of agricultural production in this country, are nervous about the scheme, because they fear that it will cause the producer of first-grade hops to help to carry the less efficient producer of bad-grade hops. They feel that if there was a completely free market the producer of the first-grade hops would probably be able to sell 100 per cent. of his product, while the producer of poor-grade hops would not be able to sell more than 60 per cent.; that but for this scheme the inefficient producer would be eliminated and that that would be the best thing for the industry. What people who feel in that way do not realise is that the extra 20 per cent. thrown on the market, whilst it may seem a burden on the efficient producer in so far as he has to lose a share of the price for his hops, may actually enable him to get more for 80 per cent. on an organised market than
594
he would get for 100 per cent. on a disorganised market.
Further, the scheme can be operated with perfect justice to the efficient producer of good-grade hops and the inefficient producer of bad-grade hops, because the hops will be valued in a pool according to their grade, and the bad-grade hops will be valued in the pool at a lower price to the producer of them than the price that the producer of good-grade hops will get for his hops. This is the fundamental part of the scheme. On page 6 of the scheme, paragraph 36, your Lordships will see that the Hops Marketing Board are given power to grade the hops. I venture to suggest to your Lordships, as indeed I suggest to the future Hop Marketing Board, although l know that they are perfectly well aware of it, that according to how they operate their grading regulations the scheme is going to stand or fall. If the scheme is so operated that not sufficient distinction is made between good-grade hops and bad-grade hops, then no sort of power that Parliament or anybody else gives to the Board will enable them to make a success of the scheme. On the other hand, we have full confidence in the Board; indeed, Lord Wolmer, speaking in another place the other night, gave a very clear undertaking on behalf of the Provisional Board, of which he is a member, that they are fully aware of this point, and that they are going to see to it that the scheme is operated with the greatest rigour.
Supposing we are not prepared to have sufficient faith in the Marketing Board to be rigid on a point such as this, what is the position? The position is that anyone who is interested in the production or marketing or sale of hops, whether he be a hop grower or a brewer, can complain to the Committee of Investigation, which is set up under Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act. That Committee of Investigation will have to investigate the complaint, and will report to the Minister, and the Minister will have power to compel the Board to operate the scheme as it should be operated, or, ultimately, if the scheme in his view is being operated against the public interest, he can, subject to certain Parliamentary controls, revoke it. This particular point is very vital to any consideration of this scheme. It is so vital to the scheme and its success that I hope

595
I have made that point clear to your Lordships.
I would appeal to all parties connected with this industry to give this scheme a chance. Farmers in all sections of the industry have been criticised for years because they would not get together and help themselves by organised marketing. This is the first scheme farmers have worked out and attempted to put into operation, and I think it is up to us to do everything in our power to help them to make a success of it. If we feel that there are some dangers in the scheme—and after all in most effective instruments there is some danger if they are mishandled—let us now point out those dangers, and make it perfectly clear that we are going to be on the look-out for any lapses in the working of the scheme to the detriment of the public interest. Let us at the moment do everything we can to give this scheme a good start. At the same time I would appeal to the hop growers to realise the tremendous responsibility that rests upon them with the very strong powers that have been given to them. Let them see to it that they use those powers to give the brewers what they need in respect of quality and quantity of hops. I appeal to the merchants and the brewers to respond by giving to this scheme their co-operation and good will.
Lastly, I would address one word to the noble Viscount (Viscount Astor) who is moving the rejection of this scheme. Let us admit, as I have already admitted, that there may be difficulties ahead of us—in any scheme evolved by the human mind there are, of course, difficulties—I would still appeal to the noble Viscount, having stated his fears and his difficulties, that he should not ask your Lordships to divide, in order that this scheme may go forward with the full backing of Parliament and in order that the hop growers, who have made this tremendous effort to get together on a co-operative basis, should feel that we are all standing behind them in this first attempt at a co-operative marketing scheme.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Monday last, be approved.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as this is one of the rare occasions
596
on which a debate ensues after a Report by the Special Orders Committee, I feel that I should tell your Lordships what the Report of the Special Orders Committee implies. My noble friend has dealt with one or two points, but there are others that he did not put. The business of the Special Orders Committee is regulated by Section 212 of the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. The first duty which they have to perform is contained in paragraph (5) of that Standing Order. That is to say, they have to report as to "whether the provisions raise important questions of policy or principle." As my noble friend said and as is stated in the Report, they do contain important questions of policy and principle, but they were fully discussed in the debates on the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. The next question that they have to answer is "how far the Special Order is founded on precedent." It is not founded on precedent; as the noble Earl has said, this is the first Order of its kind. The next point is:
"whether, having regard to the answers to the two preceding questions and to any other relevant circumstances, the Order can be passed by the House without special attention or whether there ought to be any further inquiry before the House proceeds to a decision upon the resolution, and, if so, what form that inquiry should take, and shall report to the House accordingly."
The Special Orders Committee decided that it was necessary to call your Lordships' attention to the scheme specially but did not consider it necessary to make any further inquiry before your Lordships proceeded to a decision. That does not mean that your Lordships' House may not take further action but only refers to the action of the Special Orders Committee.
On the last question, the question of vires, I have nothing to add to what my noble friend said. The obligation is contained in paragraph (7) of the Standing Order, which is as follows:
"…. where the Committee have any doubt whether the Order is intra vires they report to the House accordingly."
The Committee reported that the matter one which was the subject of appeal to your Lordships' House and that there was no further necessity to call the attention of your Lordships' House to the matter. I raise this point to explain the duties of the Special Orders Committee and what the Report means which it has presented.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, we propose to throw the immense weight of our vast numbers in support of this scheme. We support it because we believe it to be a sound, honest, workable scheme. It is an attempt to rationalise production and to co-ordinate the marketing of hops. The hop growers have undoubtedly suffered immense difficulties during the last fifteen years. During the War hop control was applied. It was a reasonable scheme but its action was vitiated by the failure of the then Government to co-ordinate our policy, with the result that you had the Treasury applying heavy taxation on beer, and thus reducing the consumption of beer and consequently the consumption of hops without any notice to the Hop Controller, with the result, that the hop control authority found on their hands immense quantity of hops which they could only market by causing the hop growers to grub up a large proportion of their acreage of hops, resulting in some loss to the hop growers.
When the control was removed the growers themselves realised the need of some control and the English Hop Growers Association was formed. It failed merely because some 10 per cent. of the hop growers refused to come into the scheme. They took advantage of the better prices realised by the organised portion and, while the organised portion were decreasing their production, the small minority increased their production and so ruined the scheme. Consequently, it is the hop growers who have pressed for and worked out this scheme themselves. It is very necessary in fairness to the interest of the hop growers themselves, that schemes such as this should be approved by this House. The Hops Committee of the National Farmers' Union has approved the scheme. I know that that is not an argument in favour as a rule because it is usually stated in your Lordships' House that what the National Farmers' Union approve is not the best for agriculture. In this case they are right because I believe that the scheme is a necessary attempt to solve this problem.
There is perhaps one point that the Government will consider in this connection with a view to making the matter more perfect. I was going to suggest that the Government might consider whether by some form of co-ordinating committee, with members representing
598
the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, they could secure that we should not have such variations in taxation as would render impossible the orderly progress of the scheme from year to year by suddenly altering the consumption of hops; secondly, that the imported hops, which, though very much decreased, do nevertheless exist as an appreciable factor in the situation, should be dealt with by the same committee which I suggest, so that we should be able to ensure that there is a co-ordinated consumption of hops in the interest of the hop growers in this country. For that reason we on these Benches desire to support the scheme now before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR, who had given Notice to move, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Monday last, be not approved, said: My Lords, I rise to move that the Order be not approved and I do this partly as one who is interested in the welfare of agriculture and who looks upon these schemes of control with very grave misgiving. I had experience at one time at the Ministry of Food of the effects of control and it is this experience which makes me feel that it is not in the interests of agriculture or of food production to interfere with what are called the economic laws. I have also been asked to oppose this scheme by representative hop growers, by representatives of the brewers, representatives of the consumers who are concerned, and the hop merchants. Lest it be thought that there are only one or two hop growers who are opposing this scheme, may I say that at the public inquiry which was held a large number of hop growers appeared against the scheme. A report which has been published by the Brewers Journal shows that Mr. Weston, Mr. Overy and Mr. Amos gave evidence against the scheme. The report ends with this paragraph:
"Individual hop growers having addressed the Commissioner against the scheme, the further hearing was adjourned."
That is to say that the noble Lord—I am sure unintentionally—would be misleading your Lordships if he conveyed the impression that hop growers, as a whole, are supporting this scheme.
There have been four stages in connection with this scheme. Firstly, there was propaganda to try to organise the

599
preparation of the scheme. Secondly, a scheme was published in March. Objectors were given up to April 22 to lodge objections. Then, thirdly, there was a public inquiry which lasted from June 2 to June 17. Fourthly, a revised and entirely altered scheme was brought forward. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, referred to this scheme having been brought forward in February. The scheme which was brought forward in February or March was entirely different from the scheme which is now before your Lordships. This scheme was only published on Friday last, July 1, and it has never been considered by the hop growers as a whole.
The first point we have to decide is whether there is in fact a need for a scheme at all. It has been supported on the ground that there is over-production of hops. In the last few days I have been in very close contact with very many hop growers and brewers, and I have been convinced that there will not be a surplus of good hops this autumn. There is a surplus at the present moment, but it is a surplus of inferior hops. Therefore the case for this scheme on the ground that there is over-production of good hops really will not bear examination. I noticed that in the evidence which was submitted against the scheme Mr. Overy, who had been Chairman of Hop Growers, Ltd., himself a hop grower and himself one of the promoters of the scheme, stated that this was an inopportune time for dealing with this scheme. Reference has been made to the recent difficulties of hop growers. Hop growers have been in difficulties in past years because of the scheme of control which we had immediately after the War, and I suggest that that is one reason why we should not reimpose control. It is when Parliament attempts to set aside ordinary economic laws and to impose control that you have difficulties. The difficulties of over-production which existed a few years ago were very largely due to the fact that there was control which encouraged over-production. When the ordinary laws of supply and demand are left to operate I think you will find this does not happen.
I am opposed to the scheme because I think it is a bad scheme. There is to be a monopoly pool. No hop grower is to be allowed to sell his own hops. I believe a hop grower, a blackberry grower, or a
600
producer of any commodity ought to be allowed to dispose of his own produce. If this scheme were to go through no hop grower would be allowed to dispose of his own produce. He will have to hand over the whole of his produce to the Board. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that a Board is not likely to sell hops to better advantage than the hop growers themselves can dispose of them. At the present moment there are four parties concerned—the growers, the factors, the merchants and the brewers. Under this scheme you have to add another party—the Board—and you will find in this scheme provision made for the payment of salaries of members of the Board and officials, payment for premises and everything else. All the expenses of the Board must be deducted from the amount of money which goes to the hop growers. At the present time if a hop grower produces inferior hops he either disposes of them at a low price or if he cannot sell he stands the loss. The position in regard to that will be entirely different if this scheme goes through. The Board will be compelled to take over all hops—good hops, medium-grade hops and inferior hops.
Let me give you an illustration of the way in which it would work. Take the case of two hop growers—one who produces 10 cwt. of inferior hops worth £3 a cwt. and another who produces 10 cwt. of good hops worth £10 a cwt. Suppose the Board were unable to dispose of those 10 cwt. of inferior hops, the scheme provides that the Board may destroy those hops. I think, incidentally, that it is a very dangerous principle to accept that a monopoly Board should be given power to destroy food, because, Mind you, this principle might be extended to milk or fruit or anything else. Suppose the Board were not able to dispose of these inferior hops. When the hops are originally sent in the Board are supposed to give the grower an estimate of the value of the hops. They would have told the grower of the inferior hops that they valued them at £3 a cwt. If they destroyed them the grower would quite naturally expect to get some money. He would feel that if he had been left to his own devices he would have been able to get some sort of price for them. The Board would only have sold, in this particular case which I am suggesting, 10 cwt. of good hops at

601
£10 a cwt., and would have received £100. Instead of that £100 going to the grower of the good hops part of it would have to go in compensation to the grower of the bad hops which had been destroyed. That would have to be taken out of the price which would otherwise have gone to the grower of the good hops. It does not seem to me that that is fair. I do not believe that we shall encourage good marketing or improve the hop industry if we deprive the growers of good hops of the full value of the commodity which they produce.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, indicated a very real danger to this sort of scheme. If this Board which is to be set up is obliged to take over the whole of the domestic production and either dispose of the hops or destroy them, it is quite obvious that if the Board tried to hold back English hops, whether of good or bad grade, in order to get a good price, the whole of its efforts might be destroyed by the importation of foreign hops. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, indicated the inevitable consequence of this scheme. That consequence is that there must be an import board, an authority which would be the sole importer of hops. If your Lordships thought it right to have not only a monopoly Board dealing with the whole domestic production but another authority, an import board, which would be the sole importer of hops, then I should indeed be very sorry for the prospects of agriculture in this country.
There is another point which I wish to put forward. This scheme is being rushed through with indecent haste. I notice that at the inquiry which was held, Mr. Edwards, the Chairman of the Hops Committee of the National Farmers' Union, admitted that the scheme had been prepared hurriedly and without full consideration. If there is no immediate need for this scheme, and there is no immediate need because there will not be a surplus of good hops this autumn which would be the only justification, then there can be no justification whatever for our passing this scheme which only saw daylight last Friday. I repeat that this is not the scheme which was originally produced in March. It is not the scheme which was submitted at the public inquiry. It is not the scheme which was signed by thirteen representatives of the
602
hop growers and the National Farmers' Union. There has been a public inquiry and the Commissioner who held that inquiry made a report to the Minister. I think it is a great pity that the Government have not seen fit to publish that report. I think your Lordships are entitled to know what the Commissioner reported to His Majesty's Government, and to what extent the Government or Department have been guided by the result of that inquiry and report.
The noble Earl who introduced this scheme said that it had been passed in another place. That is quite true. It arrived there on Monday night or in the early hours of Tuesday morning—I think 2 a.m. I was interested in the scheme and got hold of the OFFICIAL REPORT on Tuesday morning to see what arguments the Minister had used; but the subject had come on so late that the discussion was not even reported in the proceedings of Tuesday. It was not until this morning that I was able to discover the grounds on which the Minister was bringing forward this scheme. In the discussion in another place an interesting thing happened. Three hop growers spoke and of the three only one was in support of the scheme; the other two criticised it.
We have had a Memorandum circulated by the Minister dealing with a draft scheme. Anyone reading the Memorandum casually and without knowing the facts would get the impression —many of your Lordships did—that the scheme now under discussion was the one unanimously agreed upon by the thirteen members. You would get the erroneous impression that the scheme now under discussion was the scheme before the branches of the National Farmers' Union a few months ago. The scheme now before you is not the scheme supported unanimously by the thirteen members. I understand that of the thirteen original promoters five have refused to back the amended scheme. I suggest that the Minister ought to be a little more careful in circulating a document which has undoubtedly misled a considerable number of your Lordships, and that as the Minister was circulating a document he might in fairness have indicated that there was an appeal on the whole thing as ultra vires.
The noble Earl says that if your Lordships pass this scheme the growers will

603
have an opportunity of discussing it before voting; but the hop growers are scattered up and down the country in different counties, and what chance has the ordinary hop grower to know the details and implications of a scheme which only saw daylight last Friday? He will be asked in a few weeks to vote on it, aye or no. Unless he is on the register he is not entitled to a vote and he has all sorts of complicated forms to fill up with a notice that he renders himself liable to imprisonment or heavy fine if he does not fill them up accurately. I appeal to the noble Lords who sit on the Labour Benches. They are in favour of this scheme because broadly they are in favour of control, but they ought not to ask hop growers to vote on a scheme which they cannot have an opportunity of discussing or understanding before they have to vote upon it.
It seems to me that this is one of the worst cases of bureaucracy. This scheme has been put before us as a scheme which has come spontaneously from the hop growers. During last autumn the people who were urging the hop growers to have a scheme included officials from the Ministry of Agriculture. It is the bureaucrats, the officials, who have been going round the country trying to persuade the hop growers to ask for this scheme. When the original scheme was prepared it did not emanate from the hop growers themselves. I have said that when the original scheme was produced it did not take the Ministry and officials by surprise; it is obvious the promoters had been in consultation. I am told that when the revised scheme was sent back to the Hops Committee representatives of the Department went again to use their powers, and even then that only eight agreed to support it and five refused. So that really it is the Ministry of Agriculture who is promoting this scheme and it is not a spontaneous scheme produced by the hop growers.
I am advised that there is going to be a rise in the price of hops this autumn and that that rise will be due, firstly, to the fact that the stocks of good hops will be exhausted; secondly, to what is happening in the United States regarding the 18th Amendment, which is likely to put up the world price; and thirdly, to the fact that the crop of the 1932 season is not likely to be big. That is to say, there is likely to be a rise in the price and
604
no scheme is required to-day to put up the price for the growers. I cannot help suspecting that some of the people in the Ministry want to get this through so that they can go to the growers of raspberries and gooseberries and say: "See what happened to the hop growers." But, as I say, I am told that the price will go up without a scheme.
There are two other alternatives to this scheme. This is not really a marketing scheme. During the course of the inquiry it was suggested by some of the objectors that there should be, not a scheme to have a monopoly pool for the collection and sale of hops, but a proper marketing scheme under which the hop grower would get the value of his own hops when sold in the market. He will not get that under this scheme. The other alternative is to leave the industry alone and I think that would be the best; but if we do not adopt that let us put this scheme aside and have a proper marketing scheme.
I must also refer to the constitutional question. Sir Walter Berry made an application for a rule nisi to prohibit the Minister from proceeding with the scheme as ultra vires. This was granted on May 5, so that when first brought forward there was a prima facie case that the scheme was ultra vires. From the appeal which was dismissed on June 28 Sir Walter Berry has lodged an appeal to the House of Lords. Notice of appeal was served on July 2. Two eminent counsel have certified that there is a reasonable case for appeal. The appeal has been lodged to-day, the first possible day. I venture to suggest that if this scheme is liable to be turned down as ultra vires we ought not to be asked to waste our time in discussing it to-day. I have tried to show that the case for an urgent, undigested scheme really does not exist; that there is the constitutional point; that there is not going to be a glut; that prices are going to rise any way; and that this is a scheme of bureaucracy at its worst. For these reasons I ask your Lordships not to approve the scheme.
Amendment moved—
Before ("approved") insert ("not").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I do not propose to occupy your time for more than a few moments, but I confess I have listened to the debate

605
with very great interest. The scheme carries out a principle which was passed by your Lordships in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. Prima facie, therefore, I am disposed to pass the scheme, which merely follows out a policy your Lordships have already endorsed; but in listening to the debate I confess I am very much troubled by one point which has been made, and that is the enormous haste with which we are asked to pass a scheme which there has not been a proper opportunity of discussing. I am not in the slightest degree opposed to the scheme. On the contrary, I recognise that it is desirable that there should be some way of dealing with hops in this country, as indicated in the Act, but why is it that a measure of this character is brought forward at the very last moment?
It was discussed, as I understand, in February but, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, that is not the actual scheme, before us now. Here we are in July with a scheme which was only put before another place in the early hours of Tuesday morning, and there has not been sufficient opportunity for those who are vitally interested in the scheme to put forward their views and argue either for or against the scheme. I think we have to be careful in carrying out a scheme of his character never to do it unless there has been very full opportunity for all persons being heard and representing what they may consider to be injustice. I am not in the slightest degree dissenting from what was said by Lord Marley in favour of the scheme. With its principle I agree, but I cannot vote for a scheme as to which there has been no sufficient opportunity for those really interested to express their views.
I would like to ask the noble Earl one further question. I do not want to discuss the legal point, which is now a matter of appeal. I do not quite agree with the noble Viscount that there was a prima facie case shown. It nearly always happens in these eases that there is an ex parte application, and it is open to the Court to say that there is a case to be heard. The Court came to the conclusion that the claim that the scheme was ultra vires could not be sustained, and the Court of Appeal upheld that view. Now there is an appeal to the House of Lords on the judicial side. Do I understand the noble Earl correctly, that he stated that if the House of
606
Lords came to the conclusion that the Order was ultra vires, notwithstanding that the Order had been passed by this House it would be revoked?
EARL DE LA WARR: What I did say was that I could not conceive that a Minister of the Crown would continue with a scheme which had been declared to be ultra vires. In fact, I take it that what he would do would be first of all to suggest amendments to make the scheme intra vires, and if those amendments were not adopted he would have to use his power of revocation.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That does mean, as I understand, that unless the Order could be amended so as to come within the Act, the Order would be revoked. Upon that point I do not desire to add anything further, but the ground upon which I find myself unable to support the scheme as it stands is that of the undue haste with which it has been brought forward.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I rise to speak on this subject with some reluctance, because an ex-Minister of Agriculture must necessarily be reluctant to say anything which appears to criticise his former Department. I also am one of those who are in favour, and have said so, of compulsion in certain matters. I do not believe that they can succeed without it, and as we have adopted the principle and policy of the Agricultural Marketing Act, I do not think that we can oppose it because of the position which efficient growers are placed in under a scheme framed under the Act. My point is very much that of the noble Marquess—namely, the haste with which this measure has been pushed through all its stages. Further than that, and I think I can prove it clearly, very little care has been taken to inform hop growers of what they were supposed to be asking for.
The Act gave the Minister unprecedented powers, so extensive that they impose upon him a special obligation as to the way in which he uses them. Further than that, there is a change in the mental attitude of farmers, which imposes upon the Minister a special obligation to be particularly careful. Before the War farmers could have been relied upon to turn down such a proposal when it was put before them. To-day

607
they are not doing so. That is partly due to the influence of the propaganda carried on by the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture in all parts of the country. But I think in their hearts farmers may still be equally in love with independence, and equally opposed to control and compulsion. Many of them, however, have stood, and do stand to-day, so near the verge of ruin that they clutch at any straw of safety. There are others in a less serious and desperate position who have been led to believe that, if they organise, the Government will guarantee them their markets and their profits.
It behoves the Minister of Agriculture, and it certainly is the duty of this House, to protect the farmers in this new attitude of trustfulness, or one may even say of credulity, and we ought to look very carefully into the way in which this scheme has been passed through all its various stages. I take up the history where the Minister in his Report has left it; that is to say, he is satisfied that it is submitted by representatives of hop growers, because on February 18 of this year the National Farmers' Union gave their Hops Committee a mandate to frame a scheme for the co-operative marketing of hops under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. That was what they asked for. The various branches asked to have a scheme formulated for their consideration, and for their consideration only—a scheme for the co-operative marketing of their produce. And the Hops Committee thus authorised went to work. And what did they do? They found that time was running out. They found that if they were to get their scheme ready, it must be before the Minister in a particular specified time. And on February 22, four days after they had received that authority, they found that the draft scheme was already in existence—a draft scheme which had been drawn up quite unofficially and quite privately. They decided—owing to the pressure of time —that they would adopt that draft as the basis of their scheme.
They discussed it. They did not have the assistance of their legal adviser—though under their constitution they are bound to have it—because they had no time. They did not consult the county branches of the hop industry, although they are constitutionally bound to do so,
608
because they had not time. And then, having agreed among themselves about this draft scheme, they submitted it, as they say in their own report, with only a few hours to spare—so quickly was the time running out—to the Ministry as a scheme put forward by the hop growers of the country. Although they had never had a word of consultation with their legal adviser, although they had never consulted their branches, both of which they were bound to do, and although they had not the ratification of the National Farmers' Union, they went to the Ministry, as they state themselves in their report, and put forward their scheme in their "individual capacity"—not even as the Hops Committee but in their individual capacity. And I should very much like to ask the noble Earl whether those facts were known to the Ministry when they accepted the scheme.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I could reply at the end of the debate?
LORD ERNLE: Those were the circumstances in which the scheme originated. Let me follow its course a little further. When the Council of the National Farmers' Union met on March 17 the Hops Committee came before them and said: "We have acted" (to quote their own words) "with regrettable but inevitable disregard of our constitutional forms," but, as we had to get the matter before the Ministry in time, we trust the National Farmers' Union will ratify our scheme. And the National Farmers' Union accepted the appeal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman that they should so ratify it, the Vice-Chairman bluntly saying to them "they are not qualified to criticise". And so in these circumstances the National Farmers' Union ratified the scheme. But that is not the scheme we have got here. That has a different origin. There were so many objections to this scheme when it was published that the Minister ordered a public inquiry, at which the National Farmers' Union and the objecting producers and the Brewers' Society were all heard, and the upshot of that was a great amendment of the scheme as it then was. We have not had the opportunity of seeing the report of the learned Commissioner, but I do not think there is anything in that, because it was made to the Minister of Agriculture privately in the way in which many such reports are.

609
But there were in this scheme something like a hundred amendments suggested by the National Farmers' Union's representatives, and so this modified scheme was sent by the Minister of Agriculture once again to the thirteen members of the Hops Committee.
What happened there? They had a very fierce and prolonged discussion, and I venture to say this, that it was only by the presence and intervention of five Ministerial representatives that a decision in its favour was obtained. Five of the original Hops Committee objected, so that this scheme, as we have it here, is not unanimous; it is only the result of a majority vote. It was published, I believe, on Friday last for the very first time. It has never been seen by the county branches of the hop-growing industry, and, for all I know, they are still under the impression that they are going to have a simple scheme of co-operative marketing.
And what opportunity have they of saying that they do not like this drastic regulation and control of their industry? They have first to be registered as producers, then a poll has to be taken of them, then they have to vote. And before whom do you think the poll is taken? Who are the returning officers of that poll? Who are the scrutineers? The Board—the very body who are going to value and grade their hops! They are to be the returning officers at a poll of the producers, of whose hops they are themselves the supreme authorities in valuing and grading. Even if the rest of this scheme were tolerable, even if it had come before us with the unanimous approval of the hop growers, I should protest, and protest in the strongest way, and I believe I should have some support on the Labour Benches opposite, against such a proposal as that you should have an open ballot in which the people who are most concerned, the Board, are to be the returning officers and scrutineers.
I would like to say much more about this matter, but I will refer only to one other point, and that is this. If there was an emergency, if there was a surplus to be expected, I can quite imagine the reason for this scheme. But I challenge the noble Earl himself to say whether it is not true that the Minister does not expect a surplus, the producers do not expect a surplus, the brewers do not
610
expect a surplus. I can say from very careful investigation—and in this the Minister agrees with me—that there is a probable deficit of hops in the 1932 crop of 50,000 cwts. on the amount the brewers will require. Where is your emergency? Where is your excuse for haste? There is none.
The whole thing should have been far more carefully worked out, and every hop producer should have had the opportunity of carefully considering what he was going to vote for, which now, under the scheme as it stands, he will not have, and if you are going to set up a Board of the producers, the middle-men and nobody else you are virtually setting up a ring. The hop control which administered the affairs of the hop industry when I was Minister and which I formed myself, was formed of the producers, the middle-men and the brewers, and they worked harmoniously together and carried the industry through very difficult times. But if you put only producers and middle-men on the Board you declare, it seems to me, war to the knife with the brewers, and you cannot expect anything else except that they should use foreign hops. And remember this, they can buy foreign hops at £9 the cwt., including the duty. They have one other alternative and that is to grow hops for themselves, and one or other of those alternatives, if this scheme goes through, they will be bound to adopt.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords. I naturally always listen to what my noble friend Lord Ernle says on matters of agriculture with nothing less than veneration, but I am quite unable to agree with him in the conclusions he has put forward. I think I shall be able to answer some, at least, of the objections which he and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, have raised. I may say I have a little qualification for speaking on this subject, because I have been a hop grower for more than forty years. My noble friend Lord Astor asserted very dogmatically that there was going to be no surplus of hops.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Good hops.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No surplus of good hops this year, and that the price of hops was going to be high. My noble friend Lord Ernle did not commit himself to any opinion about the price of

611
hops, but he said he thought that there was going to be no surplus of good hops this year. I do say most positively that it is not in the power of any living human being to say to-day what the hop crop next September is going to be. It is absolutely and completely impossible. Those who know anything about hops know that the bine has only just got to the top of the string, and till the crop comes into bur as it is called and then into fruit no human being would dare to estimate what the crop is going to be.
LORD ERNLE: May I make one remark? Is the noble Earl aware that the area under hops in 1932 is 3,000 acres less than the area in 1931?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am quite aware of that fact, but I maintain my opinion that nobody at present can possibly say what the hop crop is going to be in September. A great point has been made by my noble friend and by the noble Marquess of undue haste in the preparation of this scheme. I admit there has been haste; but why? Because the whole industry is on the verge of ruin and collapse, and unless this scheme can be brought into operation in time for the next hop harvest I tremble to think of how many farmers will become insolvent, or how many of the very finest type of agricultural labourers will not be put out of employment. Nothing less than that is at stake, in my judgment. But admitting haste surely the question is not one of haste or no haste, but whether the scheme before your Lordships is a reasonable scheme or not? Even if it has been hastily put together, if it is a reasonable scheme it would not be reasonable to reject it because of the haste.
A great deal has been said by my noble friend Lord Astor, and by my noble friend Lord Ernle, about this not being the original scheme. No, but wherein does it differ from the original scheme? It is absolutely the original scheme except for the amendments inserted by the Minister, who has the power to put in amendments under the Agricultural Marketing Act. And why has the Minister put in amendments? Because of the result of the inquiry. The suggestion has been made that all parties concerned have not been heard. What are the facts? The Minister appointed a learned and competent K.C. who held a public inquiry.
612
Every interest concerned was heard before that inquiry—the hop farmers, the factors, the brewers. Every opportunity was given for any human being interested in the matter to be heard before that eminent counsel. What was the result? Only four hop growers came before him to say they wanted no scheme at all. Only twenty-three out of the whole number of hop farmers came and said they wanted amendments, and I have not any doubt, though I do not know, that the amendments which the Minister has inserted in the scheme are amendments due to the objections raised by these twenty-three or other witnesses who were heard. My noble friend Lord Ernle talked of a hundred amendments. I dare say there are more than a hundred, but I am informed on, I believe, competent authority, that the vast majority of these amendments are drafting amendments. Therefore, I say that this is the original scheme only amended by the Minister acting under his responsibility.
That is not the end of the chapter. If this scheme is adopted by your Lordships' House and is finally passed, a poll is to be taken of all the registered hop growers in the country. My noble friend Lord Ernle described the provisions of the scheme for taking that poll a little unfairly. Every effort is to be made, and the Minister will see that every effort is made, that every man who grows hops has a chance of putting himself on the register. If he does not do so, the fault and the responsibility are his. If he goes on the register, then the vote is taken and, unless two-thirds of all the hop farmers on the register vote for the scheme, the scheme drops. Not only must two-thirds of the hop growers on the register vote for the scheme but they must represent two-thirds of the acreage of hops. My noble friend Lord Ernle criticised the way in which the poll was going to be taken. I think his criticism was justified, but I am authorised to state that the Board has already decided, if it comes into existence, that the election shall be conducted by an independent firm of auditors. The poll will not be conducted by the Board but by an independent firm of auditors. I was rather surprised to find my noble friend Lord Astor taking up a brief on behalf of the brewers.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Justice, my Lords, not temperance.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot pretend to share my noble friend's views about beer in general but I think the brewers are very well able to take care of themselves. There is no reason why they should be able, as they are now, to buy good hops at a price far under the cost of production. Why is this matter so urgent? Perhaps I may explain, for the benefit of those of your Lordships who are not acquainted with hop growing, that there is no branch of agriculture so intensive as the hop industry or which employs so many men per acre or at such good wages. In addition, the hop picking brings thousands and thousands of pounds into the pockets of the women of the villages in the hop districts and to many of the poorest people who come from London and the great cities for the hop picking. The hop industry is, therefore, of national importance. Those noble Lords who do not grow hops will be surprised when I tell them that the annual cost of cultivation varies between £50 and £100 per acre and that the capital embarked in the industry may be put down at anything between £100 and £200 per acre.
I am not going to go back on the history of this industry for the last fifteen years but it has been cruelly hit as the indirect result of the War. The hop growers were called upon, in the interests of their country, to destroy a large part of their capital by grubbing up their hops in order that the land might be used to grow wheat. They did it without any compensation. From 1917 to 1925 they were under control. During that period of control the price paid for hops was sufficient but not excessive, the price was controlled as well as the industry. According to my private opinion, far too many foreign hops were allowed in at that time. When the control ceased a private combination was formed to carry on a voluntary control. Ninety per cent. of the hop farmers joined it but it was brought to grief because ten per cent. would not join. The ninety per cent. were only able to sell on the average about eighty per cent. of their crops while the ten per cent. outside took advantage of the price brought about by the combination and sold their whole hundred per cent. and those within the combination could not stand it. I think they were wrong, but that was how the pool broke up.
614
What happened? The very moment that combination ceased hops dropped from about £8 to £10 for good hops to a point where hundreds and hundreds of cwts. of really good hops were sold at a price far under the cost production at £5, £4 and even £3 per cwt. What is the result? At this moment the whole industry, with the exception of a few very strongly capitalised members, is standing on the brink of ruin. It is idle for my noble friend behind me to say that the ordinary hop grower can make his own bargain. These men have lost nearly all their own money. They are no match for the brewers in making a bargain; some of them are, but the majority are not. How often has it been thrown in the teeth of the English farmer that he cannot organise for collective bargaining? His only chance today is collective bargaining and this scheme will give him an opportunity for collective bargaining.
The criticism has already been answered that the good hops will be penalised by the bad hops. That is not so. All hops will be valued and sold only at their true value. Quite in contradistinction to my noble friend Lord Ernle, I believe that this scheme comes straight from the hop growers greatly encouraged by the Minister of Agriculture, as I am glad and proud to see as an old Minister of Agriculture. If I might give some slight personal proof, in my own district there are two great hop growers always growing the best possible quality of hops who stood outside the voluntary combination I mentioned and were partly responsible for the break-up of that combination. Both of them have said to me, without my asking any question of them, that if this scheme does not go through the hop industry is ruined. I believe that it will be supported by the great majority of the hop farmers. If it is not, the scheme will lapse and fail, but I ask your Lordships to give it a chance and to negative the Motion for its rejection.
LORD REMNANT: My Lords, I do not desire to keep the House for more than a few moments as many of the points I desired to raise have been put. There is one point, however, on which I should like to appeal to your Lordships. It was raised by the noble Marquess opposite and is very important. Why this haste? The noble Lord in charge of this Motion does not really believe that every point has been settled and examined before he

615
brought the scheme here. If he does, may I ask him this question and perhaps he will answer it. I understood him to say that the whole of the thirteen members of the Hops Committee of the National Farmers' Union had agreed to this scheme. I have just obtained from the Printed Paper Office a Paper which is headed "Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. Draft scheme for regulating the marketing of English hops. Report by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries." The first paragraph is not very material but the Report goes on to say:
"The scheme was submitted to me as having been unanimously agreed upon by the thirteen members of the Hops Committee of the National Farmers' Union whose names were appended thereto. I was satisfied that these persons were substantially representative of the hop growers of England."
May I ask the noble Earl whether it is a fact that the whole of those members have signed the scheme which is at present before your Lordships' House because I am told—and I am told on very good authority, a statement has been made in this House this afternoon—that of those thirteen members no fewer than five refused to sign the scheme which is at present before your Lordships' House?
EARL DE LA WARR: I will deal with that point.
LORD REMNANT: Then there is another point. The noble Earl who has just sat down seemed to think that the hop grower was the only farmer who was on the point of ruin.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, I did not say that.
LORD REMNANT: But you laid great stress on the fact that unless we passed this Order to-day—that was the point, the great urgency of the matter—the hop farmer would be ruined. The grower of inferior hops, no doubt, is in a bad way and is bound to come to ruin whatever happens. There seems to be a total misapprehension of the position as regards over-production of hops. I venture to say that there has not been during the last ten years over-production of really good hops. There has been over-production of inferior hops which have had to be destroyed because nobody would have them. We are told that this scheme had been well thought out; yet there is nothing in it to show what is to
616
be the qualification for a voter when the poll is taken. Is he to vote as a unit or is the value of his vote to be computed according to the acreage farmed?
Then I come to the compulsion which is put on the Board to take all hops of every description, good, bad and indifferent. They must all be brought to the Board for acceptance and the Board cannot refuse them. Look at the expense which will be involved. They are to be entitled to grade, blend, and pack them, offer them for sale, insure them, advertise them, transport them, borrow money on the security of them, and so on and so on. Nothing is included for the expenses of the officials and staff even if the members of the Board are not to receive remuneration. Nobody knows what will be the amount of that expense. If bad hops are sent in—and there are plenty of them—something will have to be given to the growers of those inferior hops at the expense of those who send in good hops which would always fetch their value in the market.
Really it is not one scheme, or two schemes, but three schemes which have been before the public. We had the one in February, then we had the one which was put before the Commissioner. Why we have not had his report goodness only knows. The evidence was taken in public and I should have thought that the Minister might have let the public know the contents of that report. There was great weight of evidence even against the present scheme as it is put before your Lordships. There is no reason why it should be hurried through as it is being hurried through to-day. I do not believe you will help this scheme or any other scheme by rushing it through Parliament. It is much more likely to lead to failure. We are told that it has been passed through the House of Commons. Those of us who have spent many years in the House of Commons—and a number of your Lordships have had that experience—know what it means to push a Resolution or a Bill through the House of Commons in the early hours of the morning, especially a scheme like this which the members have not had time to consider. The scheme was only issued on Friday and I doubt whether many members of the House of Commons received it in sufficient time to enable them to consider it for discussion on Monday. It is probable that nobody had sufficient

617
time to consider it properly. No harm can be done by delaying this scheme. I heartily support the noble Viscount who moved its rejection. I hope that your Lordships will not pass a Resolution which is not necessary to be passed at once, and will at all events take time for further consideration.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise to make a very few remarks. I am very much in agreement with what the noble Marquess said on the question of haste. We are dealing here with an Act of Parliament which your Lordships considered and passed and I want first to draw attention to a point to which I hone the noble Earl will give us a reply. Section 1 (9) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, says:
"The Minister, on laying before either House of Parliament a draft of a scheme…shall at the same time—

'(a) in a case where the scheme is not a substitutional scheme, lay before that House a report as to the evidence by which he has been satisfied for the purpose of Part I of the First Schedule..'"

That is obviously to give your Lordships the real facts of how the scheme was prepared and how it comes before your Lordships' House. We have heard from the noble Viscount who is opposing this scheme that the particular scheme laid on the Table has nothing whatever to do with the Report. The Report is on a different scheme altogether. The noble Earl shakes his head but it has been stated by two or three members of your Lordships' House that that is the case. This scheme, therefore, has not come before your Lordships' House in the way it ought to come before the House. It has been hurried before the House instead of being put forward, as the Act says, with a report of the evidence.
The second point I desire to make is one which I consider of great constitutional importance. We have heard that a citizen has started proceedings asking the High Court for a writ of prohibition of the scheme as ultra vires. It is quite true that the Divisional Court did not make the rule absolute, and that on appeal in the Court of Appeal that decision was upheld, but it is now on appeal to your Lordships' House. Again I turn to the Act to see what is the position. Clause 1 (8) provides that the moment the Order has been approved, the Order shall be made, and that Order
618
and the approval of the scheme by Parliament shall be "conclusive evidence" that what has been done is within the powers conferred by the Act. That is to say that once we have passed this Resolution it is conclusive evidence that the scheme is intra vires. How can your Lordships' House in a judicial capacity be asked to make absolute a rule which is not a rule given as by right but a discretionary rule, and be asked to exercise a discretion prohibiting something which by your Lordships' legislative act has been made by that time intra vires? Surely that does show that this has been brought forward, as the noble Viscount said, with indecent haste, in order to prevent an effective appeal to be made to the judicial side of this House. For these two reasons I ask your Lordships to say that this Motion should not be accepted.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, as I was Chairman in another place of the Committee which considered the Agricultural Marketing Bill and as this is the first scheme brought forward under the Act, I take rather a peculiar interest in these proceedings to-day. The Committee which considered the Agricultural Marketing Bill was very anxious in regard to the new powers given under the Act. They were afraid they might be giving great powers to the Ministry of Agriculture. They were much afraid that too great powers might be put into the hands of the Boards set up under schemes, and they pressed Amendments and clauses which were designed to protect growers and consumers by giving the fullest possible publicity to any scheme. I think it is evident from the debate to-day that the fears which were expressed on that Committee are only too much realised.
Is this first scheme representative of the industry? We have no proper report from the Ministry of Agriculture on that matter. I need not repeat the speeches which have been made, but Lord Ernle's speech shows how little the scheme can claim to be representative even of the National Farmers' Union, and even if it were the scheme of the National Farmers' Union is it representative of the hop growers? No evidence has been presented to the House to-day to show that the scheme is really representative. It may be that a scheme for the hop grower

619
is necessary and practicable, but I submit that the case for this scheme is not made out and that there is no particular harm in waiting another year before the scheme is made operative. Let it go before representative bodies of the National Farmers' Union and the hop growers.
I am told that ruin will befall the hop growers if this scheme does not pass now. Well, I have heard of the impending ruin of growers of various crops in this country for many years. Hop growers have been ruined any time these fifteen years—and I think they have grave reason to complain of the way in which they were treated by the Government in the years during and after the War. But another year will not do them any harm. This year's crop is pretty well settled, and if we take the time which the Agricultural Marketing Act really demands and deal with the thing properly I do not think the hop industry will be particularly worse off next year than it is this. I would plead with your Lordships to be extremely careful in passing this first scheme. The powers under the Agricultural Marketing Act are extraordinary and new to this country. They do enable rings to be set up against the consumers under which the nation might suffer real hardship. It is extremely important that in the first scheme under this Act no mistake should be made. I submit that the scheme does not fulfil the conditions on which the Act was passed, at any rate by another place, and therefore I would ask that time should be taken to be sure that all concerned should be fully informed about the scheme before it is put in operation.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the strongest argument I think why we should not pass this to-day is that put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who pointed out that this matter had been very much hurried. The only ground on which apparently it ought to be hurried, so far as I could gather, was that otherwise difficulties would be created in the future, but I have read what was said at the inquiry—that there would be no surplus of hops this year—and that seems to do away with the noble Earl's argument. As an old member of the House of Commons I cannot help feeling that this was hurried through in another place with indecent
620
haste. It was taken in the small hours of the morning, between one and two o'clock, when the Government practically always has a majority; and although there was strong opposition there was no Division because it was known by any opponents that they would be overwhelmed by the supporters of the Government voting in support of the Government apart from other considerations.
This scheme has been approved in another place, as it has been approved here, by the Labour Party. I notice that Major Milner said it would substitute co-operation for competition and the noble Lord, Lord Marley, going a little further, said it would be the nationalisation of production. I think the majority of this House do not wish for nationalisation of production, but we can understand why the Labour members of this House and in another place approve the scheme, although at present they are generally against the Government. The scheme, it seems to me, means that for practical purposes the inefficient benefit at the expense of the efficient. All the hops of the registered growers must be accepted by the Board, however inferior, and that is in favour of inefficiency.
Paragraph 34 of the scheme states that:
"Subject to the provisions of the Act with respect to existing contracts—

(a) a producer who is neither registered nor exempt from registration shall not sell, either in England or elsewhere, any English hops;

(b) a registered producer shall not, without the consent of the Board, sell, either in England or elsewhere, any English hops otherwise than to or through the agency of the Board."

That is a very drastic provision and apparently the only people exempt from it will be the South Eastern Agricultural College and any others who satisfy the Board that they are not growing hops except for their own use. It is rather a strong order to forbid men to sell their produce independently and get the best possible price. However good their hops they will have to take an inferior price. I notice that in another place a gentleman well known to some of us, Mr. Strauss, said he was not only a hop merchant but a hop grower, and that from the point of view of the hop merchant this is a matter which concerns the grower. Then Mr. Strauss said that

621
he was both a distributor—and we know he is a very big distributor indeed—and a grower, and, speaking as a grower, he said that he considered the hop grower who was in favour of the scheme was nothing less than a fanatic. That shows that a man in that position is very strongly opposed to the scheme.
As regards the Report of the Minister of Agriculture, I cannot help thinking that we might have had something more than merely this statement. It is as follows:
"The principal facts to which I had regard in satisfying myself were as follows:

(a) that the National Farmers' Union is in general regarded as being qualified to represent the interest of the farming industry as a whole, including the growing of hops."

As has been stated in this House already, the National Farmers' Union have changed their views and thrown over their Parliamentary Committee. I believe that the reason for that is that the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, has made himself so popular that he has been able to persuade them to throw over their own Parliamentary Committee.
The Minister of Agriculture seems to think that the National Farmers' Union are the only representatives of agriculture. It cannot be said that they represent the whole of the agricultural interests in this country. I venture to suggest that there are other bodies, such as the Central Landowners' Association, which includes over ten thousand owners as well as a large number of occupiers. Those men had no opportunity of being consulted at all. Again, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which represents owners, farmers and agricultural labourers, might have been consulted in this matter. At the present moment it is very much representative of agriculture, because the Chairman is a representative of the agricultural labourers himself. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture can hardly come down to this House and say that he has consulted agriculture, and has the official representatives of agriculture at his back, when in fact he has omitted to ascertain the opinions of such important bodies as the Central Landowners' Association and the Central Chamber of Agriculture. I cannot help thinking that no harm will be done if we simply postpone this matter
622
for some time, in order that it may be fully discussed.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, as one who played some small part in forwarding the organised marketing of agricultural produce, I should be the first to deplore it if I thought that this original scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act was to be anything but a good scheme. In particular I should deplore it if it was likely to be a scheme either resisted or resented by a majority of the growers of that article of produce the marketing of which it seeks to organise. What would happen if your Lordships approved this scheme this afternoon? The scheme itself would not immediately take effect. Before it can take effect there has to be a poll of registered producers, and any and every producer, on application, is entitled to be registered by the Board. At that poll, of those who vote two-thirds of all the registered producers voting must support the scheme or the scheme will fall, and those registered producers supporting the scheme must represent, in terms of their aggregate production of hops, two-thirds in volume of the total production of all registered producers who vote. I am inclined to think, with great respect to the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, that hop growers on the whole are very much better able to look after their own interests, and to make their voices heard at the right time, than he supposes. The safeguard of the Bill, with its very democratic machinery, requiring a two-thirds majority in number and in volume, does seem to me at least to ensure that the scheme will not come into effect unless hop growers for the most part are in favour of the scheme.
I listened with very close attention to the whole of the discussion. I was influenced not a little by the observations which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who is not now in his place, and from Lord Ernle on these Benches. I confess I was less influenced by what fell from Lord Astor, because I felt that not a few of the passages of the speech in which he supported his Amendment were passages which we had heard in the discussions on the Agricultural Marketing Act. He told us that he was pressed for time, and if he repeated arguments addressed to us on a former occasion we shall very readily understand that it was lack of opportunity for preparing a

623
further speech which led him to use what was somewhat ancient matter. He, of course, always has been a noted opponent of the Agricultural Marketing Act. On balance, and weighing the matter as well as I can with the knowledge at my disposal, I am persuaded, although I fully appreciate the weight of the considerations advanced by the noble Marquess, that delay would be against the best interests of the industry. I shall therefore support the scheme, and I trust that your Lordships will resist the Amendment and give the scheme a chance.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, so much has been said for and against the Resolution that I do not know that very much remains for me to say, excepting that there are a number of points which have been raised and which I think you will wish me to endeavour to answer before you finally come to a decision. I gather from the debate that the main reason why some of your Lordships have expressed yourselves as being up to now unpersuaded that it is desirable to vote for the Resolution, is based on the ground of haste. Perhaps you will allow me to put before you exactly what has happened in relation to this scheme. We know that when the scheme was first being considered the hop growers started off with very considerable experience coming down from the past. There was not only the War-time hop control, but later they had their voluntary control association which, as we have been told, broke down, mainly because they had not got the compulsory powers which the Agricultural Marketing Act gives them to-day. Then we come to discussion amongst the farmers themselves all through last year. What is the history of the position as regards the mind of the hop grower? Why did the National Farmers' Union come to the conclusion that it was "up to them"? The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, was wrong there. He said it was not a National Farmers' Union scheme. It is a National Farmers' Union scheme. We have to ask ourselves why the National Farmers' Union became persuaded that it was necessary to have a scheme.
LORD RHAYADER: Do I understand that the National Farmers' Union have approved the scheme in its present shape in a formal way?
EARL DE LA WARR: This scheme has been prepared for us and submitted definitely by the National Farmers' Union. All through last year discussions were taking place among the hop growers on this point, and in July, 1931, and February, 1932, we had resolutions from all the counties that are primarily interested in the growing of hops in favour of the preparation of a scheme, not merely a vague scheme of organised marketing, but a scheme based on the Agricultural Marketing Act. Resolutions came from Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Kent, East Sussex and Hampshire. Then they got definitely down to the consideration of the scheme in February, and since then full discussions have been taking place among the growers. One noble Lord, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seemed to make it a cause of complaint that some of the representatives of the Ministry had taken part in those discussions. But what is the Ministry of Agriculture there for but to help farmers to prepare schemes, when they wish to prepare schemes for marketing? The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, reminded your Lordships that for years the farmers have been criticised for not organising, and one of the best things that have happened in the history of the Ministry of Agriculture for the last ten or twenty years has been the appointment of the Markets Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, which came as a result of the Linlithgow Committee in 1924. Of course, we assisted those discussions in every way.
Then the scheme was presented, and there was the full public inquiry, and only four objectors from the hop growers placed objections before that inquiry, held by a prominent King's Counsel. We are told that the scheme is not the same as the original scheme. That point has already been dealt with by a noble Lord, but if a Bill goes through the Committee stage of this House and has Amendments inserted in it, do we say that it is not the same Bill? We should have been far more open to criticism if, as the result of the public inquiry, we had refused to amend the scheme, than we are by reason of the fact that the scheme has been amended. The scheme is the same scheme that has been amended as the result of facts that came out at the public inquiry. It has been said that after the amendments were inserted in this scheme—

625
I think the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, asked me a question about this—there were a number of the Committee who were not in favour of the amendments. He said that there were five out of thirteen. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly true that there were four members of that Committee who were not prepared to make themselves responsible for recommending the amendments, but not one of them has hitherto come out in opposition to the scheme as a whole.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Why is it put into the circular issued by the Minister of Agriculture?
EARL DE LA WARR: The reason why it was put into the circular that the Committee was unanimous was that the scheme was brought to us unanimously. As a result of the inquiry there were four members of the Committee who were not prepared to make themselves responsible for recommending the amendments. But the scheme was brought before us unanimously by the Committee. We had the general discussions going on up to last February and the discussions about this particular scheme since then. Does that suggest undue haste in dealing with an industry that is in the state that the hop industry is in at the present moment? The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, has suggested that there is not going to be a surplus this year, and he quoted the authority of the Ministry on that point. My advice from the Ministry of Agriculture is that there is a very large carry over of about 75,000 cwts. from last year, and, in addition to that, if the crop is in any way above the average, if the existing decline in the consumption of beer is not very quickly arrested, then there are considerable chances of there being a considerable surplus. And if there is not that surplus, is that a reason for not having the scheme for better marketing? The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I think said that he would be quite prepared to have a scheme for better marketing, but he did not like this provision for dealing with a surplus. He said he would prefer to do nothing at all, but, if he had to do anything, he would like to limit himself to a scheme for better marketing. If there is not a surplus, then there is nothing more in this scheme than a scheme for better marketing.
Finally, what is it that your Lordships are being asked to do to-day? I gather from the debate that there is consider-
626
able misunderstanding on this particular point. I gather from the debate that your Lordships feel that this is the last stage of the affair, that you are being asked to rush through this scheme and force it on to the producers, and that then there is no more discussion. All you are being asked to do to-day is to approve a scheme in order that the hop growers may be given an opportunity of pronouncing their verdict upon it. I am going to add my voice to that of the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, and I go further and say that I am convinced that if you get a two-thirds majority of the hop growers, representing not only two-thirds of their number but two-thirds of the acreage of the hops grown in this country, and if they vote in favour of a scheme, I would very much rather have their opinion on a scheme than even the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. And that is what we are being asked to do. Do let me impress this point upon your Lordships. You feel that there has been haste, you feel that there has been lack of consultation. Are you going to deny the hop growers the opportunity of discussing this scheme for themselves and giving their verdict upon it? I venture to suggest that that would be a most unreasonable attitude for us to adopt.
Might I say one further word on behalf of the Government and to give an undertaking to your Lordships, in order to show that we are not anxious in any way to make your Lordships feel that this scheme is going to be rushed through, and then, once it is settled, that we cannot do anything more? I have already told your Lordships that as soon as this scheme goes through there will be a Committee of Investigation set up under the terms of the Agricultural Marketing Act, and they will be charged with the business of investigating any complaints from anybody who is in any way interested in the industry. I am quite prepared to give to your Lordships on behalf of the Government an undertaking that this Committee of Investigation shall, whether there is a complaint or not, undertake an investigation and give to the Minister a report when the scheme has been in operation for a year. It is understandable that in this the first scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act there should be some hesitation about proceeding too far. There has

627
been very considerable discussion, and we are prepared to consider the matter again in a year's time. Lastly, your Lordships are only being asked to give to the growers the opportunity, which they have not yet had, of pronouncing upon the scheme.
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think this might be a convenient, and I am told by competent authorities that it will be an orderly period in which to put certain considerations of a very general character with regard to Clause 2 in this Bill. It would not be appropriate on any of the Amendments that have been put down and it might be inconvenient if it were
On Question, Whether the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Monday last, shall be approved?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V.(L. Chancellor.)

Selborne, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Greville, L.

Wellington, D.

Hampton, L.

Allendale, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Linlithgow, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Irwin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Jessel, L.

Hailsham, V.

Mamhead, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mersey, V.

Marks, L.

Grey, E.

Ullswater, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rochester, L.

Lindsay, E.

Aberdare, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Snell, L.

Morton, E.

Darling, L.

Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Stonehaven, L.

Plymouth, E.

Faringdon, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Lamington, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Reading, M.

Annaly, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Askwith, L.

Moyne, L.

Abingdon, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Pentland, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barnard, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clwyd, L.

Remnant, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Danesfort, L.

Rhayader, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Ernle, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Burnham, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Somerleyton, L.

D'Abernon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strachie, L.

Wharton, L.

delayed until the Question is put that that clause stand part of the Bill. I think also it may be convenient to the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill if he had an early opportunity of knowing what questions I wish to put to him. If I might with your permission speak generally about this clause now, I must confess that it gives me considerable misgiving. I think that we ought to know much more clearly than so far we have been permitted to know what are the uses to which this Fund is to be put, what exactly it is to which Parliament is to be committed.
For example, we heard a great deal in another place about a film institute, and I do not think I am misrepresenting facts when I say that the member in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons seemed to imply that it was mainly in the interests of the proposed film institute that this Fund was to be inaugurated and included in the Bill. I am very anxious to submit a question to the Government as to whether this Fund

629
is really intended to be a Fund for financing a film institute at present unknown in its character, functions and constitution, or whether it is a Fund which will be available for all other persons or societies who are interested in the development of the film industry, provided they can make a good claim for the consideration of the Privy Council. It is most important that we should be clear, before we come to the discussion of this clause whether it is, even in the intention of the Government, definitely earmarked for this proposed institute.
Secondly, I would like to ask one or two questions about this institute itself. I should hesitate to do so because there is nothing about it expressly in the Bill but, if one is to import into the Bill the substance of the discussions which took place in another place, it becomes very important to know exactly what this film institute is to be. At present it is only existent in the report of a Commission which has the ambitious title of a Commission on Cultural Films and in the ardent imagination of some individual Members of Parliament. The important question is whether this body is to be a public body in a sense controlled by Government and answerable to Parliament, something in the nature of the British Broadcasting Corporation, or whether it is to be a purely private society. If it is intended that this institute should come into being and should be largely financed by this proposed Fund, then I should like to ask the Government whether they can give an undertaking that before any money from this Fund is given to this institute its constitution and its functions will be submitted to Parliament.
It is a matter of very great importance to the future of the film industry and indeed to the whole public of this country to know exactly what is contemplated in the creation of this film institute. Whether or not it is to have any specifically State character through its relation to the Government or through being answerable to Parliament, the powers which are proposed are of the greatest importance. For example, is it to have any kind of censorship over the films which are produced? If so, what are its relations to be to the existing Board of Film Censors or to the Consultative Committee of the Home Office? Is it to correlate these or to be independent of them?
630
In the matter of censorship, what is its relation to be to the existing bodies?
Again, if it is to have any powers of censorship, is it specifically to have the censorship of educational films? If so, it will be a very important and not altogether satisfactory precedent. It will give to this institute a control over educational films which is not exercised by the Board of Education over school books. School books are published freely, circulated freely, written by all sorts of persons and show a great deal of freedom of thought. It has always been left to the local authorities to decide what books should be used in the schools and the same freedom is necessary for educational films. There is a real danger that, by allowing this clause to go through without further explanation from the Government, we should be setting up a body which in the future might control the teaching by films of history, economics, and morals, possibly even of politics and religion, in close connection with the State.
It is perfectly true that there are film institutes of this kind in other countries which have very considerable powers. There is a film institute in Italy and I am informed that 20 per cent. of the films are expressly used in order to impress on the mind of the public and of the youth of Italy the great and necessary advantages of the Fascist system. Again, there is a film institute in Russia and I happen to know that some of the films particularly propagated by that film institute are intended to teach the children of Russia that there is no Deity. Therefore, we ought to be very careful of the powers that may be given to this particular film institute. I doubt very much therefore whether this House ought to commit itself beforehand to the establishment of this Fund unless it knows more accurately than it at present does what the Fund is to do.
These are very important questions. Firstly, is this Fund to be earmarked specially for a proposed film institute or available for all concerned in the development of the industry? Secondly, if a film institute is contemplated and if it is to have any public character, before any money is given to it will its constitution and. powers be submitted to Parliament? We can quite conceive that such an institute might do great good and

631
might be the means of bringing together the various interests concerned in the production of films. But we ought to know more definitely how far, through innocently passing this clause, we may be committing ourselves to a film institute whose existence, powers and character are at present unknown to us. I hope that the noble Viscount may be able to give satisfactory assurances on this point. If not, it may be desirable to omit this clause altogether. It is not really integral to the purpose of the Bill. This matter depends on the assurance that the noble Viscount may be able to give us. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for intervening at this stage of the proceedings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions as to cinematograph entertainments.
1.—(1) The authority having power, in any area to which this section extends, to grant licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to Sunday observance, allow places in that area licensed under the said Act to be opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, subject to such conditions as the authority think fit to impose:
Provided that no place shall be allowed to be so opened and used unless among the conditions subject to which it is allowed to be so opened and used there are included conditions for securing—
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to insert in subsection (1), at the beginning of the proviso:
"Provided that such conditions shall require the person to whom the licence is granted to satisfy the authority that the films to be exhibited are of a healthy and wholesome, and so far as possible, of an educative character, and."
The noble Lord said: By the Bill as it stands certain conditions are imposed on the local authority who are empowered to grant licences for performances of these Sunday films. Those conditions, to my mind, clearly indicate that Sunday entertainments of this character are to be treated in a different manner from week-day entertainments and that the Sunday films must be dealt with in a special manner so as to meet as far as may be the objections of those who oppose Sunday entertainments. Few of your Lord-
632
ships will be found to deny that notwithstanding the censorship as it is called—we all know what it is—twenty-five per cent., according to some, or a larger percentage according to others, of the films exhibited on weekdays are of an objectionable character and are certainly not suitable to be shown on Sundays. If that is so, would it not be right to impose as one of the conditions which the local authorities in granting licences are bound to observe, that the films to be shown on Sundays should be of a healthy and wholesome character and, if possible, of an educational character?
It is with a view to securing that result that I put my Amendment on the Paper and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read it. It is to insert this proviso:
"Provided that such conditions shall require the person to whom the licence is granted to satisfy the authority that the films to be exhibited are of a healthy and wholesome, and so far as possible, of an educative character …"
That view was very strongly urged in the deeply impressive speech which was delivered on the Second Reading of this Bill by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those words are no doubt within the recollection of many of your Lordships, but they are so important that I would ask your Lordships, even in the presence of the most rev. Primate himself, to allow me to recall some of those words to your memory.
You will find in Column 520 of the OFFICIAL REPORT these words used by the most rev. Primate:
"It seems to me that the real policy is to endeavour to secure that on Sundays, in these places of entertainment, the films produced are refined, educative, or at the very least wholesome."
He went on to say:
"I know it is said that it is very illogical to make these special requirements about performances on Sunday; that what is good on weekdays should be good on Sundays. I am not very much impressed by that argument. Sunday has, and I hope will continue to have, in this country, special traditions and associations of its own, and it seems to me most reasonable that the community"—
the community, of course, means the local authority—
"which under the Bill will have the right of determining whether and under what conditions licences for the opening of these houses shall be given, should use their opportunity to see that on Sundays at any

633
rate the films produced are refining and not vulgarising, that they have some intrinsic merits of their own."
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read a further short passage reported on the next page of the OFFICIAL REPORT in Column 521. There you will find these words of the most rev. Primate:
"Under the Bill it is open to the proper authority to impose any conditions which it pleases, in addition to those specified in the Bill, and here is a great opportunity, for those who care that in this respect the special character of Sunday shall in some measure be retained, to influence public opinion, so that the local authorities may impose and require conditions securing that the cinema entertainment shall be of the most healthy and wholesome kind."
I venture to think that it would be difficult for your Lordships to ignore advice coming from such a quarter and couched in language of conviction and of truth. I have heard it suggested that a proviso of this character would be difficult to enforce. That may be, but surely, when you are introducing legislation so deeply affecting not only the feelings of the community as a whole but, as I think, also to a great extent the moral prosperity of the community, it is important that Parliament should lay down in positive terms that the films produced on Sunday should be of a suitable character to the day on which they are shown.
I cannot but think that the better local authorities, even without this Parliamentary direction, would possibly insist before granting their licence upon being satisfied that the films were suitable to be presented on Sunday. As to the less good local authorities, I think this Parliamentary direction would have a very considerable effect upon them in seeing that they carried out the wishes of Parliament, securing thereby that the films produced should be proper for such representation.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. An Amendment in substantially the same terms as the Amendment that stands in my name was moved in another place on June 29 last. Your Lordships will find it in Col. 1873 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That Amendment was opposed in a very short speech and with what appeared to me, if I may say so with due submission, very inadequate argument by the representative of the Home Office. A Division was taken and the Amendment was supported by no
634
fewer than 78 Members, representing all Parties in that House. It was only defeated by an incursion of the big battalions which sometimes takes place without perhaps sufficient reason. I most earnestly trust that this proposal, supported as I believe it is by the great mass of public opinion in this country, will be treated by the Government from a wide and generous standpoint, and I ask your Lordships in the interests of the community as a whole to support this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I apologise for again intruding on your Lordships especially as I have learned that some remarks that I made recently were made in a place which was somewhat irregular. It was due to a misunderstanding for which no one was to blame and as it is a precedent which ought not be followed I hope I shall not be thought to have established a precedent. I have necessarily some sympathy with the Amendment which has peen moved by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, especially as he was good enough to base his plea to the House very largely upon some observations which I made to your Lordships on Second Reading. Therefore, I am in entire sympathy with the object of the proposed Amendment. I am bound to say, however, that I think it might have been drafted rather differently. For instance, the word "and" at the beginning of the last line of the Amendment might create a difficulty, because entertainments can be of a healthy, wholesome character without necessarily being educative. I can imagine some films being most healthy which it would require a little stretch of language to call educative.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt the most rev. Primate for one moment? I should be quite willing to leave out all the words after "wholesome."
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Even so I think it would be somewhat difficult to enforce. How is it to be determined whether a particular film is healthy and wholesome except through the existing censorship, which I believe is more effective than the noble Lord seemed to imply? I am in-

635
formed that practically all local authorities throughout the country decline to allow films to be exhibited which have not received the certificate of the existing board of censorship. Although sometimes certificates are given to unsatisfactory films the censorship is for the most part becoming more effective and the standard of films is steadily rising. At the same time I think this Amendment would have its place as setting, so to say, on the face of the Bill the intention which I believe would have the assent of the great mass of public opinion. It is true that under the Bill it is within the power of the authority to impose special conditions upon the licence which they grant and it would be open to the public anywhere to bring pressure to bear to see that a licence is not given without some assurance of an arrangement for the films to be of a satisfactory character. But here again it would be a great strengthening of public opinion in dealing with the authorities if they were able to point to something in the Act itself indicating that it was intended by the Act to give a special character to the films exhibited on Sunday. Even if the noble and learned Viscount has to say that this Amendment is unnecessary and that it would be difficult to enforce, I suggest that he might recognise it as having some point and place as giving somewhere in the Act an indication of the special character which I believe the great mass of people would wish films exhibited on Sunday to possess.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is obvious that everyone will desire to sympathise with the object that the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, said had instigated this Amendment. Indeed I need not assure the most rev. Primate not only that anything he puts forward will be carefully considered, but that we are in agreement with him in thinking it is most important that the character of the films to be shown should be of a proper, healthy and wholesome character. The difficulty which the Home Office have felt, and which I am afraid they still feel, is not merely, as the most rev. Primate anticipated, that the Amendment would be unnecessary and difficult to enforce, but that on the whole it would rather hamper than help the local authority. May I in a few sentences try to explain how that comes about? If it were true that apart
636
from this Amendment licensing authorities had no power to control the character of the films shown, which was at one time contended, I think it would be very necessary to have such words in order to make it clear that with regard to Sunday films this was one of the matters they must consider. But as long ago as 1916 it was established in the Courts that the licensing authorities have power under the existing legislation of 1909 to control the character of the films shown in premises licensed by them by conditions attached to the grant of their licences.
A further stage was reached as long ago as 1921 when it was decided that the licensing authorities may make it a condition of licences that without their express consent no film shall be shown which has not been passed by the British Board of Film Censors—to whose work I think possibly the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, hardly did complete justice in his criticism. On the basis of that decision it has now become the almost universal practice—I think the universal practice—for licensing authorities to have a condition giving practical effect to the views of the British Board of Film Censors by preventing any other films from being shown. Supposing you seek as a licensing authority to impose some extra condition, what is it going to be? There is no other body at present which examines films. I think it is common ground that a film cannot be judged merely by reading a synopsis, but that everything depends on the treatment of the subject matter. The only way in which any one considers that films can be effectively judged and decided upon is by the judgment of someone who actually sees the film produced. An attempt was made, I think, in Beckenham to establish a censorship for Sunday films by setting up a small sub-committee of the licensing authority to go and see them all. They have only, I am told, two cinemas in Beckenham, but even with that number the system broke down after a very few weeks. As to London, where there are, I think, at least four hundred, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, would say if I suggested that the London County Council should send committees to examine all the films. The sort of plan which may be adopted in some areas is the kind referred to by the most rev. Primate at Croydon, where I think there is to be a

637
body which will contain a certain number of representatives of public authorities and of representatives of the churches.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: And of the cinema industry.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: A representative committee commanding general support which will examine the films and pass judgment on their suitability. That a very promising scheme. Under the Bill it will be quite open, of course, to the licensing authority to say that they will not license films unless they have been passed by some such body. If you put in this sort of clause, unless there is such a body in existence it is hardly possible to conceive how anything can be done, and where you have a body of the kind set up in Croydon you do not need this clause, because the essence of the scheme is that it commands general support and the public is represented on the committee. Therefore it is that the suggestion in the Amendment is, as I think the most rev. Primate agrees, an unnecessary one and one which it would be very difficult to enforce.
It is also one which at present at any rate is not required because the conditions which the local authority is entitled to impose are precisely of this character, and so far as I know in the areas where films are allowed to be shown—and those are the only areas in which at present they are to be shown—the local authorities will be as much alive to their responsibility as if this particular clause was in. In these circumstances it is felt that you are proposing to put into an Act of Parliament a very difficult provision and a provision which is going to embarrass the local authority in the administration of the Act. You have to remember that under the Act severe penalties are imposed if anybody breaks any of the conditions, and it is thought by the Home Office that the Bill would work more smoothly if the matter were left, as at present, to the discretion of the licensing authority, who are allowed to go on the kind of line they are going on at present at Croydon and elsewhere and so avoid the difficulty of having imposed upon them words which in most cases it will be impossible for them to Carry out. My noble friend Lord Danesfort referred to the discussion in another place. I will only say that, although he
638
found the discussion unsatisfying, the majority of more than three to one of the House of Commons took an opposite view and the Amendment was very heavily defeated. It is not because we are less anxious than the noble Lord to see films of a healthy and wholesome character, but it is because we do not feel that these words would do anything to produce that result that the Government does not wish to have the provision expressly inserted.
LORD HANWORTH: I do not think the noble and learned Viscount has met the point urged by the most rev. Primate. Indeed his speech was directed to the, difficulties which are pointed out by the advisers of the Home Office. The point that the most rev. Primate made was this, that it would be useful to put into the Bill, affirmatively, a standard to which some sort of conformity should be demanded. There is really very little difficulty in doing it, and if the Home Office at the moment have their misgivings, let us try and overcome those misgivings and show them the right course. It will be useful to have some sort of standard. It will be useful to point out that one of the conditions ought to be that the authority should be satisfied on tins particular point of a healthy and wholesome exhibition. Observe what the Amendment says. I take it that the noble Lord is prepared to leave out the words in the last line "so far as possible of an educative character," which are more difficult. The proviso is that the person to whom the licence is given is to satisfy the authority of the nature of the films. It does not require that the authority shall go round and look and observe and have an exhibition of all the films. That is not suggested. The noble Viscount suggests that possibly Lord Jessel might find some difficulty, if he were sent round to 400 films in London, in ascertaining whether the exhibition was going to be of a healthy nature or not. That is not what is required. It lies with the licensee to bring some evidence, and it can be given in several ways. There is, for instance, his known reputation. He has got to satisfy the authority, and the authority should look to conformity to a standard, requiring films to be of a wholesome character.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With his judicial experience, does the noble and

639
learned Lord tell us that if these words are in the Bill a licensee will be able to satisfy the licensing authority that the films to be exhibited are of a healthy and wholesome character, by reference to his known character?
LORD HANWORTH: I thought the noble and learned Viscount wished to interrupt me because of the weight of what I was saying. I was saying that that was only one of the features. For instance, a man who has been exhibiting for a great many years comes and says: "My exhibition is of the same character, and I will tell you the natures and the characters and the titles of the films." I think that most people of a judicial character, justices and the like, would be entitled to give very much weight to that sort of information, and I should be sorry that there should be any judicial body who would neglect that kind of evidence. That is my answer to the noble and learned Viscount. These words, if necessary, can be amended. What I am unwilling to cast aside is the value that this proviso gives to what are called affirmative standards, and although the Home Office at the moment may not appreciate them, and perhaps find too many difficulties in them, I think your Lordships can help by inserting these words and if necessary amending them on Report. Do not, however, let us give up the standard which this proviso indicates.
LORD SNELL: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but this matter is of some real importance and I wish to say a few words about it. I accept the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount as to the difficulties of administering a law with these words included, but my hesitation about this proposal is on other grounds. I sympathise, as we all must, with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, to have films on Sunday which are beyond all question of an elevating character; but whilst we do in modern life set apart certain days and places and persons as being particularly associated with religious observances, in actual fact a film that ought not to be shown on a Sunday night ought not to be shown on any other night, and I cannot imagine that any young person would be particularly helped by a censorship, if you will, operating upon one day of the week, with a lower standard on the remaining
640
days. It might conceivably happen that those responsible for the film industry might say that they would keep a certain standard of films for Sunday nights, with a lowering of the standard for the rest of the week. From an educational point of view, and from the point of view of moral responsibility, what we should aim at is not a standard for one day in the week particularly but for all the days of the week, and that would be achieved by the proposals in the later clauses of the Bill.
LORD JESSEL: May I point out that the London County Council has a sitting in February to licence films? How are you to ask producers to bring before the London County Council a year ahead every one of the films they are going to produce? It seems to me absolutely impossible. I sympathise with what has been said, but I do not see how you can throw it upon the producers to satisfy the London County Council of the exact nature of the films which they are going to produce in the course of a year. On the other hand, if you are going to ask the County Council to look into the matter, what a host of inspectors they would require to have! It would put the London County Council and other authorities to very great expense, because they would need to employ a host of inspectors.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: In spite of what we have recently heard I still hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment. It has been said, and I think we may repeat it, that this new proviso gives a standard. It has been forgotten that this is a special Bill concerning Sunday cinemas. I think that removes the argument that the standard set for Sunday should be the right standard for every day of the week. We are not speaking of the other days of the week, we are speaking of Sunday, and in wholly exceptional circumstances cinemas are to be opened in certain conditions on Sunday. That, I think, makes it quite logical for us to consider Sunday cinemas apart from the cinemas of the other days of the week. I believe that in some of our provincial towns it would be of great assistance to the licensing authority to have this standard set in front of them. It is a mistake to suppose that they will only discuss films that are just on the border line, that they will say

641
that such-and-such a film will just pass muster, or just not. There is a certain number of films that quite unquestionably from their very nature must be healthy and wholesome, and even of an educative character, such as films which deal with nature life, the movements of animals and birds. There can be no question that films of that character are wholesome and suitable.
I believe that, so far from the film, industry finding that it would pay them to concentrate their better films on the Sundays and therefore worse films on other days of the week, when they have produced on Sundays such films as I have suggested they will find that they are more popular than they supposed, and they will tend to introduce them on the other days of the week. I cannot see that any of the arguments that we have heard show that this Amendment will do any harm. The most that has been said is, Will it do any good?. And if there are some of us who think it will do some good, I think we may ask for the support of those who condemn it because they say that to have this clause would impede the action of the licensing authority in other ways. We do not remove any powers that they already possess. We do not suggest that they are not using them correctly. We do say that in this special Bill, referring only to Sunday cinemas, we would like to have the Sunday films different from the films that pass muster on the other days of the week.
LORD IRWIN: Before the Amendment is voted upon I should like to say that I began listening to the discussion with every sympathy with my noble friend, but as the discussion has proceeded I have become convinced in my own mind that we should make a mistake if we included these words in the Bill. It seems to me evident that the project is unworkable, and everything that has been said, including the speech of the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken, leads me to the conclusion that the right way to deal with this is not to try to set up a special standard for Sunday, but to raise the standard of all films.
LORD ARNOLD: Following upon the speech of the noble Lord, I would venture to suggest—and this is in part reply
642
to my noble friend Lord Snell—that, if some such words as these were incorporated in the Bill the effect of them might very well be in the direction of raising the whole standard of films. Take one point. It might very well be that if some such regulation as this were made the film that would be shown on the Sunday would be the film that would be shown for the remainder of the week. I think there are very strong reasons why some such words as these should be inserted in the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble Viscount gave me any amount of sympathy, but nothing practical. I always suspect a Minister who is so ready of sympathy but is not going to follow it up by any action. The chief argument advanced in opposition is that there would be difficulty in working this provision. There are always difficulties in doing good things, and it is the business of the Government, when it approves of the object of a particular Amendment, to find out how those difficulties can be surmounted. I think it would be a lamentable thing when an attempt is made in this House to ensure that Sunday films are of a suitable character, if it went out from this House that the Government, while sympathising with that object, expressed themselves powerless to to do anything to carry it into effect. I do hope that the independent members of your Lordships' House, in the interests of the community as a whole and to carry out what are undoubtedly the wishes of vast numbers of people in this country, will vote for this Amendment. If, when the Report stage comes, words can be introduced into the Amendment to make it more workable, I shall be delighted to accept those changes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am going to put the Amendment in the altered form that has been suggested. It will then read as follows:
"Provided that such conditions shall require the person to whom the licence is granted to satisfy the authority that the films to be exhibited are of a healthy and wholesome character, and"
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Arnold, L.

Hanworth, L.

Barnard, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Morton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Luke, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Mamhead, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Daryngton, L.

Marks, L.

Ullswater, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Rhayader, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Greville, L.

Wellington, D.

Allendale, V.

Hampton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Linlithgow, M.

Mersey, V.

Irwin, L.

Jessel, L.

Grey, E.

Aberdare, L.

Lamington, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Annaly, L.

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Askwith, L.

Sanderson, L.

Plymouth, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Snell, L.

Camrose, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think having regard to the time which we have now reached, it would be plainly impossible for your Lordships to complete the Committee stage this evening. Probably it would be convenient, in those circumstances, to adjourn the further discussion of the Committee stage until tomorrow, and for the House to sit to-morrow at three o'clock and take this first. If that meets with the convenience of your Lordships I will move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LAMINGTON: I have had a Question down on the Order Paper for weeks. Will it have first place to-morrow? I thought I should have a clear run, instead of the Government having their convenience met. When does my Question come on to-morrow?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It can come on to-night if my noble friend likes. We can take it now, if it would suit my noble friend. He will understand I am anxious to meet him, but there are difficulties. There is a great deal of Government business to be got through, and if it would be convenient for my noble friend to take his Question to-night my noble friend Lord Stanhope is in a position to give him some information. I hope my noble friend Lord Lamington will aquit me of any discourtesy if I have to go now, because there is a cabinet meeting called for a quarter past seven.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

RELATIONS WITH THE YEMEN.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government as to the present position of our relations with the Yemen, and with special reference to a treaty being made with the Imam; also to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a Question with which I have often on previous occasions worried your Lordships. It has reference to the Aden Protectorate and the neighbouring State of the Yemen. I would like to have information on the points which I have put down upon the Paper. A few months ago there was a possibility of the Imam coming to some agreement, and I think that perhaps there is now a great likelihood of his doing so. He has passed through trouble. He has lost one son who was drowned, another son is ill, and he himself is in very bad health. At this late hour I will not say anything further, but will ask for the information. I trust that under the conditions I have named the Imam may be more reconciled to come into an agreement with us as to the making of a treaty.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I may be able to give my noble friend some information on this subject which I think will at any rate be to some extent pleasing to him, knowing how keen he has been for many years that an agreement should be arrived at between the

645
Imam and this country. Since the date on which the noble Lord last raised this matter in the House, further communications have passed between His Highness the Imam of the Yemen and the Resident at Men, and I am glad to be able to say that they have been of a friendly nature. In October last the Imam put forward proposals for a treaty which were carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who replied through the Resident that they considered that the draft provided a suitable foundation for treaty negotiations, subject to certain modifications embodied in a revised draft which His Majesty's Government had drawn up. They regarded it as an essential preliminary condition to the signature of the treaty that certain territories and subjects of Chiefs under their protection still held by the Imam should be peacefully restored without damage or detriment to person or property. In regard to that I may say that when my noble friend asked the question in December, 1930, there were some forty hostages held by the Imam. I understand that since that date he has released more than half of them, and so the number is materially reduced. But His Majesty's Government are still of opinion that they cannot conclude a treaty until the hostages have been released. Subject to acceptance of this condition, a settlement by mutual agreement would be achieved most effectively and speedily by direct and personal negotiations rather than by further correspondence.
The Imam was further informed that, if he was prepared to proceed with negotiations on the lines indicated, the Resident (Lieut.-Colonel B. R. Reilly) would visit him at Sanaa as soon as could be conveniently arranged. His Highness has replied within the last few days raising certain points of importance, and these are now under consideration. I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government welcome and reciprocate His Highness the Imam's desire for a settlement, and they earnestly hope that it may be found possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this long outstanding matter. I am afraid I have no Papers at this stage to lay because, as your Lordships will understand, while negotiations are going on it would be inadvisable to lay a draft treaty or the treaty which is proposed by the Imam.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the answer which the noble Earl has given me is more satisfactory than the answers which I have had in the past. I understand that it is possible our representative may go to Sanaa to negotiate personally. I do not know if our representative will be Colonel Reilly. I think everyone would have the greatest confidence in him. We could not have a better emissary. I hope good results will follow. It ought to be realised that the Soviet Government are making tremendous efforts to get the Imam under their control. There is no doubt that there is a gentleman from Soviet Russia there who would have great influence with the Imam, and his influence will not be confined to the Imam but will extend all over Arabia. It is therefore important that we should come to a friendly understanding, and have a clear agreement between the Imam and the Crown. I regret to hear that he still has some hostages. I thought they had all been released. I trust that he may see the wisdom of releasing them so that he may be able to co-operate more freely with His Majesty's Government. I thank the noble Lord for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
  THE NOMENCLATURE OF DISEASES.
  THE NOMENCLATURE OF DISEASES.