Sitting of 7 July 1932

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Wednesbury, in the room of William Humble Eric Ward, commonly called Viscount Ednam, now the Earl of Dudley, called up to the House of Peers.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Warrington Extension Bill [Lords],
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ALIENS (HOSIERY WORKS, ILKESTON).
    Mr. CHARLES BROWNasked the Minister of Labour what number of Germans are at present employed by the Maville Hosiery Company, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire; and for what period and purpose the permits have been granted; and, since among the number there is a German girl, what is the special reason for which she has been permitted to come to this country for employment in this factory?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Permits have been issued during the past 12 months for the employment of 14 Germans by the Maville Hosiery Company comprising one general
    590
    foreman instructor, four erectors of machinery and nine key workers as instructors. Of this total, two have not yet arrived, and four have already left the country. The permits are for periods from three to six months except in the case of the foreman instructor which was for 12 months. The woman worker referred to is required for six months as a seamer for the purpose of instructing British workers.
    Mr. BROWN: Is the Minister aware that this girl seamer has been allowed to come into this country for this purpose when there are thousands of girls in the area who can perform the work?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. In their application for a permit for this woman teacher, the company stated:
    "Although we have advertised weekly in the local papers for the last three months and have also been in communication with the local labour exchange, our machines are still idle. We must, therefore, have teachers to instruct local unskilled girls."
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether this is not due to the fact that this is German machinery which is installed in this factory?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, that is so. I am told that these are German machines and that the process is new to this country.
    Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these German seamer machines have been used in the industry for quite a long time?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: My information is to the opposite effect. I do not profess to be an expert on the matter, but I am told that this German machinery is a new process.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original reply o1 the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he had had a report from the employers to the effect that they had tried to get girls from the Employment Exchange, my supplementary is this: has the Minister inquired at the Employment Exdhange as to whether that statement is correct?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I took it to be the fact, as stated by the company, that they had asked the Employment Exchange for these girls and had not got them.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to challenge that letter.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting away from the question on the Paper.

    MINERS AND HOSIERY WORKERS (SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD AND MANSFIELD).
    Mr. C. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of miners totally unemployed and temporarily stopped on the registers of the Employment Exchanges at Sutton-in-

    Insured persons in the coalmining and hosiery industries recorded as unemployed at the Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield Employment Exchanges.

    Employment Exchange.

    Industry.

    —

    26th October, 1931.

    23rd May, 1932.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Sutton-in-Ashfield

    Coalmining

    W.U

    1,603

    —

    1,603

    1,948

    —

    1,948

    T.S.

    908

    —

    908

    610

    —

    610

    Total

    2,511

    —

    2,511

    2,558

    —

    2,558

    Hosiery

    W.U.

    83

    460

    543

    54

    163

    217

    T.S.

    44

    201

    245

    78

    242

    320

    Total

    127

    661

    788

    132

    405

    537

    Mansfield

    Coalmining

    W.U.

    1,290

    —

    1,290

    1,401

    —

    1,401

    T.S.

    636

    —

    636

    654

    —

    654

    Total

    1,926

    —

    1,926

    2,055

    —

    2,055

    Hosiery

    W.U.

    34

    91

    125

    15

    30

    45

    T.S.

    40

    36

    76

    27

    179

    206

    Total

    74

    127

    201

    42

    209

    251

    W.U.=Wholly unemployed

    T.S.=Temporarily stopped.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PIKEasked the Minister of Labour the recent additions to the total numbers of unemployed in the iron and steel trades; if he has any information to show what proportion of the increase is due to the application of the advice tendered to the trades by the Tariff Advisory Committee; and whether such figures include all persons previously holding non-insurable occupations?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons in the iron and steel industry classification (excluding pig iron manufacture) recorded as unemployed in
    592
    Ashfield and Mansfield, respectively, on 31st October, 1931, and 31st May, 1932;
    (2) the number of hosiery workers, both men and women, totally unemployed or temporarily stopped on the register of the Employment Exchanges at Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield, respectively, on 31st October, 1931, and 31st May, 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Great Britain at 23rd May, 1932, the latest date for which figures are available, was 86,366. This was 5,825 more than at 25th April. The figures relate only to persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PIKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it rather significant that there is this large increase of unemployment in the iron and steel trade, especially in the uninsurable class, since

    593
    the advice tendered to the trade by the Advisory Committee, and does he not think that some steps are necessary, in view of the possibility of a further increase, to deal with this new mass of unemployed workers?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, that was, of course, the question put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. With regard to the first part, as this advice was only tendered quite recently, it can scarcely have had the effect which the hon. Member suggests.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not possible that this is due to the new tariff policy of the Government?

    IRISH FREE STATE (RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS).
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the representations made to him by the Government of the Irish Free State with regard to the payment of unemployment insurance benefit to Irish workers who have returned to the Irish Free state after losing their employment in this country
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The reciprocal arrangement with the Irish Free State with regard to unemployment insurance was terminated in 1923 at the instance of the Government of the Irish Free State. An agreement for reciprocity is practicable only if there is a considerable measure of similarity between the schemes. Proposals for a new agreement providing for reciprocal arrangements on a basis different from that previously in operation have recently been made by the Irish Free State Government, and the matter is under consideration.

    BROADCASTING (CAPTAIN HASHAGEN).
    Commander MARSDENasked the Minister of Labour if he will refuse to grant a permit to Captain Ernst Hashagen to land in this country for the purpose of broadcasting his experiences of sinking British and Allied merchant shipping during the last War while in command of a German U-boat?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to answer this question. I understand from the British Broadcasting Corporation that the talk was planned as a serious contribution towards the elimination of this method of warfare, and would have been so expressed. In view, however, of international discussions now proceeding at Geneva, I have been informed that it has been decided not to proceed with the talk. The question of a permit does not therefore arise.

    INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of compensation claims made and the number granted, and the fatalities recorded, in the pottery industry since the Silicosis Order came into operation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I regret I have no information as to the number of compensation claims made, but the number of cases in this industry in which compensation was paid since 1st February, 1929, when the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme came into operation, up to the end of 1931, is 322, including 87 fatal cases.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Miners Federation are not satisfied that this order is doing the work it is intended to do?
    Mr. STANLEY: That matter was referred to in the Debate yesterday, when the hon. Member was not present.

    POLICE COURT DECISIONS (APPEALS).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state whether he will appoint a Select Committee to go into the differential procedure in respect of the furnishing of recognisances in the law courts of the country, especially in view of the hardship caused to poor defendants who cannot find large sums to enable them to promote appeals against police court decisions?
    Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has decided to appoint a Committee to consider this question. The proposed terms of reference to the Committee are

    595
    "to consider the law and practice relating to appeals from decisions of courts of summary jurisdiction and to recommend such amendments, if any, as may be thought desirable."
    The following gentlemen have consented to serve on the Committee:

    The Hon. Sir William Francis Kyffin Taylor, G.B.E., B.C. (Chairman),

    Sir Chartres Biron,

    Sir Ernley Blackwell, K.C.B.,

    L. S. Brass, Esq.,

    Walter Monckton, Esq., K.C., and

    Sir John Withers, C.B.E., M.P.

    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is this committee to be set up immediately?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have announced that it has been set up.

  TRANSPORT.

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have been instituted against drivers and/or proprietors of heavy road vehicles for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles an hour in the Metropolitan area in the periods 1st January, 1932, to 10th March, 1932, and 11th March, 1932, to 31st May, 1932, respectively; and whether there is any evidence that the disregard of the law as to the speed limit of heavy road vehicles can be stopped other than by the prosecution of the law breakers?
    Mr. STANLEY: The number of prosecutions of drivers of omnibuses and coaches for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles an hour in the Metropolitan Police area from 1st January, 1932, to 10th March, 1932, was 67, and from 11th March, 1932, to 31st May, 1932, was 238. There were no prosecutions of the proprietors during these periods. Figures in respect of other classes of heavy vehicles are not available. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the Traffic Commissioners have recently reviewed the time tables of motor coach services with a view to satisfying themselves that they can be operated without the maximum speed limit being exceeded. A breach of the conditions in the matter attached to a road service licence could be dealt with in proper cases by its suspension or revocation.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Home Secretary what further steps be will take to ensure that the speed limit of 30 miles an hour is observed by heavy road vehicles, in view of the fact that the new instructions which, on 10th March, he announced had been issued to the Metropolitan police have had no effect in view of the fact that, whereas the total number of persons killed and injured in the Metropolitan area in road accidents in which heavy road vehicles were involved during the 70 days from 1st January, 1932, to 10th March, 1932, was 2,252, the equivalent total for the 81 days from 11th March to 31st May, 1932, was 2,729, an average increase of over 11 persons killed and injured in a week?
    Mr. STANLEY: Active steps have been and are being taken by the Metropolitan Police to secure observance of the speed limit, and I do not accept the hon. Member's suggestion that they have been ineffective. In comparing the casualties for the two, periods mentioned he appears to assume that they were wholly attributable to vehicles which were exceeding the speed limit, and I am unable to confirm this assumption. It must also be borne in mind that many other factors have to be taken into account; such as weather conditions and the number of vehicles on the road which is normally much greater in the second quarter of the year than the first. I may add that the figure which he quotes for the second period should be 2,719 and not 2,729.

    MOTOR-CAR THEFTS, LONDON.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Home Secretary how many cases of motor-cars being stolen have been reported to the Metropolitan Police during six months to the last convenient date; how many persons have been convicted of car stealing and how many have been discharged with a caution on the ground that the car was borrowed for a joy ride; and how many have been convicted of receiving ears and parts in the same period?
    Mr. STANLEY: During the six months ended 30th April last, 3,853 motor-cars were reported stolen to the Metropolitan Police, and 3,798 were reported recovered; 108 persons were convicted in the Metropolitan Police District for stealing motor-cars or motor-cycles, and 91 were discharged under the Probation of

    597
    Offenders Act for taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent; 25 persons were convicted for receiving cars or parts.

    ROAD AND RAIL ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. MABANEasked Vile Home Secretary the ratio of the number of persons killed and injured on the roads in 1931 to the number of persons killed and injured on the railways in the same year; and whether, in view of the number of accidents on the roads, he will undertake to institute an immediate campaign to make the roads safe for the public?
    Mr. STANLEY: The number of persons in Great Britain killed in street accidents caused by horses and vehicles was 6,691, and -the number killed on the railways was 339. The numbers injured were 202,119 and 22,888. The figures relating to the railways do not include trespassers and suicides. As regards the latter part of the question, efforts are constantly being made to secure a reduction of the accident rate on roads by inculcating a higher standard of care and consideration by all road users, if necessary by proceedings against offenders, and by an analysis of the circumstances in which accidents occur with a view to their prevention.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is it not now becoming quite clear that much of this traffic, particularly the heavy traffic, now on the roads is not suitable for the roads, and ought to go on the railways?
    Mr. STANLEY: I think I ought to have notice of a question of such importance as that.

    RED LION BRIDGE, MAGLIULL.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the dangerous condition of the Red Lion Bridge at Maghull; and, in the interest of public safety, will he take steps to complete the by-pass road now partly constructed as soon as the financial position will permit?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I am aware of the condition of this bridge, and have no doubt that the responsible local authorities will desire as soon as the financial position permits to resume work on the diversion scheme.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (PAY).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether the rateable deductions made from the pay of probationary constables of the Metropolitan police are returned in the event of the constable being released from service on the grounds that he will not make an efficient constable?
    Mr. STANLEY: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. D. ADAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of cases during the last three years in which the whole or part of the rateable deductions have been withheld from a member of the Metropolitan police who has been called upon to resign or dismissed other than those whose services have been dispensed with during the probationary period?
    Mr. STANLEY: The number is 25.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the large numbers of unemployed young persons, it is proposed to raise the school-leaving age to 15 at an early date?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The answer is in the negative.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of nursery schools in operation, and the number of new nursery schools which have been sanctioned by the Department since 1st October, 1931?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The number of nursery schools at present recognised by the Board is 56. No new proposals for the provision of nursery schools have been approved since 1st October last, but there are 15 cases in which the provision of the schools had been approved before that date and in which formal recognition has since been given or will shortly be given.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the Board are not now actually discouraging an increase of these schools?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In existing circumstances it is improbable that any more will be sanctioned.

    SCHOOL AMALGAMATIONS.
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the number of small school amalgamations that took place in 1930 and 1931, respectively; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will urge local authorities to proceed as quickly as possible with all contemplated amalgamations of elementary schools?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The number of separate departments of public elementary schools which were discontinued as a result of amalgamation or of the transfer of children to other schools was 293 in 1930 and 367 in 1931. These figures show that local education authorities are alive to the opportunity of reducing their expenditure by this means, but the possibility of further economy in this direction is now being explored by the Board.

    SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHERS (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION).
    KIRKWOOD (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will consider the withdrawal of the recent circular sent out to teachers in which they were urged to propagate the necessity of peaceful co-operation with the nations of the world, in view of the misunderstanding which has been caused by this circular?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board's Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers, issued in 1927, contains passages dealing with teaching on the subject of the League of Nations and of international co-operation generally, but I am not aware of any circular such as is suggested in the question. Perhaps the hon. Member is thinking of the message to schools and scholars circulated by the late President of the Board on the occasion of the opening of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, but as that was related to that particular occasion, there can be no question of its withdrawal now.

    RATING RELIEF (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health the total amount of
    600
    money which industrialists and others in the administrative county of Lancashire have been relieved of in rates due to the derating system?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): It is estimated that the occupiers of agricultural, industrial and freight transport hereditaments in the administrative county of Lancaster were relieved of rates to the extent of about £675,000 in respect of the ha-lf-year ended 31st March, 1930. Similar information is not available for subsequent rating periods, but there is no reason to suppose that the amount of relief has varied substantially.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the Derating Act had the good effects that were anticipated when the Government introduced it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Parkinson.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. My supplementary question had bearing on the original question, and referred to the Derating Act, which was brought in by the predecessor of the present Minister of Health.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite true, but it was unsuitable as a supplementary question.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LANCASHIRE (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health what has been the gain per head of the population from the working of the combination of block grant and formula for the distribution of the general Exchequer contribution, under the Local Government Act, 1929, in Accrington, Burnley, Blackburn, Preston, Bolton, Manchester, Warrington, Chester and Stockport?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am sending the hon. Member a statement giving the information requested.

    MERTHYR TYDVIL (FINANCES).
    Lieut.-Commander BOWERasked the Minister of Health if he has considered the petition sent to him by certain ratepayers in the county borough of Merthyr Tydvil concerning the financial administration of the council; and

    601
    whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter and what reply he has sent?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have been making some preliminary investigations which are not yet completed, but I hope to be able shortly to send a definite reply to the petition.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Health how many whole-time regional medical officers are employed by the Ministry; and what are their duties and salaries?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend is necessarily long, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers and annual salaries of the officers in question are as follow:
    Four divisional medical officers on the scale of £1,400—£1,600. Thirty-five regional medical officers on the scale of £1,000—£1,400. Forty-three deputy regional medical officers on the scale of £800—£1,100.
    These salaries are inclusive, that is to say no cost of living bonus is payable on them; and they are at present subject to abatements varying from 10 per cent. to 7½ per cent. in accordance with decisions of His Majesty's Government. The chief duty of the regional and deputy regional medical officers is to examine insured persons certified as incapable of work and referred for a second medical opinion either by approved societies on the question of incapacity, or by insurance practitioners for purposes of consultation. The bulk of their emoluments is accordingly repaid by societies as an appropriation in aid of the Ministry of Health Vote. These officers also inspect the medical records kept by insurance practitioners, and (on behalf of the Home Office) the Dangerous Drugs registers kept by medical practitioners and hospitals; they interview insurance practitioners on questions relating to prescribing; and from time to time make other inquiries and reports required in the administration of the insurance medical service.

  HOUSING.

    TYLDESLEY.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he has considered the resolution carried by the Tyldesley Urban District Council informing him of the urgent need of a type of house above 760 square feet area for three rooms, that they have already built a number of three-roomed houses of 900 square feet area, and that this larger type of house is more in conformity with what is wanted; and will he give consideration to the request?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have carefully considered the council's proposals but I see no sufficient reason to approve a departure from the considered policy expressed in the Circular (1238) which I caused to be issued to all local authorities last January and a copy of which I have already sent to the hon. Member.
    Mr. TINKER: I understand that that circular gave the Minister discretion or power to sanction a larger type of house, and, seeing that this larger type of house has met with the approval of most of the inhabitants, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to use his power to sanction its erection?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Undoubtedly, there is a discretion in the Minister when a special case is established for a house larger than the normal type, but he cannot make the concession when he considers that such a case is not established.
    Mr. TINKER: If a request comes from more than one locality asking for a better type of house, cannot it be done? I understand that the 760-feet house is so small that one cannot swing the proverbial cat in the rooms.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will understand that the policy is to confine such public funds as are available to the construction of that type of house which is most needed, and whether another type is needed or not must depend upon a special case being made For the locality. In this particular case, it was not considered that that had been established.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES).
    Mr. PALMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the necessity for increased housing accommodation in many areas and also in view of the unemployment in the building in-

    603
    dustry, he will cause local authorities to be informed that his circular of 1st July must not be interpreted as calling for the suspension of housing schemes where the local need is urgent?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The hon. Member appears to have misinterpreted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's letter of the 1st July. That letter invited certain associations and bodies concerned with local government to explore the whole field of local expenditure by means of committees which would lay their views and recommendations before the Government, who would then consider and decide any issues of policy raised, subject, of course, to the final determination of Parliament. My right hon. Friend could not debar the committees from inquiring into particular items of expenditure or prejudge the issues which their reports may raise.

    BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the saving that could be effected in next year's Budget if the cost of the beet-sugar subsidy could be removed, he will consider the advisability of appointing the committee of inquiry into the sugar-beet industry without further delay, in order that its report may be available before the next Budget is drafted?
    Major ELLIOT: No, Sir. As I have previously explained, this committee is intended specifically to advise the Government what action should be taken when the present Subsidy Act expires in 1934. Its report cannot affect next year's Budget.

  WAR LOAN CONVERSION.

    FOREIGN INVESTORS.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amount of War Loan held by foreign investors?
    Major ELLIOT: I regret that exact information is not available, but from such indications as exist it seems that the total foreign holdings (excluding holdings in the British Empire) do not exceed £100 millions and may be as low as in the neighbourhood of £50 millions only.
    Mr. LYONSWhile thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that answer, I would ask whether he is satisfied that the response of these holders to the conversion scheme is wholly satisfactory?
    Major ELLIOT: I think these are early days yet to say that, but the figures I have given as to the amount show that the response will not affect the success of the scheme one way or another.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a special circular suitable for foreign investors?
    Major ELLIOT: I will have to consider that suggestion.

    BEARER BONDS.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the 5 per cent. War Loan is in bearer bonds; what steps have been taken to notify holders of bearer bonds of the conversion proposals; and whether they are entitled like other holders to bonus at the rate of £1 per £100?
    Major ELLIOT: The amount held in the form of bearer bonds is £230,888,700. The Bank of England of course cannot send notice of the Government's offer to holders of bearer bonds by post; but the official announcement dated the 30th June, which was widely advertised in the public Press throughout the week-end, contained directions for their guidance. It is also the custom of banks and other agents with whom bonds are deposited to notify holders of any matters affecting their interests. Holders of bearer bonds are entitled to the cash bonus on the same terms as other holders of the loan if they lodge their bonds together with all unmatured coupons at the Bank of England loans office not later than the 31st July, 1932. Special extension of time may be allowed if the delay is shown to be due solely to the absence of the holder abroad.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the holders of these bonds, in all cases, will be notified by the bank, or is there any other means of notifying them?
    Major ELLIOT: We have taken all the steps we can think of in the matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any suggestions to make, I shall be glad to consider them.

    PROGRESS.
    Commander MARSDEN (for Mr. HAMMERSLEY)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can inform the House on the progress of the conversion operation?
    Major ELLIOT: No one can doubt that the reception of the scheme has been favourable in the extreme. It thoroughly justifies all that my right hon. Friend said about the mood of the country and its readiness for great enterprises. The progress made to date is no less satisfactory. In the nature of things it is too early to measure it statistically. But the post bag up to date exceeds our most sanguine expectations.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether for Income Tax purposes the 3½ per cent. War Loan conversion scheme will be treated as an entirely new issue, or will the holder of 5 per cent. War Loan converting into the 3½ per cent. War Loan be assessed for the year 1933–34 on £5 per cent. interest?
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the new 3½ per cent. War Loan will be treated as a new investment for Income Tax purposes and consequently assessed on the 3½ per cent. and not on the 5 per cent. basis?
    Major ELLIOT: The first dividend on the new £3 10s. per cent. War Loan will be paid on 1st June, 1933, and holders will be chargeable to Income Tax for the year 1933–34 upon the amount of the dividends receivable by them on 1st June, 1033, and 1st December, 1933, and not by reference to the dividends received in 1932–33 at the rate of 5 per cent. upon their corresponding holdings of 5 per cent. War Loan.

    FACILITIES.
    Mr. DENMAN(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements are being made to facilitate the conversion of War Loan deposited with the High Court under various statutes.
    Major ELLIOT: In general, where it is possible to communicate by letter, a copy of the letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to every holder is being sent
    606
    with a notice that, where continuance of the holding and payment of the cash bonus is desired, application should be made to the Court not later than the 25th July, and where repayment in cash is desired, application should be made not later than the 19th September. Where communication by letter is not possible recourse is had to advertisement. The Court fees will be remitted on the application. The procedure will be as simple as possible. In Lunacy cases notice is being given to all receivers that an application will be made for continuance of holdings in the Loan and for payment of the cash bonus unless a counter-notice to the contrary is received not later than the 25th July.

    NATIONAL SAYINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. GLEDHILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of national savings certificates sold during the last 12 months; the amount credited to the holders by way of interest; and the total amount spent on publicity for these sales?
    Major ELLIOT: The number of Savings Certificates sold during the 12 months to 30th June last was approximately 64,000,000 units representing a purchase price of £51 millions. Interest is not credited to holders individually until a certificate is presented for payment, but the value of a certificate at the end of the first 12 months after purchase is 168. 3d. The amount spent on advertising Savings Certificates in the last financial year, including the advertising of the recent conversion offers, was approximately £56,000.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTED TYPEWRITERS.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of typewriters upon which duty was paid on importation during May, 1932, and the countries from which they came, respectively?
    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 number of typewriters on which duty was paid at the time of importation during May, 1932, was 217, consigned from the following countries:—

    United States of America

    …

    125

    Germany

    …

    52

    Italy

    …

    24

    Irish Free State

    …

    7

    France

    …

    5

    Other countries

    …

    4

    217

    Information is not available as to the number of typewriters on which duty was paid on delivery from bonded warehouse.

    FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MACMILLANasked the Prime Minister (1) what action, if any, the Government propose to take with regard to that part of the report of the Committee on Finance and Industry which recommends the setting up of an organisation to obtain closer co-operation between finance and industry;
    (2) whether he has considered the report submitted to him by the Federation of British Industries calling for the control of the direction of new investment in such a way as to secure the maximum advantage to British industry in obtaining the necessary capital for desirable developments; and what action, if any, the Government proposes to take?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): While my right hon. Friend would welcome action taken by private initiative on the lines recommended in the Macmillan report, on the subjects to which my hon. Friend alludes, he does not think that these matters can properly be made the subject of direct Government action.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH SHIPPING).
    Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Russian Government is still chartering foreign, rather than British, ships to carry cargoes sold by Russian State trade organisations to this country, notwithstanding that the adverse balance of visible trade in favour of Russia has
    608
    amounted to £127,500,000 in the last 10 years; in what proportions the Russian Government have chartered British and foreign vessels for such cargoes during the last 12 months; and whether His Majesty's Government will make it a condition of the continuance of the existing trade agreement with Russia that that country should redress the trade balance by increasing purchases of British goods and making full use of British shipping on equitable terms?
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in response to the resolutions sent to him by the Council of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom which, after correspondence with the Anglo-Soviet Shipping Company, Limited, respecting timber chartering from Soviet ports, have urged that His Majesty's Government should make it a condition of the continuance of the present trade agreement between this country and Russia that the Russian Government should make full use of British shipping on equitable terms?
    Mr. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that the Russian Government is chartering a large number of foreign ships to carry cargoes from Russia to this country but I am unable at present to give the proportions of British and foreign vessels chartered for such cargoes during the last 12 months. Inquiries on the latter point are being made. The question of continuing the existing trade agreement with Russia is at present under consideration but I would observe that this agreement must be looked at from the point of view of all the interests concerned and not merely that of shipping. No negotiations for fresh trade agreements with Russia or other foreign Governments can take place until after the Ottawa Conference but, if and when such negotiations take place, the representations of the shipping industry will receive full consideration.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will take care that the British chartering market is not being destroyed in the meantime?
    Mr. COLVILLE: We will do our best to ensure that.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British shipowners to-day are discharging crews and employing Chinese instead of British sailors?
    Mr. COLVILLE: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the fixing up of these ships by Russia not in accordance with the terms which were laid down to them, as to buying British ships already built, instead of ordering new construction, as a condition of getting extended credits.
    Mr. COLVILLE: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
    Mr. M1TCHESON: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that 54,000 British seamen are unemployed?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. These facts will be borne in mind.

    INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.
    Mr. MACMILLANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the success of the industrial cooperation between the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the steel industry, the Government will consider some provisions for functional representation, such as the recognition of representative councils for each industry as bodies to be taken into consultation when policies are being formulated which affect the welfare of particular trades or of industry as a whole?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Fiore-Belisha): The Government, on all appropriate occasions, consult the many representative bodies connected with industry on questions affecting the welfare of particular trades or of industry as a whole.
    Mr. MANDER: Will my hon. Friend not suggest to Sir George May that where joint industrial councils exist in an industry they should be consulted when any reconstruction scheme is under consideration?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend has suggested it.

    ELECTRICITY GENERATION (PULVERISED COAL).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information as to the number, if any, of electrical
    610
    generating plants in the United Kingdom which use pulverised coal?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is informed by the Electricity Commissioners that during the year 1930–31, 19 authorised electricity undertakings in Great Britain consumed 941,000 tons of pulverised coal at their generating stations, or about 11 per cent. of the total amount of coal used for the generation of electricity by all authorised undertakings. Information is not at present available in regard to other undertakings which generate electricity, but efforts are being made to obtain it.

    UPPER YANGTSE.
    Mr. NUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further information as to the irregular taxation prevailing on the Upper Yangtse, and the disability it imposes on British trade with Szechuan; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): In the light of present conditions on the Upper Yangtse, it is manifestly difficult to deal with such numerous and varied exactions, but I am aware of the difficulties referred to, which do not affect British trade only. His Majesty's representatives in China at all times take such steps as are possible to ensure that British trade is not unfairly treated and these efforts will of course be continued.

    IRISH FREE STATE. (FINANCIAL RELATIONS).
    Mr. WEDDERBURNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount of the National Debt for which the Irish Free State agreed to become responsible in 1921; how much of this sum has since been remitted by Great Britain; and what has been the total cost of that remission, in interest and sinking fund, to the British taxpayer?
    Major ELLIOT: No figure for the Irish Free State liability under Article 5 of the Treaty had been agreed by both parties before the Irish Free State was released from that liability under the Boundary Agreement of 1925. The British Govern-

    611
    ment's preliminary claim had been that the Irish Free State should assume a capital liability in respect of the public debt and War pensions of £130,000,000, to which was to be added accrued interest amounting to £27,000,000. These figures were subject to any just claims on the part of the Irish Free State by way of set-off or counterclaim. In default of agreement there was to be arbitration by one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire. It is thus not possible to say what has been the cost to the taxpayer of the release of the Irish Free State from its original liabilities.
    Mr. WEDDEFIBURN: Is not that remission upon our part a greater act of generosity than has been performed by any other creditor country?

    The following statement shows the amounts provided on the Votes of the Ministry and other Departments in connection with the administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, together with the actual expenditure in this connection, in each year from the passing of the Act to 31st March, 1932.

    Year.

    Vote.

    Expenditure.

    More than granted.

    Less than granted.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1924 (part year only)

    19,070

    17,409

    —

    1,661

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    47,493

    36,828

    —

    10,665

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    41,561

    34,998

    —

    6,563

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    37,545

    36,233

    —

    1,312

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    36,870

    35,669

    —

    1,201

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    36,834

    40,719

    3,885

    —

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    42,458

    43,933

    1,475

    —

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    42,906

    41,959(Approx.)

    —

    947

    Note.—Section 11 of the Act prescribes £70,000 as the limit of the annual expenditure which may be incurred. The figures given in the expenditure column above represent the total expenditure incurred under the Act, and are inclusive of overhead charges, e.g., rent, rates, furniture, fuel, light, repairs, postages, stationery, printing, washing, carriage, telegrams and telephones, superannuation, etc.

    MILK RE-ORGANISATION COMMISSION.
    Captatin HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he anticipates that the Milk Re-organisation Commission will report before the settlement of the 1932–33 milk contracts; and, if not, whether he is contemplating any action to ensure that the produders will obtain a fair price for their milk?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commission is not likely to report before the 1932–33 settlement., and I regret that I cannot usefully act in anticipation of their report.
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, I think that complete remission of War Debt—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  AGRICULTURE.

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES ACT, 1924.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture the annual cost of administering the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924; and if there was a credit balance from the Vote allowed and, in that event, the amount?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT SUPPLIES).
    Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will help farmers in this country by making arrangements for His Majesty's Forces to be supplied with home-produced meat pending the results of arrangements to be made at the Imperial Conference?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. and gallant. Friend to the full statement I made on this subject during the Debate on the Adjournment on 1st March last. For financial reasons it is not practicable for the Government to adopt his suggestion.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Having regard to the deplorable position to the livestock farmer, could not the right hon. Gentleman consider easing the situation for them in the way proposed in the question, pending the result of the Ottawa Conference?
    Major BRAITHWAITE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there will be a greater financial loss to the Exchequer by the reduction of revenue from the farmers than by giving this small help to them at the present time?

    GERMAN REPARATIONS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that whatever further sums or credits are provided by Germany in lieu of reparations, their assistance will not accrue to the special benefit of France or French trade or bondholders but equally to all alike?
    Mr. BALDWIN: While His Majesty's Government are in sympathy with the views suggested in the right hon. and gallant Member's question, I must ask him to await the outcome of the Lausanne Conference.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement as to which of the recommendations of the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee are to be accepted by the Government and put into practice without delay?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The reports of these Committees are very carefully considered and the decisions of the Government on their several recommendations will be announced in due course. The Treasury minutes on these reports are usually published in the Autumn, and while all expedition will be used, the complexity of some of the issues involved may preclude an earlier announcement on the present occasion.

  POST OFFICE.

    AIR MAILS (CHARGES).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Postmaster-General whether the charges made by his Department to other countries in
    614
    respect of transport of air mails on British air-mail lines are based on the gold franc; and, if so, whether the increased Post Office revenue resulting from the suspension of the Gold Standard has been allocated to making any corresponding increase in the payments made in respect of such mails carried by English machines, or whether it has been entirely absorbed by the increased foreign charges in respect of such mails caused by the decreased value of the £ sterling?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst) on Monday the 4th instant.

    CABLE COMPANIES' TRAFFIC (RATES).
    Mr. LYONSasked the Postmaster-General the terms per word upon which the Post Office is paid for messages sent via the Imperial Cables and Communications route, and the difference, if any, upon transmission by any other system?
    Sir K. WOOD: For telegrams handed in at post offices and sent by the routes of Imperial and International Communications, Limited, the Post Office receives the ordinary inland telegraph rate of 1d. per word with a minimum of 1s. per telegram. For letter-telegrams the Post Office receives ¾d. per word with a minimum of ls. 3d. The same rates are charged for all other Cable Companies' traffic, except in one case where special conditions prevail and rates are charged on an entirely different basis.
    Mr. LYONS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the system on which this special arrangement is based?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would prefer at a favourable time to explain it privately to my hon. Friend.

    ST. MARY'S STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
    Mr. GROVESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the general body of shareholders of the St. Mary's Steamship Company, Cardiff, were never permitted access to the report of the inquiry instituted by his Department into the affairs of the said company; and whether he will now take steps to see that all share-

    615
    holders having interests in the concern shall be permitted to have access to any reports appertaining to their concern?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on the 24th May.
    Mr. GROVES: As there is great dissatisfaction among the shareholders in regard to this matter, will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from them?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot understand the grievance of my hon. Friend. The company has been provided with a copy of this report. The applicants who made the request that the inquiry should be held have been provided with a copy, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been provided with a copy. Therefore, anybody concerned ought to have access, through his legal representative, to this report.
    Mr. GROVES: It is not my grievance. The people who have the grievance are those who have lost money. They have been denied a copy of this report and have no access to it. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the grievance of the shareholders in this matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The grievance cannot be against the Board of Trade. The grievance must be against their own solicitors.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department instituted the inquiry and denies to the shareholders the right to peruse the report of the inquiry?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is not the case. The Department, it is true, held an inquiry at the request of certain applicants. The applicants have been provided with a copy of the report and so has the company.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to publish the report which is in the possession of his Department, and, if not, why not?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Statute does not require the publication of these reports, but those concerned are provided with copies. In this case, they have been provided with copies.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Are not the shareholders the people who are primarily concerned?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, and they have been provided with a report which has been supplied to the offices of the company.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not correct, and that they are denied access to the report?

    GLEBE SALES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what instructions have been issued to clergy with regard to the sale of their glebe and other land; and what steps are being taken to prevent the neighbourhood of parish churches being in this way built over and the amenities destroyed?
    Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The initiative in the sale of glebe never comes from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Every proposal for a sale under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts has to be made by the incumbent and to receive the approval of the patron and the Commissioners. They have drawn up instructions as to procedure, and I am sending a copy of them to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MANDER: Is my hon. Friend not aware that there have been several cases of the sale of glebes in these circumstances and that these amenities have been seriously interfered with, and do I understand that the Commissioners would strongly deprecate anything which might result in that?
    Mr. DENMAN: The Commissioners habitually safeguard the amenities of the land that is thus sold, but, if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to hear of it.

    GERMAN AIRSHIP FLIGHT.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if permission was asked and given for the recent flight of a German airship over Portsmouth and her defences and harbours, as well as over London; and if any

    617
    restriction as to the taking of photographs were required of the officers and crew?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): No, Sir; I am informed on reliable authority that this airship did not fly over any portion of the prohibited area in question, and that no photographs of it were taken. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that under the Anglo-German Air Agreement (Command Paper 3010) no formal permission for a flight over non-prohibited areas is necessary.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is over 17 years since a German Zeppelin flew over Portsmouth, that the commandant of that airship lost his way and was not able to pick out where he was, and that next time the German Zeppelin will know its way?
    Commander MARSDEN: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the German justification for bombing London was that they considered it a fortified town?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL CAMPS.
    Mr. JOELasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, as the Territorial movement, so far as recruitment is concerned, has been prejudiced lately by the decision not to hold the official camps, he will give an assurance that these camps will be held next year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 30th June to my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Mr. Stourton).

    DISARMAMENT (TANKS AND GUNS).
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) the approximate number of tanks which would fall to be scrapped in the event of the proposals of the United States to the conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments becoming part of a treaty to which Great Britain adhered;
    (2) the approximate number of heavy mobile guns which would fall to be
    618
    scrapped in the event of the proposals of the United States to the conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments becoming part of a treaty to which Great Britain adhered, assuming that heavy mobile guns were defined as guns of more than 105 mm. having a range of 15 km., or guns of more than 155 mm. having a range of 20 km., or guns of more than 200 mm. having a range of 25 km.?
    Mr. COOPER: I do not think it advisable in the public interest to anticipate the interpretation of the terms "tanks" and "heavy mobile guns" that may be agreed upon at Geneva.

    GEREBRO-SPINAL FEVER.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis, or other forms of cerebra-spinal disease, have been reported in the Army since 1st January, 1932; how many of them have been fatal; and how many of them had been subjected to vaccination, re-vaccination, or inoculation during the six months prior to the attack?
    Mr. COOPER: During the present year there have been 55 cases of cerebro-spinal fever in the Army, 18 of which have proved fatal. I am obtaining the remainder of the information asked for and I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

    INDIA (BURMA).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for India if it is proposed to proceed with the setting up of a constitution for Burma simultaneously with that of India; and whether it will be included in the same Bill?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Until the position is clearer as regards the India Bill and until the necessity for a separate constitution for Burma is known, my right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer that was given to the hon. Member on 5th July.
    Captain FULLERasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state, in consequence of the recent rebellion in Burma, how many honours have been awarded to civil and military officers, re-

    619
    spectively; and if any awards have been made to the platoon officers and other ranks of the Burma regiments which were engaged in the operations?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: As regards military awards for recent operations in Burma, two D.S.O.'s and five M.C.'s have already been granted and other recommendations are under consideration. It is not the practice to state specifically the grounds on which civil honours are awarded. But the Honours List published on the recent occasion of His Majesty's birthday, contained four C.I.E.'s, one C.B.E., 11 O.B.E.'s and six M.B.E.'s awarded to officers employed in Burma, and it may be taken that the majority of these decorations were bestowed for services in connection with the Burma rebellion.
    Mr. LEES-JONES: Were any of the Burmese rank and file awarded any honours?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: If the hon. Gentleman will read the answer, he will see that his question is replied to in the first part.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that the answer makes no mention of the ranks?

    CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY FUND).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason why Sir William Hornell, one of the British appointed trustee to the Boxer Indemnity Fund, has resigned?
    Mr. EDEN: I understand that Sir William Hornell found it difficult to absent himself from Hong Kong for a fortnight in each month; and as the Board of Trustees were at that time primarily concerned with financial rather than educational business, he did not feel that the expenditure of time and money involved in these frequent visits to Nanking was justified.
    Mr. MANDER: But was not the real reason that he was disgusted at the failure to carry out the terms of the Boxer indemnity?
    Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have given the real reason.

    PRUSSIA (JEWISH PROPERTY).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to whether the resolution adopted by the Prussian Parliament to confiscate the property of East European Jews will affect those East European Jews who are British citizens; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. EDEN: No, Sir, but I am making inquiries, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a further question for next Wednesday, I hope to be in a position to reply.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and tonnage, by categories, of existing ships in the British Navy which would fall to be scrapped in the event of the proposals of the United States to the conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments becoming part of a treaty to which Great Britain adhered; and the number and tonnage of ships, by categories, which Great Britain has the right to build by treaty and which would not be built in the same circumstances?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monseii): As a statement is to be made this afternoon on behalf of the Government en the subject of the disarmament proposals, I would ask the hon. Member to await that statement.

    CONTRACTS (CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY).
    Commander MARSDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what contracts are in existence between the Admiralty and the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Limited?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The only contract in existence is one made in March, 1932, for a small trial quantity of blue dungaree.
    Commander MARSDEN: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend's attention been drawn to the "Oil and Colour Trade Journal" of the 27th May, page 1,145, to the following paragraph, which starts: "Admiralty contract for the purchase—"
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is giving information.

    PASSPORTS (MR. G. S. DARA).
    Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Home Secretary why he has issued instructions to officials in his Department to make calls on Mr. G. S. Dara, Congress secretary and editor of "United India," for the purpose of inspection of his passport?
    Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has issued no such instructions. I understand that a suggestion had arisen that Mr. Dara's passport was not in order, and an interview was sought by a police officer as the simplest and most expeditious method of clearing up the point; but Mr. Dara declined to make an appointment.

    DRUGS (MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES)asked the Home Secretary what is the number of factories in this country engaged in the manufacture of opium, heroin, cocaine, and other noxious drugs, the amount of capital involved and the number of employés; and whether any of the supplies of these noxious drugs that are sold in London are of British manufacture?
    Mr. STANLEY: Seven firms are licensed to manufacture medicinal opium, two to manufacture morphine and heroin, and one to manufacture cocaine. The manufacture is carried on in connection with the manufacture of other things, and I am not able to say what proportion of the staff or capital is to be regarded as engaged on the manufacture of these drugs. I cannot assent to the description of these drugs as noxious. The abuse of them is a great danger, but they are invaluable when used medically. The greater part of these drugs used in this country for medical purposes is of British manufacture.

    VACCINATION (ST. PANCRAS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the district auditors for the St. Pancras Borough Council reported in May, 1932, firstly as to general financial control, and secondly,
    622
    as to the fees paid to doctors for vaccinating children under 12 months of age at the clinics, which practice is now allowed by this council; and whether he will cause investigation to be made as to the financial responsibility of such practices?
    Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has been called to the report in question. In February last I was informed that the borough council had instructed the public vaccinators to carry out these vaccinations at the homes of the children in future.
    Mr. GROVES: Do the district auditors' reports reach the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and is he aware that three weeks ago, in reply to a question on this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that there was no information on the subject?
    Sir H. YOUNG: If that be so, no doubt the information has been received since then.

    MATERNAL MORTALITY (STEPNEY AND KENSINGTON).
    Mr. ALLAN REID (for Mr. POTTER)asked the Minister of Health if he will give a statement comprising the deaths in childbirth in 1931 in the borough of Stepney and in the Royal borough of Kensington?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The number of deaths classified to puerperal causes in 1931 in Stepney was seven, and in Kensington 15. These figures are provisional.

    GOLD TRANSACTIONS (LICENCES).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of licences issued for dealing in gold for the first six months of 1932 and the number for the same period for 1931; and can he state the approximate increase in yield to the Treasury owing to the demand for licences of those who now buy and sell sovereigns?
    Major ELLIOT: If the licences to which my hon. Friend refers are licences to deal in articles of gold or silver plate, the numbers taken out during the first six months of 1932 and the first six months of 1931 were 1,093 and 329 respectively. As

    623
    regards the last part of the question, I am advised that licences are not required for the so-called buying or selling of sovereigns.

    COAL INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance to Great Britain of the early development of recent inventions providing for new uses of coal and the by-products therefrom, he will take steps to ensure that the maximum assistance is given by every Government Department to such development and that, if necessary, a co-ordinating committee is appointed to assist in this matter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: This matter was dealt with at considerable length during the Debate which took place on Tuesday last on the Mines Department Vote. I am satisfied that all the Departments concerned realise the importance of giving all possible assistance in regard to developments of the kind referred to and that adequate arrangements already exist for securing co-ordination between the Departments.

    IRAQ (AIR PARCELS) MAIL.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Iraq Government to arrange for the transport of parcels by air route to Europe; and what action he is taking to ensure that the contract for this work shall be awarded to a British air service rather than to a French or Dutch service?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware what arrangements the Iraq Government proposes to make for the transport of parcels by air. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that the Iraq Government are entirely free to award this or any other contract in such manner as they conceive to be in the best interests of Iraq; and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that under Article 11 of the Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 1922, which at present governs the relations between the two countries, the Iraq Government are precluded from discriminating in such matters on the ground of nationality.

  BRITISH DISARMAMENT POLICY.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BALDWIN.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is in a position to make a statement with reference to Disarmament?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I make no apology to the House for the length of the statement. I think it is only fitting that a statement showing this country's Disarmament policy should be made in the first instance in this House. It will be made in Geneva probably at about the time that I have finished speaking. After I have finished, copies of the statement will be obtainable in the Vote Office. I may also add that, as will be announced later in answer to a question on business, I hope very much the Prime Minister will be in his place on Tuesday when a Debate will take place on the proceedings at Lausanne and at Geneva.
    "The Disarmament Conference has reached a stage when we must review the present position of our discussions and cooperate without loss of time in reaching and registering practical conclusions. The Government of the United Kingdom most cordially welcome President Hoover's declaration as a contribution to this end. We welcome it alike because it calls for a really substantial measure of disarmament and because it seeks to apply the two principles of quantitative and of qualitative limitation. As President Hoover says, Reduction should be carried out not only by broad general cuts in armaments, but by increasing the comparative power of defence through decreases in the power of the attack.' We desire to associate ourselves with these conceptions and to contribute all that we can to secure their practical application. The United Kingdom Cabinet has considered President Hoover's Declaration in this spirit and what I am about to say on certain practical points is said with a deep desire to promote co-operation and agreement.
    Success at Geneva depends upon general agreement; and the American delegation has made it plain that President Hoover's proposals are put forward as a contribution to an agreed general programme. The United Kingdom Government have already advanced wide suggestions of their own. These, while they differ in some important respects as to method or measure, are inspired by the same purpose, and a comparison will show that already there is a substantial area of common ground.
    Without interrupting or anticipating detailed discussions which must take place with the other delegations represented at Geneva, it is convenient at this moment to set out in broad outline the main characteristics of the United Kingdom proposals. They in their turn should be

    625
    regarded, as I have said, not as a declaration of isolated action, but as a contribution to general agreement.
    2. First, the Government of the United Kingdom desire to put on record their agreement with President Hoover on the further principle that the three problems of Military, Naval and Air Disarmament are inter-connected. International agreement cannot be attained without an adequate contribution from all three sources. Inasmuch as Britain, like the United States, finds her strongest arm in the Navy, the contribution which concerns her most is to be found in this sphere, in which, as is well known, contributions to disarmament on the largest scale have already been made in advance of the General Disarmament Conference. Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom now offer a further contribution as part of a general world settlement.
    3. It is now proposed to set out under the necessary heads of land, sea and air the manner in which the Government of the United Kingdom would suggest that these principles could be applied.

    LAND PROPOSALS.
    4. In the realm of land disarmament His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom find themselves very largely in accord with President Hoover's proposals. Naturally, it will be necessary carefully to examine details before expressing a final opinion on their suitability to the situation in each country.
    5. To consider in turn the four categories to which these proposals relate:

    (a) In regard to the strength of land armies. His Majesty's Government have consistently placed in the forefront of their proposals for land disarmament the examination of measures for the reduction of effectives to the lowest level compatible with national safety. So far as their own forces are concerned, His Majesty's Government have not only abolished conscription, but have already effected reductions to the minimum numbers required for the preservation of internal order and for the defence of their overseas possessions and communications. If we take account of the whole British Army, including not only British troops in Great Britain and her Colonies, but also those maintained in India, the personnel has been reduced, as compared with the year before the War, from 259,000 to 207,000, and this has been effected by the disbandment of nine regiments of cavalry, 61 batteries and companies of artillery, 21 companies of Royal Engineers, 21 battalions of infantry, and six battalions of Colonial and troops locally enrolled.
    The United States proposal for a division of land forces into a police component' and a. defence component' will require very careful examination; but, so far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom understand the implication of the suggested basis of calculation, the result will be to show that the British land forces have already been reduced substantially below the number recognised to be necessary for the maintenance of internal order, with-
    626
    out making any allowance for the forces needed for the lines of communication between the United Kingdom and territories overseas.

    (b) In regard to chemical and bacteriological warfare, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have already joined in rejecting the use of these methods of warfare and therefore cordially welcome the United States proposal's under this head.

    (c) In regard to land guns, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have proposed the abolition of all mobile guns of a calibre greater than 155 mm. (6.1 inches calibre). Under this head also His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom find themselves, therefore, in general agreement with the proposals of the United States Government.

    (d) In regard to tanks, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom find themselves entirely at one with President Hoover in desiring the application of the principle that specifically offensive weapons should be prohibited. His Majesty's Government have already advocated the abolition of all tanks above a weight of 20 tons which by their characteristics are especially suitable for offensive employment in battle.

    Tanks of the lighter type cannot be regarded as specifically offensive weapons. Their comparatively light armour and their reduced capacity for crossing trenches render them unsuitable for the assault of highly organised defences.
    Moreover, in a small voluntarily-enlisted army like our own they constitute an essential compensation for lack of numbers which it would be impossible to surrender. As far as this country is concerned, in view of its world-wide responsibilities, any general prohibition would require an increase in our present land forces in terms of man power, and thus, as a measure of disarmament, would tend to defeat its own ends.
    6. It would be seen, therefore, that in the realm of land disarmament the proposals of the United States Government, so far as they relate to matters which directly touch the land forces of the United Kingdom, approximate very closely to those favoured by His Majesty's Government; and that in the total of their effectives His Majesty's Government have been able already to put into practice a measure of disarmament which more than conforms to the standards proposed by President Hoover.

    NAVAL PROPOSALS.
    7. These proposals cover all types of vessels—capital ships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines.
    It is essential that proposals that are intended to be adopted by general agreement should make due provision for varying circumstances. Having regard to the widely-scattered responsibilities of the British Navy, it is not practicable for us to cut down the number of naval units beyond a certain point. Occasions may arise when these responsibilities call for the presence of ships simultaneously in parts of the world far removed from one another. It is essential

    627
    to bear in mind in this connection the very large reduction in the number of ships of all categories which has already been effected. If a comparison is made with the year before the War it will be found that, taking account of completed, vessels of the United Kingdom and other members of the British Commonwealth possessing vessels of any of the categories mentioned, capital ships have been reduced from 69 to 15; cruisers from 108 to 52; destroyers from 285 to 147; and submarines from 74 to 52. Numerical reduction in the British Navy has, therefore, already been applied on a very large scale and, indeed, cruiser numbers will require special consideration hereafter. But, though there is, for the reasons already pointed out, a limit to numerical reduction, it is perfectly possible, and in the highest degree desirable, to adopt a mode of treatment which will secure by other means the large diminution in naval armaments at which we are all aiming. The present Treaty limits of size and gun calibre are far too high, and the United Kingdom Government consider that very large reductions, amounting to about one-third, both in the case of capital ships and cruisers, can be made in future construction.
    8. As regards capital ships, the position under existing Naval treaties is that as between Britain, the United States and Japan, no further capital ship construction could be undertaken in any event until the year 1937. The maximum size for any future construction has been fixed at 35,000 tons and the gun at 16 inches. The total tonnage of the category of ships can be reduced either by diminishing their number or by diminishing their size. In regard to number, the considerations which the United Kingdom Government are bound to bear in mind have already been stated. The American proposal would leave the size of these enormously expensive vessels, and the calibre of their guns untouched in any future construction of capital ships. Every figure involved in these huge demensions—initial cost, upkeep, personnel, ammunition, stores, docks—would be maintained at the highest level. The United Kingdom proposal, while securing no less reduction in total tonnage, evades these consequences by (1) reducing the size of the gun; and (2) reducing the size of the ship. For example, if the calibre of tire gun is reduced to 12 inches the maximum size of the ship can be reduced from 35,000 to 25,000 tons, and an immense saving is effected under both heads, both initially and consequentially.
    9. But the Government of the United Kingdom are prepared to go beyond this. They are ready to apply the same principles to cruisers, and to reduce their maximum size and gun-calibre by international agreement from the present figure of 10,000 tons and 8 inches to 7,000 tons and 6.1 inches. It would then be possible to reduce the dimensions in the case of capital ships still further and fix a maximum of 22,000 tons with 11-inch guns. This will nearly halve the initial cost of any future capital ship and greatly reduce the cost of maintenance. Thus the whole scale would come down
    628
    togther and there would be a definite return to smaller dimensions. On this basis the United Kingdom proposal would effect an ultimate reduction in capital-ship tonnage alone of 195,000 tons; the comparable figure under the United States proposal would appear to be about 175,000.
    10. As regards aircraft carriers, the Government of the United Kingdom are in substantial agreement with President Hoover's proposals. They propose a reduction in the size of the Aircraft Carrier from 27,000 to 22,000 tons, with consequent reduction in total tonnage from 135,000 to 110,000 tons.
    11. Special reference must be made to the Submarine. The United Kingdom view has been, and is, that the submarine should be entirely abolished. If its abolition can be secured, this would, in our view, at once make possible a reduction of approximately one-third in destroyer tonnage. If international agreement to abolish submarines is found impossable of attainment, oceangoing submarines should be got rid of by limiting the size to 250 tons, and the total tonnage to the lowest figure upon which agreement can be reached.
    12. Consequently, the Government of the United Kingdom put forward for immediate adoption by international agreement the following set of proposals relating to the navies of the world:

    (1) Reduce the maximum size of any future capital ship to 22,000 tons, and the maximum calibre of the guns carried to 11 inches.

    (2) Reduce the maximum size of cruisers hereafter constructed to 7,000 tons, and maximum calibre of guns to 6.1 inches.

    (3) If international agreement on point (2) cannot be secured, the Government of the United Kingdom would still urge that the maximum size of capital ships should he reduced to 25,000 tons and their guns to 12 inches as a maximum.

    (4) Reduce the maxima for aircraft carriers to 22,000 tons with 6.1 inch guns.

    (5) Abolish submarines.

    (6) Reduce destroyer tonnage by approximately one-third, this depending on the abolition of submarines.

    (7) If submarines cannot be completely abolished, fix their maximum surface displacement at 250 tons, with a strict limitation both of total tonnage and number of units.

    AIR PROPOSALS.
    13. There is no aspect of international disarmament more vitally urgent than the adoption without delay of the most effective measures to preserve the civilian population from the fearful horrors of bombardment from the air. The Government of the United Kingdom would be prepared to go to any length, in agreement with other Powers, to achieve this object, and if more drastic measures are proposed from any other quarter and are shown to be practicable, they will examine them with the utmost sympathy.
    They propose that the High Contracting Parties should agree between themselves in

    629
    respect of their air forces that there should be:

    (1) the complete prohibition of all bombing from the air, save within the limits to be laid down as precisely as possible by an international convention. Attacks upon the civilian population would be entirely prohibited;

    (2) a strict limitation in the unladen weight of all military and naval aircraft (troop carriers and flying boats excepted);

    (3)a restriction in the numbers of all kinds of military and naval aircraft.

    14. In this last connection the United Kingdom Government wish to add an observation. They sincerely desire to see numbers of military and naval aircraft restricted, and here again regard must be had to the course of recent events. In 1913–14 air armaments were negligible, and no comparison with that date can usefully be made. At the end of the War, Great Britain was one of the two leading air Powers in the World. Her colonial possessions are widely scattered, and since the War her responsibilities have been increased by her various mandates from the League of Nations. More than any other Power she relies upon aircraft to discharge her mandatory duties and to police and control undeveloped regions. Yet in 1932 her first line aircraft had been reduced to little snore than 20 per cent. of her post-War strength, with the result that the United Kingdom now stands, in the number of its military and naval aeroplanes, only fifth in the list of States. Of aircraft authorised for Home Defence in 1923 by the United Kingdom Government, with the approval of Parliament, 20 per cent. have not, in fact, been constructed.
    15. Great and far-reaching as these reductions in all three arms have been—beyond comparison greater than any which have been effected elsewhere outside the countries disarmed by the Treaty of Versailles—His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are ready and eager to join in the further measures of disarmament for which general agreement can be attained. The proposals which, accordingly, are now made, constitute an additional contribution, practical and extensive, to the effort to relieve the heavy burdens which the maintenance of existing standards imposes upon the world and which the world expects us, by a great common effect, effectively to diminish."
    Mr. LANSBURY: As the Lord President of the Council has just informed the House, we hope to discuss this statement wits the Prime Minister personally. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to say, or rather, perhaps the House will allow me to say in their name, how grateful we are to the right hon. Gentleman for making his statement in so clear a manner this afternoon, and we shall reserve anything we have to say on it until later.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the President of the Council what will be the business for next week, and how far he proposes to go to-night.
Mr. BALDWIN: I will take the business for to-night first. I hope it will be possible to make good progress, because time is getting short now. Today, in addition to Supply, the Government desire to obtain Ways and Means (6th July), Report, upon which the Consolidated Fund Bill will be founded. Also the Committee stage of the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill. Both those Orders' are exempted business, but the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the remaining stages of the Malta Constitution Bill [Lords]. With regard to business next week, we shall take:
Monday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading.
Tuesday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, remaining stages.
If all outstanding business has been disposed of, including Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place, the Government hope that it will be possible to take the Motion for the Summer Adjournment on Wednesday, 13th July, until Thursday, 27th October. I may add for the convenience of Members that, in this event, the House will meet at 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning.
It has been decided to propose the Adjournment of the House until the Autumn, and the Motion will contain provisions to empower Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course appears to be in the public interest. It is early, perhaps, to give any indication of what may happen late in October, but it is our intention, if nothing unforeseen occurs, to prorogue as speedily as may be to enable the new Session to be begun.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. Friend give us any indication of the scope of the Debate on Monday and Tuesday on the stages of the: Appropriation Biil?
Mr. BALDWIN: I am much obliged. I ought to have mentioned that. On Monday, I understand that two subjects will be debated. There will be a Debate

631
on economy, and a Debate, I do not quite know in what form, on the record of the Government.
Mr. LANSBURY: What we propose on Monday is that there shall be, as far as we are concerned, a general review of the work of the Government during the Session. We also understand that certain Members wish, during the discussion, to put particular emphasis upon the question of economy.
Mr. BALDWIN: I think that in the course of the Debate on Monday, there will be ample time for a discussion on economy, and that on Tuesday we shall be able to discuss what has happened at Lausanne and what is happening at Geneva.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Having regard to the fact that these topics, domestic economy and debt settlements which are being discussed at Geneva, overlap to a considerable extent, and are intimately related, will not a certain latitude of Debate over the whole field be permitted?
Mr. BALDWIN: That is a matter which, I think, might be raised with the Chair. I wish to say at this moment that I am not quite certain when the Ministers will be back. I hope very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be here on Monday, and that he may be able to take part in the Debate.
Mr. LANSBURY: With regard to Tuesday, we agree that the two subjects overlap, and we are extremely anxious to get statements on both of them. We could ask Mr. Speaker whether it would be possible to have a very broad discussion. That, of course, would depend upon Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BALDWIN: I would only add, for the information of the House, that as soon as my right hon. Friends return, I shall see that we take every step we can to enable a discussion to be taken in this House on those subjects. I am hoping that the Ministers who have been in charge of these matters will be here to take part in the discussion, and meet any criticism which is raised.
Sir BASIL PETO: Can my right hon. Friend state the business that will be carried through in the adjourned portion of the Session?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will feel able to give us any guidance as to the scope of the Debate on Monday and Tuesday?
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the scope of the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is a very wide one. There is hardly anything which cannot be raised provided it does not require legislation.
Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend, I could not answer that now. Perhaps he will put a question down on the last day the House meets?
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and that, if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of the 6th July shall have been agreed to before Ten of the Clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten of the Clock, under paragraph 8 of Standing Order No. 15."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [6th July].
  Resolutions reported:
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES POE REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY AND ESTIMATE, 1932.
  CLASS VI.
  1. "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.
  2. "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 Trish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."
  CLASS I.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,220,544, 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 I of the 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 Commissions, 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 "

  CLASS II.
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,904,279, 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 II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. 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. Oversea 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"

  CLASS III.
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,542,184, 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 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 Ireland.

  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.
  6. "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, &c.

  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.
  7. "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

  £

  10. Department of Health

  1,572,002

  11. General Board of Control

  11,120

  Registrar-General's Office

  11,988

  £88,775,369"

  CLASS VI.
  8. "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 Department of Overseas Trade

  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 State Management Districts

  315,399

  17. State Management Districts

  90

  Scotland.

  18. Department of Agriculture

  336,647

  19. Fishery Board

  49,394

  £8,877,666"

  CLASS VII.
  9. "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

  1,060,751

  14. Peterhead Harbour

  18,000

  15. Works and Buildings in Ireland

  78,350

  £5,255,101"

  CLASS VIII.
  10. "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"

  CLASS IX.
  11. "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.
  12. "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.
  13. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,529,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-
  646
  ment 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, etc., Personnel

  6,324,700

  Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Materiel

  4,464,750

  Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., 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 (Naval and 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"

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1932.
  14. "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"

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1932.
  15. "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"

  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We desire to refer to a very serious question which has arisen with regard to the action of the Minister of Transport as to certain pooling arrangements which have been suggested by some of the amalgamated railway companies. In May last, the London and North Eastern and the London, Midland and Scottish Railways proposed to the Minister that certain pooling arrangements should be considered by him under the provisions of Section 19 of the Railways Act, 1921, and those arrangements were set out in some very vague heads of agreement which were published in the Press by his order. He referred the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal, or rather to a committee consisting of identic membership with the Railway Rates Tribunal, in order that they might report to him before he decided what action he should take upon the matter, and it was not until the first or second day of those proceedings that the railway companies disclosed in their evidence the very large measure of virtual amalgamation which would be brought about if these pooling arrangements came into force.
  In order to appreciate the position which has arisen, perhaps I may take the liberty of reminding the House of the situation as regards the railways in this country both before and after the 1921 Act. Before the Act of 1921, as the House will recollect, there were a great number of independent railway companies in this country, many of them running in competition one with the other. They were running by virtue of monopolies which had been granted by this House, subject to certain very
  648
  elementary safeguards for the consumers of their facilities and for their competitors. It was not, indeed, necessary to have any very formidable array of safeguards, as competition itself between the different units safeguarded the interests of both competitors and users. But, after the War, there having been a virtual ownership and control by the Government of the railways during the period of the War, it was canvassed as to whether that complete amalgamation of the railway companies should be continued, or whether, instead, they should be organised into certain groups, and it was decided by this House, after a very long and an intricate discussion, that they should be amalgamated into the main four groups which now exist.
  In the Act of 1921 there were inserted very specific protections for both the users and the competitors, which enabled those persons to see that they were not unduly influenced by reason of the provisions of the Act, and at the instigation particularly of the private docks and harbours of this country—and when I say "private" I refer both to those municipally owned and those privately owned—protective Clauses were inserted, but those protective Clauses were naturally only made commensurate with the fresh monopoly which the amalgamated companies were getting. The whole basis of that scheme of 1921 was not a basis of complete amalgamation, but was a basis of limited amalgamation, still leaving many alternative routes, especially so far as the ports of this country were concerned. But part of that Act was designed for the amalgamation and did, in fact, amalgamate what were substantially port or harbour owning authorities with the railway companies. So that, under the Act of 1921, so far as docks and harbours were concerned, docks and harbours, representing roughly £150,000,000 of capital, were left in non-railway ownership, while, in railway ownership there were docks and harbours representing £65,000,000 of capital, and the competition which had existed previously in such an area, for instance, as the Bristol Channel, was, of course, very much altered in its incidence. The Great Western Railway, for instance, own all the South Wales ports as a group, while the only independent port of any size remaining is that owned by Bristol Corporation, for which, among others, my

  649
  constituents pay if there are any losses. Therefore, although I am concerned with the whole scheme, I am particularly concerned with the position of the independent ports, and Bristol itself.
  Under the Act of 1921, as I have already said, there were two provisions whereby, if pooling arrangements were desired to be entered into by the railway companies, they could enter into them with the consent of the Minister of Transport. That Section apart, it, would have been necessary for the railway companies to come to Parliament in order to get such powers. It was a substitution for procedure before Parliamentary Committees of an administrative decision by the Minister. I think it is clear from the provisions of that Act, and, indeed, from the whole history of the railway amalgamation, that it was never the intention of Parliament, by Section 19, to set up a procedure by which a virtual re-amalgamation of the whole of the railway companies of this country would come about without any Parliamentary control whatsoever. If one is to believe, as of course one does, the evidence which has been given before the tribunal which is at present sitting listening to the arguments with regard to one of these pooling agreements, this amalgamation or pooling is going to result inevitably in an amalgamation of all the railways of the country into a single unit. It is because of the seriousness of that position that we desire to draw the Minister's attention to certain considerations which we want to take this last Parliamentary opportunity of bringing to his notice before it is too late. As we have heard, Parliament is adjourning until the 27th October, and it may well be that after the 27th October it will be too late.
  The criticisms of the procedure fall under two heads. In the first place, we submit to the Minister that the vagueness of the proposals put forward has made it practically impossible for anybody definitely to put forward a case against this so-called pooling, which will eventuate in amalgamation. Sir Josiah Stamp and Sir Ralph Wedgwood, who were among the witnesses, have themselves stated that these proposals are in a form which did not enable even them to say what in fact is likely to happen under this agreement; they have been unable to specify any precise effect that will flow from it. On the other hand, it
  650
  has also been stated in reply to questions that the pooling arrangement inevitably will have to a great extent the same results as amalgamation would have.
  A number of questions were put on that basis, and it was admitted that the results would more than possibly be precisely the same results as would eventuate from amalgamation. Supposing that this matter had been left, not to the administrative action of the Minister, but had been dealt with in the old manner in which these matters have always in the past been dealt with, then, undoubtedly, it would not have been possible for the railway companies to come forward with such a vague proposal; they would have been bound to specify with some precision, not only the powers that they wanted, but the way in which they intended to use those powers, in order that those members of the public who were entitled to come before any tribunal or before a Committee of this House and protest might be in a position to calculate what the effect of those powers would be upon their particular undertakings, whatever they might be, and put forward the case that was necessary in order to meet it.
  We suggest that, with such a vague proposal as this, the hon. Gentleman ought not to have been satisfied, until he had got a more specific statement, to refer it at all to any committee for decision, and, especially in view of the fact that it has now been made clear that other similar proposals are coming forward, we ask that the hon. Gentleman, if any further proposals come forward, will see that, before they are submitted to anybody to inquire into, the railway companies put forward specific proposals, and not mere vague, general heads of agreement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as any Member of the House of the extraordinary difficulty in which, for instance, the dock and harbour authorities, or the local authorities, or anyone else who may be interested, has in considering proposals of that type, if they do not know exactly what it is that is proposed, or what reaction it is likely to have upon their own particular interests.
  I mentioned a moment ago the evidence that had been given as regards the size and importance of this amalgamation, and I should like to remind the House of what it is that has been said. So far as this

  651
  particular pooling arrangement is concerned, it will cover over £50,000,000 of traffic receipts of the London and North Eastern and of the London Midland and Scottish Railways. A second amalgamation agreement is now being worked out, and is likely' shortly to be submitted to the Minister by the London Midland and Scottish and the Great Western Railways. If that pooling agreement is on the same lines, then, according to Sir Ralph Wedgwood, over 75 per cent. of the total traffic receipts of the railways of this country will come under a single pooling arrangement. If one bears in mind the fact that, as of course the House is aware, under the old arrangement of the London and South Western and the Great Western Railways there is already a large measure of pooling as regards the South-West of England, the virtual amalgamation into a single non-competitive system becomes absolutely apparent as the end to which this pooling will inevitably lead.
  I have not the knowledge, and I am not concerned, to argue whether that would be wise or not at the moment, but I am concerned to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the change which is being brought about by these pooling arrangements is as great as, if not greater than, the change which was brought about by the Act of 1921. The Act of 1921 was considered for many weeks by this House, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and there was the most careful and meticulous argument as regards every single safeguard that it was necessary to include. As the House knows, a number of safeguards, some of which proved effective and some ineffective, were inserted in the Act of 1921. The first point, to which I have referred, is the general vagueness of the agreement.
  The second point to which I desire to refer is with regard to the tribunal to which the hon. Gentleman has referred this matter. It so happened that, when Clause 15 of the 1921 Bill, which is now Section 19 of the Act, was being discused in the Standing Committee, this very point was raised as to the tribunal to which such a matter should be referred. It was raised by an Amendment brought forward by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), which is set out in Column 994 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee B for the 7th July,
  652
  1921. The proposal made in that Amendment was that such a matter should be referred to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and Sir Eric Geddes, speaking for the Government, said—following an argument by several hon. Members, some of whom had stated that the Rates Tribunal was a wholly inappropriate body:
  "I agree that the Rates Tribunal is quite an unsuitable body, and the expression in the Amendment, if any person objects,' is a little extreme, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 7th July, 1921; col. 997.]
  He then proceeded to suggest that the present wording of the Act should be inserted, that is to say, that the Minister should have the power to refer the matter to a tribunal of persons selected from the panel under the Ministry of Transport Act. That panel, of course, is a panel of experts and of impartial persons of wide commercial and trading experience, appointed front nominees after consultation with the various undertakings affected by the Act, and with Labour, trading interests, local authorities, and such other interests as the Minister may deem desirable. It exists to-day, and has existed ever since, and it is from that panel that the hon. Gentleman has drawn three persons, who happen to be the Railway Rates Tribunal; so that what he has done has been to select the very body which Sir Eric Geddes agreed was unsuitable for considering such a matter.
  If one asks oneself why it is unsuitable, the answer, I think, is perfectly obvious. Under the Railways Act, if an ordinary case is going before the Railway Rates Tribunal, any party who is appearing has the right to ask the Minister to appoint extra members of the Rates Tribunal representing particular interests. For instance, if the dock and harbour authorities were coming before the Rates Tribunal with a particular case relating to dock rates, they could ask the Minister to add to the tribunal someone representing docks, because, of course, the tribunal has upon it a direct representative of the railways at present, namely, Mr. Quirey, who until quite recently was Vice-President of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. But, in the case of this tribunal which has been appointed by the Minister, no one can ask him to add any particular person to it, as they would be able to do if it were the Railway Rates Tribunal. By appointing the Railway Rates Tribunal

  653
  personnel, he has made matters even worse than if the question had gone to the Rates Tribunal itself, because no one has the power to ask him to add anyone to it.
  In a case of this vast importance, we suggest that it is obvious that there should have been put upon such a tribunal at least someone to represent the independent competitive interests, which have no representative at present, and someone to represent Labour, because one of the important things that is going to follow from this pooling arrangement, as has been admitted, is the same effect as regards economies and cutting down of staff which followed from the Act of 1921. As hon. Members will appreciate, in the Fifth Schedule to the Act of 1921 the most careful provisions were inserted by the House in order that no one should suffer merely because an amalgamation took place and, in the resulting economies, they were deprived of the work which they would otherwise do. We ask, if another case is coming forward, as we now know it is, that the hon. Gentleman will, when he appoints the committee to consider that other case, see that it is expanded so as to include representatives of other interests than merely the railways and the traders, who are represented at the present time by Mr. Parkes.
  It is not only a question of the tribunal having the advantage of the skilled assistance of someone who is thoroughly conversant with the other side of the picture—say the independent docks and harbours side of the picture—but there is also the fact that a decision given or a recommendation made by a tribunal having on it persons representing those other interests will carry far greater weight, because people will be more certain that they have been dealt with fairly, and that the whole of their views have been considered. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises as well as any of us how important it is that people should be satisfied as regards inquiries of this sort, and that they should not be able to feel that their particular interest. when it is a very large and vital interest—I am not, of course, speaking of every little interest—such as Labour, or the independent harbour authorities, has been considered, by virtue of the presence of some representative on the committee which is inquiring into it having the
  654
  special knowledge that is necessary in order that its views may be fully appreciated.
  The third question on which we want to make a criticism is that the railway companies ought, if they did not, to have disclosed to the hon. Gentleman, before this inquiry was initiated, the fact that they proposed to have a second agreement with regard to a further pooling arrangement, because it is quite obvious that whatever is recommended by the committee on this pooling arrangement will have a very great effect upon their recommendations as regards another similar pooling arrangement between two other railway companies. But it is not only that. It is that the 4.30 p.m. aspect of this problem is rather different where you have a combination in effect of the three great railway companies—the Southern is already attached to the Great Western—from where you merely have two entering into an arrangement. It is impossible for those people who are interested only in the second to appear before or be heard by the Committee when they are considering the first. Indeed, the Bristol Docks and Harbour Authority attempted in the present proceedings to intervene in order to guard themselves zagainst any possibility of the results of the first inquiry prejudicing their case in the second and the Chairman, after conferring with his colleagues, took the view which of course he was hound to take and said, addressing counsel appearing for the Bristol authority:
  "The only thing that you could do, as far as I can see, is to be supplied with a copy of the notes of the proceedings as the.y go on from day to day and take what course you think right, whether by making further representations to the Minister or in such form as you think you ought to make them, to effect the purpose of hearing, as far as I understand, the two pooling agreements together, or the decision of one not to be given before the decision of the other, but I am quite powerless to help you in that direction."
  Through me at the moment the Bristol people are taking the opportunity of doing what they were invited to do by the Chairman of the Committee, that is, making representations to the Minister that either these two cases should be heard together as regards the two pooling arrangements or that the decision of the first should be definitely postponed until the hearing of the second has taken

  655
  place. That would mean that the hon. Gentleman would then have an opportunity of considering the whole picture in all its magnitude and considering whether in the circumstances this was really a case for administrative action at all, because he is at perfect liberty, of course, to say, "I do not approve the pooling arrangement," and then the railway companies are left to the ordinary course which they would normally pursue. There is nothing in Section 19 of the Railways Act to bind him in any way to approve of this pooling arrangement, or indeed to disapprove of it. He may merely say, quite properly, and as we suggest more than quite properly, it is the proper and only thing to suggest that in a case of this magnitude he is not prepared to exercise powers under Section 19 but he would rather leave it for the matter to be brought in the ordinary course by the railway companies before Parliament in order that some Committee of the House may consider the matter in its full details.
  There is one other observation as regards this matter that I should like to make. The time that has been selected by the railway companies for this application is a very unfortunate one, because they have selected the time so that the Committee's report will never be available while the House is sitting if action is taken rapidly upon it. The Committee will not report before the House rises. The House will then be adjourned until 27th October and, therefore, if action is taken before 27th October it will be impossible for any Member of the House to raise any question as regards representations to the Minister or any other matter. We suggest that the Minister should at least give us the assurance that this matter will not be finally dealt with until Parliament has assembled again, and Members of the House who are interested to support the views of various sections of the population may have had an opportunity of making representations after they have seen the report of the Committee, because I assume that the hon. Gentleman is going to publish the report of the Committee immediately he gets it. I would ask him to give us his assurance that he will make it available immediately it is given in order that various interests may be able, after considering it, to make to
  656
  him such representations as they think right., because I feel sure he will desire their assistance in considering it just as much as at any other time. I would also ask him to give us this assurance that, if the Great Western Railway and the London Midland and Scottish are going to bring forward a, similar arrangement, he will postpone any action as regards the first pooling agreement between the London and North Eastern and the London Midland and Scottish until that second pooling arrangement has been considered and he can see the whole picture.
  I do not want to encroach on the larger aspect of the case, except to say that we do not oppose any measures which are necessary for the purpose of the railway companies becoming more efficient in their service to the community. We believe there are certain ways in which that can be done which it would not be in order for me to develop at present, which might shortly be covered by the word "nationalisation." But, short of that, if the present companies desire as private monopolies to get this extra advantage, we feel that it is perfectly right and fair that other private interests should be safeguarded, and that, where you have a large and influential body of ports and docks in competition with the railway companies' ports and docks whose business may be diverted or vitally affected by reason of this pooling arrangement, which will no longer give particular railway companies the interest in particular routes which they have had in the past, you must be extremely careful in doing away with that measure of competition which exists—for instance, between Bristol and South Wales, between Liverpool and Hull and London and all the other ports—to see that you safeguard the interests of those people, whether municipal or otherwise, who have vast sums of money invested in businesses which have been built up on the basis of certain commodities passing through those ports. The hon. Gentleman knows the trouble there was, for instance, about sugar passing between South Wales ports or Bristol. Such instances as that show how an amalgamation may upset the flow of traffic. I am not saying it is done viciously or for any other reason, but the mere fact of the pooling of rates in amalgamation may, unless there are

  657
  safeguards, lead to that most wasteful diversion of traffic, because nothing is more wasteful than to divert traffic from a port which is fully equipped to another port where fresh equipment has to be built in order to deal with the same traffic, and that is a point which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have in mind.
  May I say one word on the question of labour. During the last 20 years there has never been a Bill for the amalgamation of railways where there has not been protection inserted for those who will be displaced by the amalgamation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand in the case of amalgamation. Obviously legislation would be necessary before it could be adopted.
  Sir S. GRIPPS: Perhaps I was using the word "amalgamation" in a non-technical sense. I was using it because the witnesses in the inquiry that is proceeding have stated that the results of the pooling agreement will be identical with amalgamation. Let me call it pooling. But where you have had any measure, whatever one likes to call it, which has been for the purpose of reducing redundant staffs amongst others, you have always had inserted some provision as regards compensating the redundant staff so displaced, and the classic case, of course, is Schedule V of the Railways Act, 1921. In this agreement there is no such clause inserted, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that he will see, as there is no one on the Committee representing Labour, that before these agreements are allowed to proceed, adequate provisions are inserted for the protection of any staff which by virtue of the operation of these agreements may lose their jobs. I think that is a measure of protection which everyone in the House will agree was always awarded when such an end was obtained by the passing of a private Bill through this House, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not desire any less measure of protection to be afforded in a matter in which he was exercising, as an administrative officer, some of the functions which clearly otherwise would be exercised by a Committee of the House.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. and learned Gentleman has frankly stated that,
  658
  although he intended to put this matter upon general grounds, he was very largely actuated by his proper interest in the Bristol docks. I am the last person in the House to desire that anything should be done which would prejudice in any way the prosperity of the Bristol docks, in which I take so great an interest, as docks belonging to my native city, docks about the same age as myself, in whose fortunes members of my family and myself have been largely concerned. But in his later sentences he rather indicated that one of his anxieties was as to the position of those employed in the railway companies themselves. In other words, he was not looking at the matter from the point of view of the customers of the railways, or persons interested in the way is which their traffic was managed, such as the Bristol docks, but he was interested in the welfare of the people employed by the railways. Perhaps I may say a word, first of all, as to the legal position. The hon. and learned Gentleman began by emphasising it a little. He suggested that this pooling agreement is so far-reaching as to amount in substance to an amalgamation. In his later observations he appeared to leave the legal question and to make certain requests to the Minister of Transport. He invited him to give a number of assurances as to what he would do when the report of the Advisory Committee is received, and what he would do in regard to another agreement for pooling traffic receipts which he understands is in contemplation.
  There is no doubt at all that in Section 19 of the Railways Act, 1921, Parliament contemplated and provided for the pooling of receipts. The Section laid down the conditions of the consent of the Minister before such agreement could be made, and if any such agreement was made and submitted for the consent of the Minister, Parliament directed that certain procedure should be followed with a view to carrying out the proposals for such pooling. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has followed the directions of Parliament precisely. He has done nothing more than what Parliament obviously intended that the Minister should do. Parliament set out in Section 19 that no arrangement or agreement for pooling of receipts should be carried out without the consent of the Minister. Parliament then provided that before

  659
  giving his consent the Minister should—he had no option—refer the matter for consideration to a committee selected from a particular panel, unless he thought that the proposals were of such minor importance as not to require that course to be taken. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that these proposals are obviously not of minor importance. That was the whole burden of his observations.
  The Minister was under a Statute duty, therefore, to refer the matter to a committee drawn from a panel which had been set up under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. The Minister has selected from that panel three gentlemen. They happen to be the three members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is the last person in the world not to recognise that many persons act in different capacities. He himself appears here and he appears there. Sometimes he is an eloquent and a persistent politician, and at other times he is an ingenious and a persuasive advocate. It does not follow that because three gentlemen in a certain capacity, being charged with certain duties, form what is, in substance, a court of law, the Railway Rates Tribunal, they are not, in their individual capacities, suitable persons to consider the matter of the pooling of receipts. Those gentlemen have great experience. It would be very difficult indeed, unless you had to have regard to sectional interests, to select three persons of greater experience and capacity and in whom the public would be more likely to have greater confidence.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to what Sir Eric Geddes said in Committee upstairs. I well remember the prolonged discussions in two Committees sitting at the same time upon the Bill, and it was certainly contemplated that the agreements for pooling receipts in proper cases should be facilitated. Some question arose, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, as to an Amendment providing for the reference of an arrangement for the allocation of traffic, as the words then were, to the Rates Tribunal. All that Sir Eric Geddes said was, "This is a question of policy." The Railway Rates Tribunal is, in a certain sense, a court of law. It is not proper to refer a question of policy to a court of law. Sir Eric Geddes certainly
  660
  did not say that the gentlemen who rightly constitute the Rates Tribunal would, in their individual capacities, be unsuitable, if they were on the panel, to consider such questions as should be submitted under the proposed legislation to an advisory committee. The observations of Sir Eric Geddes have been taken from their context, and all that he could say was, "This is a question of policy. Do not let us refer it to a court of law, which, I agree, is unsuitable, such as the Rates Tribunal."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I did not continue reading the extract. Does not it show clearly where he refers to the panel set up under the Ministry of Transport and says,
  "and which is a very representative body"—
  that what he is dealing with is a body chosen from a panel representative of all the interests, and not merely of those who are dealing with the particular railway rates.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not read the language of Sir Eric Geddes in that way at all. Sir Eric Geddes says that the panel is a very representative body. Obviously, he did not intend or contemplate that every member of the panel should be chosen to form any advisory committee. He said that the panel was a very representative body and that from the panel they would be able to select persons who were suitable to consider in their individual capacity questions submitted to the advisory committee. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that we cannot settle any question to-day by reference to anything which Sir Eric Geddes said in 1921. He was a great authority then, and he is a great authority now, but we must take what Parliament has said, and the only duty of the Minister is to act in accordance with the Section of the Railways Act, 1921, which gives him these directions.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman again, I think, is in error in suggesting that the Minister has acted in any way either against the letter or the spirit of the Act of Parliament. I do not suppose that anybody can be found to support that suggestion. The Minister has acted strictly in accordance with the directions which Parliament has given to him. I am glad to have the hon. and learned

  661
  Gentleman's assent to that point. The next question which arises is: What is the action the Minister will take when the advisory committee has reported? It is upon that point that the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for assurances. It is not very convenient, while the advisory committee is sitting and witnesses are appearing before it, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt with complete accuracy, but, at any rate, in rather an ex parte manner, should make statements as to what witnesses said. He has quoted an expression which the witnesses used, and which I have no doubt is quite accurate, namely, that the effect of the pooling agreement is substantially amalgamation. Because a witness says a thing, it does not follow that it is either true or accurate. I should have thought that there was a great distinction between an agreement for pooling receipts and an agreement for amalgamation. Amalgamation presupposes or requires the community of ownership and community of management, at least. This is neither community of ownership nor community of management. It is, in fact and in truth, a pooling of receipts with independent ownership and independent control.
  If witnesses made those statements, I venture to think that the context in which they made them would have shown that they would hardly have the effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to give them. It is an agreement for pooling receipts. When the evidence is completed and the Advisory Committee have made their report, my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be under a public duty to give his consent or to withhold it, but he really cannot be asked to prejudge the issue. [Interruption.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not ask the Minister to prejudge the issue, perhaps the best and most effective answer which I can give to him is to say that his representations, which were clearly made this afternoon, will have due weight. I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking the Minister to give assurances. He more than once said, "Will you give an assurance?"
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I did not ask the Minister to give here or anywhere else any assurance as to what
  662
  his decision would be. First of all, I asked that he should not give a decision before the second report came out, and, secondly, that the matter should not be finally disposed of before Parliament again assembled.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked the Minister to give definite assurances before he receives the report of the Advisory Committee.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Certainly.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I repeat what I said, and what I think was accurate, in the first instance, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking the Minister to prejudge an issue which is at present before the Advisory Committee.
  Sir S. CRIPIPS: I asked him to postpone his judgment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked him to do what he calls postponing his judgment. If the Advisory Committee say, "We think that this is an agreement for pooling receipts and cannot be considered apart from other proposals," the Minister in that case may quite properly act upon the report of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, to take another hypothetical case, may quite possibly say, "We think that this is an interesting experiment which should be facilitated at the earliest moment, and we think that the Minister may give his consent upon certain conditions." The Minister may accept the advice if it is so given. The hon. 'and learned Gentleman wants the Minister to prejudge that issue, and to give an assurance that he will not give his consent to the agreement for pooling receipts until some other proposals which have not yet been before the Minister, and as to the nature or details of which he has no information, have been reported upon. The Minister is not in a position to give any assurances. The matter is, I think it is accurate to say, sub judice. It is before the Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee are going to give the Minister their help. The Minister will receive the help which the Advisory Committee will be able to give him, and he will, to the best of his powers, act accordingly. I am sure that if I had any influence I should desire everything to

  663
  be done that would assist the Bristol docks. Other persons, no doubt, will make other representations to the Minister publicly, or privately for all I know, but the Minister cannot give any assurances to postpone his decision and do over again what the Advisory Committee is by Parliament required to do. The Advisory Committee is the body to hear the evidence. The Minister cannot undertake to give an opportunity for further investigations and further representations.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the interests of labour. The railway unions I am told—and I believe that it is true—have made and are making their representations to the Advisory Committee. Is not that the proper opportunity for bringing the needs of the position of the railwaymen before the Minister? The Advisory Committee is the channel by which all these representations and considerations reach the consideration of the Minister. It would be quite impossible for any head of a Department such as a Minister to act in these matters unless Parliament had given him the assistance which is so familiar a feature of our modern Acts of Parliament in the shape of an Advisory Committee. It would be a farce to pretend that the Minister, with all his duties, should go over the whole ground again and hear all the representations, arguments and evidence and make a report as if the Advisory Committee had never considered those matters. I cannot believe that the House would expect anything so unreasonable as that to be promised by my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to suggest—I hope that he did not suggest it deliberately—that an unfortunate time had been selected. I hope that the suggestion was not that it might have been selected with a view to cheating Parliament of its proper rights. There is no foundation for it.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I suggested that it was unfortunate that the Committee would not, in fact, report until after Parliament had adjourned.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If all that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant was that it was unfortunate that the present time should be the time the matter should come up, I do not com-
  664
  plain in the least. I understood him rather to suggest that an unfortunate time, to use his expression, had been deliberately selected. [Interruption.] All times are possibly inconvenient for somebody or some interests. The Minister will do his best with the information given to him through the Advisory Committee at a time which, I venture to think, is no more unfortunate than any other time. The railway companies are charged with a very difficult duty at the present time. I do not know whether some of those who made representations to the hon. and learned Gentleman from the City of Bristol would go with him in all the statements which he has made. He suggested that his party have a solution for all these difficulties—nationalisation. In his next sentence he protested against the elimination of 5.0 p.m. competition which this agreement for pooling receipts would effect. I cannot see any consistency between his statement that his party's policy would be a solution for all these difficulties and his protest against the abolition of competition. His solution would finally abolish all competition, but I will not attempt to go into that. The hon. and learned Member described the railways as private monopolies. I cannot imagine a more inapt description. The railways are in competition with other forms of transport, which have made their position very difficult indeed, and I think that this House and everybody should be glad that Parliament showed sufficient foresight in making provision to facilitate the pooling of receipts. This may be a method of securing that economy which will be the precursor of the return of prosperity to the railway companies.
  I am unwilling to do anything or to say anything to prejudge any of the questions that have been raised. I recognise the desirability of securing to the docks the facilities which proper railway services can give them. I desire fully to recognise the desirability of securing that nobody is unfairly treated in any rearrangement of their services which the railway companies may desire to make. Now that I have the hon. and learned Member's assurance of agreement with me that the Minister has acted with complete legal propriety, my task is done. I cannot on behalf of the Minister give any

  665
  assurance as to what he will do when he comes to act in a capacity which is really a judicial capacity, as the result of the report of the Advisory Committee. I hope that the hon. and learned Member's fears in regard to Bristol are ill-founded. All I can say is that the three gentlemen, with the legal assistance of the advocates, who are considering this matter know full well all the difficulties and complexities and they will give the Minister that advice and help which Parliament intended he should have, and the Minister will exercise his capacity and his discretion in the best way he can. He will take note of the hon. and learned Member's fears, doubts and suggestions, but he cannot to-day give any assurance. I hope the House will not think that the hon. and learned Member is asking what is at all convenient seeing that, while the matter is actually under consideration, he comes here and repeats some of the evidence and asks the Minister to give promises and undertakings which are only proper to be considered when the matter has had the fullest consideration before the Committee.
  Mr. THORNE: I was going to ask, Sir, if you would be prepared to give some little latitude in regard to the question before the House. I am not sure whether any other hon. Member from these benches will follow me in the discussion, but it may be rather difficult to confine oneself to the question before us. We have had two very interesting speeches. I know nothing about the legal side of the question, but I do know that when this matter was debated in 1921 I heard the Minister say that if anything happened in regard to amalgamation—I am not sure about pooling—and any men were displaced, consideration would be given to them in the way of compensation for the loss of employment or emoluments. I want to make a very energetic appeal to the Minister of Transport. The railway companies whose proposed pooling arrangement we are now discussing have been driven to seek this pooling method in consequence of what I would call the wicked and foolish competition that is going on between the railway companies and the road transport companies.
  The position in which the railway companies find themselves is due to the very large decrease in receipts through various
  666
  causes which I understand we are not entitled to debate to-day. There have been many wage reductions throughout the country and people have not the money to spend on travel as they had in days gone by. In addition, there is fierce competition from the road transport companies, and I say without hesitation that the railway companies are very heavily handicapped in consequence of this fierce competition. The Attorney-General said that if this pooling arrangement is agreed to the directors will operate in exactly the same way in the future as the present time, and that the only difference would be that they would have a pooling of their receipts. I am not sure whether that statement is on all-fours with the statement made in the newspapers, by those responsible for the running of the railways and those responsible for the inner workings of the Railway Workers' Union. Statements have been made, rightly or wrongly, that when this pooling arrangement is brought about instead of there being three directorates for the three companies there will only be one board of directors to run the railways. It is evident to me that this pooling arrangement is contemplated with the object of cutting down expense. Otherwise it would be no use doing it.
  They have already made a declaration that if the pooling of receipts is brought about it will eventually mean the discharging of a very large number of men who are now working on the different railways. When the railwaymen's representatives had an interview with Sir Josiah Stamp they said that, as far as they could judge—and it appeared they had gone very minutely into the matter—the arrangement would mean that between 30,000 and 40,000 employés on the railways would eventually be dismissed, and they asked the management whether there was any possibility of coming to an arrangement whereby the railway clerks and other railway workers would be compensated. [Interruption.]
  Earl WINTERTON: I beg pardon. My remark was about the attempt to bring a premature end, an allotted day.
  Mr. THORNE: An effort was made to get an agreement that if a number of men were dismissed compensation would be paid to them for loss of work and

  667
  emoluments, but the management would not consider the matter at all. The men representing the railway clerks, the locomotive men and the general workers on the railways have put their case before the Tribunal, and I understand that they have urged upon the Tribunal that when they are about to make their final decision for submission to the Minister of Transport they should make it a condition that if a number of employés are discharged they should have some compensation for loss of work and emoluments, and so forth. If the railway companies had not proceeded by this method of pooling receipts to cut down expenses they would have been compelled to have promoted a Bill in Parliament to bring about what they are doing now. The railway workers say that this is a back-door method of bringing about, to all intents and purposes, amalgamation without having to promote a Bill. If they had been compelled to promote a Bill hon. Members on these benches and in other parts of the House would have had a chance of getting a Clause inserted in the Bill providing that displaced employés should receive compensation. The Minister of Transport knows that there have been a number of Bills passed through this House for bringing about amalgamations, and Clauses have been inserted in those Acts of Parliaments to see that justice was meted out to the rank and file of the workpeople.
  The Minister of Transport is well acquainted with the Clauses that were inserted in the Electricity Acts of 1919, 1922 and 1928. Under those Clauses, if amalgamations are brought about or if any of the sub-stations are shut down in consequence of the erection of super-stations and large numbers of men and women are deprived of employment, they are entitled to receive compensation for loss of work. If the management is not prepared to give fair consideration to their case they are entitled to go to a tribunal and get what they think is reasonable compensation. There is an arrangement, it is not obligatory but a moral agreement, between the Gas Light and Coke Company, and their employés, which provides that under the merging and amalgamations that are going on between the various gas companies, which are inevitable, whether we like it or not, if men or women are dismissed, compen-
  668
  sation shall be given to them for loss of employment. There is also a moral understanding between Imperial Chemical Industries and their workpeople. A mutual agreement has been arrived at so that if men are displaced compensation shall be given, but if not they are to be given an opportunity of moving from one place to another. I think the management will give people who are about to be dismissed an opportunity of moving from one district to another, but when a man has lived in a particular area practically for the whole of his life and all his social connections are there and he is asked to transfer all his belongings from one town to another, it is a very serious position for him. We say that where men say that they cannot see their way to accept a proposition of that sort, some compensation should be given to them.
  I appeal to the Minister to do something. The obligation is entirely upon his shoulders. When he gets the report from the tribunal it will be for him to sanction this pooling arrangement, and, therefore, in the name of thousands of men working on the railways I appeal to him in any case to make representations to the management of these particular railway companies that if any men are dismissed they will be compensated for loss of employment. As far as the higher paid officials are concerned, they will get compensation, and the interests of the clerks will also be protected, but when it comes to the railway porter and the locomotive men they are usually shunted into a siding and nobody takes any notice of them at all. I hope the Minister will see that these workmen are protected if they lose their employment in consequence of these pooling arrangements.
  Mr. LINDSAY: I am a little disappointed that the Attorney-General has intervened so early in the Debate. No doubt it was the result of the pressure of business at the moment, but it is a little unfortunate. This is not a party question; it is not a matter on which the Government and the Opposition are opposed merely because they are the Government and the Opposition. The Attorney-General referred to the difficult duty which faces the railway companies at the present time. I entirely agree. They are undoubtedly faced with a very

  669
  difficult duty, and I have the greatest sympathy with them in their efforts to achieve economies and to return once more to profitable working. I represent a division which includes 20,000 trade unionists, most of whom are railway men. It was represented for some time by a very respected Member of this House, the general secretary of the Railway Clerks' Union, and I do not desire anything that I may say to be taken as hostile to the railways. I represent the city and port of Bristol. The Port of Bristol is a municipal undertaking conducted by a committee of the City Council. It is one of the great independent docks in the country, and in this matter its interests are the same as those of the Port of London, the Port of Liverpool and the Port of Manchester.
  In the same way that railway companies have been competing with the roads so the independent docks have had to face the tremendous difficulties created by the competition of railway-owned docks; and the port of Bristol has had to meet that competition. They have been so successful that last year they had a record year. They managed to go ahead against the competition of railway-owned docks, but they view with great concern the extent of the present scheme which is now before Sir Walter Clode's committee. The Attorney-General says that it is not amalgamation. It is, at any rate, a scheme of very large extent, which covers more than half the railway capital of the country, over £50,000,000 of railway receipts, embraces two-thirds of the railway population of the country and 100 per cent. of the mileage of two of the largest railway companies. It is a scheme which, if it is sanctioned, will be in operation for not less than 50 years. I do not desire to draw down upon my head the strictures of the Attorney-General by referring to the evidence given before the tribunal, but I have read every word of the shorthand note and it is no use quibbling about words. There is no doubt that this scheme, as Sir Josiah Stamp said, will have the same results which you get from amalgamation. In answer to a question Sir Josiah Stamp said:
  "The economies which the railway companies are aiming at by this pooling scheme are of the same order of magnitude as those economies aimed at in the 1921 scheme."
  After we are told that this is such a large scheme we are now told that a
  670
  similar scheme is in process of preparation between the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the Great Western Railway. That is a feature which gives us such alarm; the fact that another such scheme is in preparation. After all, there are only four main line railway companies and it only requires six such schemes as this to achieve: the same effects as you would get from amalgamation; and to, get them behind the back of the House of Commons and with no safeguards for the people of the country except the report of the committee and the Minister's discretion. I do not speak disrespectfully of the tribunal or the Minister. I do not join with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in his strictures on the tribunal. I have not considered that matter at all, and it may be that the Railway Rates Tribunal is the best for the purpose. What I am concerned with is the position of the Port of Bristol.
  There is an important question of principle involved. I agree that the Minister has acted in accordance with his statutory duty. He was bound to refer the matter to a tribunal for consideration and report, but there is nothing in the Act to show to what sort of considerations he must apply his mind when he is considering the report of the tribunal and there is nothing in the Act to show what sort of considerations shall be taken into account by the tribunal. That is why the matter has to be raised on the Floor of the House of Commons. I understand that the report will not cover questions of policy, it will only deal with the merits of a particular scheme, and say whether it is or is not a good scheme. On questions of policy, on the important questions of public principle involved, the only safeguard we have is the discretion of the Minister. If he takes this one scheme and regards it by itself there is really no safeguard at all when we come to the consideration of the second scheme. If the Minister sanctions the first scheme he will find it extremely difficult to refuse sanction to a similar scheme between two different railway companies.
  The Port of Bristol are not directly concerned in the present application. They appeared before the tribunal and were told, quite properly, that they had no locus standi and must make their representations to the Minister. Pursuant to that they applied to the Minister

  671
  to hear them. The Miniser refused to receive a deputation, because he said the matter was sub judice. Was he right in that decision? The Port of Bristol is not directly concerned with the present application but they are concerned with the second application which we know is going to be made by the Great Western Railway Company. It has not yet been submitted to any tribunal, and I ask the Minister whether he will not reconsider his decision and receive a deputation from the Port of Bristol who are vitally interested in the matter of railway amalgamation. I know that he is a busy man and that these are difficult times, but after all the Port of Bristol is not unimportant and I ask him to reconsider his decision and receive a deputation.
  Let me say a word or two as to the actual effect of the scheme on the Port of Bristol. I may be asked how it affects the Port of Bristol. It is rather a difficult question to answer. The general public is not at present in possession of the details of the railway company's scheme, and we have been told in the evidence given before the tribunal that it is not possible to say exactly what is going to be done. Sir Ralph Wedgwood has said that there is no cut and dried scheme. In fact, the railway companies are asking for a roving commission. I am anxious that the railway companies should make economies and save money, but I am also anxious that they should not make those economies at the expense of the independently owned docks of the country. It is obvious that a pooling arrangement of this sort may seriously affect the ports of the country. They are safeguarded in the Act of 1921 by the operation of Section 58, Sub-section (4), although this Section has not been entirely satisfactory. If protection was necessary in 1921, when amalgamation was proposed, it is still more necessary in 1932 when by the process of this pooling scheme you are getting a clandestine amalgamation between railway companies behind the back of Parliament.
  We ask for some protection for the docks. I have been reading the Debates in this House on the 1921 Act and I was interested to see how hon. Members who then sat for the City of Hull took an active part in the interests of the Port of Hull, which was then an independent port. To-day, however, the Port of Hull
  672
  is no longer an independent port. It is now owned by the railway company. I was also interested to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an eloquent plea for the protection of canals and waterways, which were then in exactly the same position as privately-owned docks. They required protection against the competition of the railway companies just as in another way the railway companies are asking for protection against what they conceive to be the unfair competition of the roads. The first request I make to the Minister is that he will reconsider his decision to discuss this matter with the authorities of the Port of Bristol. The second request I make is this, that when the Great Western Railway application comes to be discussed he will exercise his authority to see that greater detail is available to those who may want to raise objections and put their point of view in opposition to the application.
  I do not make these observations in any sense hostile to the Government. I hope that the Minister will deal with these two schemes together. It may be that this is the first time he has heard of the Great Western Railway scheme, but now that he knows of it will he not undertake to reserve his decision on the first scheme until he has had a report on the second and consider them both together? If it is not possible to do that, will he send the second scheme to the same tribunal as the first and ask for a joint report? One scheme may not be vital, but when we are told that we are to have two pooling schemes of this magnitude is it not obvious that the Minister should exercise greater care and skill in dealing with the matter? The hon. Member is not only Minister of railways but Minister of Transport, and he must remember that he has a duty not only to the railways but to the docks and harbours of the country. In view of the importance of this question, I hope he will give an assurance that the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing the whole question before he takes any definite and final step. It will not be very long before the Salter Committee reports, and he may have to reconsider the whole question of the reconstitution of the railway system of this country. Does he not think that these two pooling schemes raise questions of such great importance that no action should be taken

  673
  on them apart from the greater question and without giving an opportunity to this House to discuss the whole matter?
  Mr. CULVERWELL: I rise to support the plea just made by my hon. Friend, and by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). 5.30 p.m. I would like to thank the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol for having given us an opportunity of raising this important question by asking that the Ministry of Transport Vote should be put down for this day. I think that this Debate has shown the surprising character of these proposals. There was no suggestion at all, when the notice of the pooling arrangements was put forward by these two railways, that they were of the vast and revolutionary character that they have since turned out to be. The Debate has brought out before the general public what an extraordinarily huge undertaking this committee of inquiry is now embarking upon, because in effect what is proposed is an amalgamation or unification of these two railways, a unification which will bring the companies together without their having any special responsibility to Parliament, to the travelling or trading public, to the public dockowners or to labour. I think that we have a right in this House to discuss proposals of such a character. Public docks are intimately concerned with this proposal, and particularly the Port of Bristol docks. The public docks or privately-owned docks of this country have a capital of something like £150,000,000, and it is only within the last few days that they have awakened to the possibilities which this scheme envisages.
  The learned Attorney-General said that this action on the part of the Minister was perfectly legal under the Act of 1921. No one disputes that. The Minister is within his legal rights in submitting this vast scheme to the consideration of a committee which will advise him and make recommendations in order that he may come to a decision. What I and other hon. Members dispute is that the Act of 1921 ever envisaged such a vast scheme as this. The Act of 1921 effected amalgamations on a territorial basis, but this is quite a different scheme altogether. It departs entirely from the territorial basis
  674
  which split the country up amongst four great groups of companies. This, however, is the beginning of a complete amalgamation of four big railways in the country. We contend that such a vast scheme should not be brought forward without Parliament being given an opportunity of examining it carefully and imposing such limitatons and safeguards as the public interests may demand.
  There has been no opportunity, during the course of the inquiry, for the various interests which are affected to put forward their opinions and recommendations. It was only on 28th June when the heads of agreements were discussed, and when it became apparent that the scheme was a revolutionary scheme. It was only on the following day that we became aware that the City of Bristol might be affected by reason of the fact that another scheme vas foreshadowed for the pooling of receipts between the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Great Western Railway. The Bristol Corporation immediately employed counsel to safeguard their interests, or to endeavour to do so, before the committee of inquiry. The Bristol Corporation also asked the Minister to receive a deputation in order that he might be made aware of the fears which are felt in the City of Bristol. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the Minister refused to see the deputation because the case was still sub judice. In his own words he said:
  "I would not feel justified in receiving a deputation of interested persons whose object would naturally be to endeavour to influence my judgment in the matter."
  I would point out to the Minister that Bristol is in no way directly affected by the scheme which is the subject of inquiry; Bristol is affected only in so far as any future scheme may affect the City. It is affected in so far as the Minister's decision and judgment on this particular scheme will necessarily prejudice his decision on any subsequent scheme. Indeed the hon. Gentleman admits that in his letter to me. No one disputes that the case of Bristol is not sub judice, and unless the Minister's opinion is going to be affected by his decision on this particular case there is no reason why he should not have received a deputation from the Corporation of Bristol. The Minister falls between two stools if he tries to sustain that argument.

  675
  The purpose of the deputation was not to discuss details of the proposals, but to protest on broad principles against the Minister assuming such a great responsibility in this matter. As I have said, I do not believe that the Act of 1921 ever contemplated such vast schemes as this; it never contemplated that the Minister of Transport would shoulder such great responsibilities; and we contend that the matter calls for full Parliamentary discussion and decision. Parliament rises in a few days, and when we return the whole matter will be a fait accompli. The first agreement between the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the North Eastern Railway will probably have been decided by the Minister, and he will thereby have set a precedent for his decision and ruling in the case that is foreshadowed, of an agreement between the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the Great Western Railway. Not only the Bristol authorities but the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association suggest that the Minister should postpone his decision for at least three months. Furthermore, we have had protests and representations from the National Union of Railwaymen, who are interested from quite a different angle.
  I suggest to the Minister that this is such a vast and revolutionary scheme that he should not shoulder the responsibility of coming to any decision in the matter, but should declare that it must be proceeded with either by way of a private Bill on behalf of the railways concerned, or by a Government Bill on the lines of the Act of 1921. No one can suggest that the objects sought in this case are not almost as important as, if not more important than, the objects of the Act of 1921. But if the Minister will not agree that the matter is of such importance that Parliament should be allowed to come to a decision upon it, then we urge that he should reopen the inquiry, or else postpone his decision in order to give interested parties an opportunity of putting forward their case, or that he should submit the two agreements, between the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the North Eastern Railway and the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the Great Western Railway, to the same advisory committee, in order that he can judge both agreements together, because they both have the same prin-
  676
  ciples. By that means all interested parties, the Bristol Corporation amongst others, will have an opportunity of explaining their position and safeguarding their interests. I urge the Minister to rid himself of a responsibilty which I am sure he does not want to shoulder, which really is more than Parliament ever anticipated that he would be called upon to bear, and to give another opportunity for the discussion of this matter in this House, and for decision by Members of this House.
  Mr. PARKINSON: There is one thing that the House is practically unanimous about, and that is the appeal to the Minister of Transport at least to postpone his decision, or to give an opportunity for the House to discuss the question before a decision becomes operative. Unfortunately it appears probable that the report will be issued during the Parliamentary Recess, and consequently the Minister may feel that to await the reassembly of the House would mean too long a delay, but I join in the appeal to him to take that course, which I believe will be in the best interests of everyone concerned. Several points have been raised, and I want to speak on that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne)—the question of protection for the interests concerned. There will certainly be a redundancy of staff under this scheme, and something will have to be done. The report will be put into operation and people will be discharged in a wholesale manner when their services are not required, without an opportunity having been given for the whole matter to be discussed here. That will not be in keeping with former decisions of the House.
  This is indeed another railways revolution. It extends in so many directions and affects so many classes that it is fraught with greater possibilities even than the railway changes of 1921. The serious possibilities of the scheme apply not only to railway workers, but to those who use the railways, who have not been given a full opportunity of placing their case before the committee. Where will this sort of thing stop? When these two companies have carried out their proposals will similar schemes be extended to the whole of the railway system of the country? Personally I feel that the ball has been set rolling and that it will go

  677
  on rolling until the whole of the railway system of the country is affected, and of course that may work a tremendous change for good or bad.
  It appears that the present Government really have no transport policy. They are leaving it for the capitalist interests to impose their will on commerce and upon the workers in industry. Evidently this is a fight to preserve capital and profits and the very existence of privately-owned corporations. What of the people working in this railway industry, and those who are compelled to use the railways in connection with commerce? No matter what position people hold, if they are employed by the railways concerned they are subject to insecurity, just as they would be under any other kind of amalgamation or pool. No one can object to the statement that "amalgamation is in the air," because when we look at the position at the present moment we must see that this common pooling arrangement is neither more nor less than the forerunner of amalgamation. The purpose of the two railway companies is set out in paragraph 6 of the joint memorandum issued by them in which they state:
  "With this pooling of receipts the companies will be enabled gradually to effect appreciable economies in the provision of capital and in working expenses as there will be a unity of interest in all the many streams of traffic concerned. The resources and equipment of both companies can be used for their common interest between places where their interests are now divergent and, apart from the avoidance of outlay on duplicate services, economies will inure in respect of advertising, town office arrangements, canvassing, cartage work and other outlay which accompanies competitive services."
  That statement makes clear the object of the companies—which is to secure economies wherever possible at the expense of anybody so long as they themselves are securing the benefit. There is not one word in that paragraph about protecting the interests of the people who are compelled to use the railway services in connection with heavy industries and commerce. There is not one word in it about the protection of the workers. What is meant by "appreciable economies"? That term may mean many things but in this particular case it can only mean the displacement of a number of employés,
  678
  possibly members of the lower grades, though, as I have said, it may apply to the higher grades as well. There is no line of demarcation and it is possible that this economy may range over services in which its operation is not yet foreseen, in order that the companies may be able to preserve capital. The reference to economies in town office arrangements probably means the discharge of many agents, clerks, porters and carters. Unification in operation and administration is bound to have that result.
  The pooling arrangement is probably a preliminary to something much more drastic in the form of economy. In great services such as this there is such a wide field of operation that it will be impossible for anybody who is to-day employed by these two companies to say that his employment is secure or is guaranteed in any way. The companies are economising to preserve capital, but apparently no thought is being given to the human side of the question. After all, there are two aspects of the ease. If it is a question of economising in order to give a greater return on the financial capital invested, something ought to be done also to protect the human, capital which is invested in the railways. Human lives are invested in this work, and, as the hon. Member for West Ham has pointed out., if these workers are compelled to leave the districts in which they are situated and cart themselves and their belongings to some other area, perhaps miles away, there ought to be some compensation for them.
  This pooling arrangement may be a case of preserving capital, but at the same time it is a case of discarding labour. The discarding of labour brings with it very heavy hardships which are directly felt by the people concerned, and ought to be a consideration as well as the preservation of capital. I hope that the Minister will see that the interests of the people discharged will be secured and that some kind of compensation will be provided for them. That is a problem to which the Minister can apply himself. The ramifications of the inquiry are wide. Many points have been mentioned at it, and, in the course of the present hearing, there have been come very interesting admissions by the companies' witnesses.
  First, we find that the two companies now concerned own more than two-thirds

  679
  of the railways of the country, judged either by mileage or revenue or staff employed. That makes them practically the controlling interest of the railways of the country. Secondly, the pooling arrangement will affect the whole of the mileage of these two companies because all their stations will accept what is now competitive traffic. Thirdly, the gross revenue of the two companies is £107,000,000 per annum, and the traffic subject to the pooling arrangements represents approximately 50 per cent. of that, or £50,000,000 odd. Fourthly, their witnesses have also admitted that the proposed pooling will produce results similar to those of an amalgamation. At the inquiry Mr. Bensley Wells, on behalf of the National Union of Railwaymen, asked Sir Josiah Stamp whether, if this were a scheme for effecting the amalgamation of the London, Midland and Scottish with the London and North Eastern Railway, Sir Josiah would be objecting to the protective clauses, in principle, which those unions sought to have inserted. Sir Josiah's reply was:
  "Probably, yes. It would depend very much how the principle was expressed."
  Sir Josiah added that one of his main reasons for objecting to the protective clauses was that there would be great practical difficulty in distinguishing when a man had lost his job as a result of the pool or for other reasons. The employer, I may say, has always more than one reason for discharging an individual. Sir Josiah Stamp also said that there would be considerable doubt as to whether the bulk of the reductions which might be effected if the pool were approved would be due to the pool. Mr. Wells then put the following question:
  "Notwithstanding the 1921 Act and the compensating Clauses in that Act your company were able to save £17,000,000 over the period of nine years?"
  Sir Josiah's reply was, "Yes." Then follows a very interesting question. Mr. Wells asked:
  "In the light of your experience of the 1921 Act do you really suggest that the existence of the compensating Clauses if they were inserted would take an undue proportion of the savings you hope to effect?"
  Sir Josiah's reply to that question was:
  "I still hope that we should be able to do most of our economies within our own natural contraction."
  680
  That is the position of the chairman of the London, Midland and Scottish. There has also been very remarkable evidence by Sir Ralph Wedgwood of the London and North Eastern Railway. Indeed the evidence that has been given is such as to condemn the policy of the Government, or at least the policy which it has carried out during the last two or three months. I learn the following from the Press:
  "The evidence of Sir Ralph Wedgwood the London and North Eastern general manager before the Railway Rates Tribunal seems to carry the matter one step further. He is stated to have declared that tariffs had not stimulated local production and that the revenue which the company used to derive from the conveyance of foreign imports had been cut down in certain trades, as much as from a-half to two-thirds; This apparently without increasing in any degree the corresponding local industry."
  I do not follow up that point but it is evident that the conclusion of this inquiry is going to be a pooling arrangement between the two companies and, whatever may be agreed upon, we say that the other people interested in this arrangement, namely, the people employed ought to be considered. We appeal to the Minister to take particular care that the interests of these people are safeguarded and that they are not cast upon the scrap-heap to increase the volume of unemployment. The Minister has an opportunity in this matter and there are precedents for action such as I have suggested. In many Measures passed by the House of Commons provision has been made for such safeguards. When the Minister gets this report Parliament will not be sitting, and he will have plenty of time in which to give it careful consideration. We hope that he will give it that careful consideration and that he will not issue a decision until the House of Commons has met again and until there has been a full discussion on all these points. I think that in taking that course, the Minister will enhance his reputation as a Minister and will be doing something which 90 per cent. of the Members of the House of Commons wish him to do. Therefore I add my appeal to those which have already been made to him, that he should not put his decision into operation during the Recess, but that an opportunity should be given to hon. Members to raise it in the House of Commons and have a full discussion upon,

  681
  these matters before any decision operates.
  Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: I wish to put to the Minister a simple question but one of great importance to many people working in connection with the railways. Dismissals are taking place throughout the country in the workshops of the railways and there is a general feeling abroad that steps should be taken to make clear what is to be the future course of the railways in regard to the manufacturing side of their business. The position is difficult for those men who live in railway centres and it is even more difficult for the children of those men. They should be able to look into the future a little in order to see what possibilities there are in industry. I ask the Minister whether care is being taken to put before this Committee the question of the manufacturing side of the work of the railways and whether that question is being considered in relation to the general trade and industry of the country? If no consideration is being given to this question, apart from the effect upon the interests of the railways themselves and of the men working simply as railwaymen, I would remind the Minister that the reaction on trade and industry generally is a very important consideration. If some arrangement could be reached as to the nature of the manufacturing work undertaken by the railways and the amount of that work which is to be thrown back into general industry, the men in the railway workshops would have an opportunity of considering the possibilities of getting work in general engineering. We should have some assurance that the manufacturing side of the railway's work and the very important effect of these dismissals upon it, are matters which are being considered.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I have listened with very great interest and with complete sympathy to the views expressed by hon. Members particularly regarding displacement of labour and dismissal of employés, but I am sure that those hon. Members will appreciate the fact that the Minister of Transport, in regard to this matter, is at this moment in a very difficult position. I have just appointed a Committee to hear the case concerning the pool between the two great railways. It has
  682
  been admitted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) arid others, that in taking that course I am acting perfectly within my duties as Minister of Transport. But, having appointed this Committee to advise me and to meet in public and to hear all sides of the case, a very difficult and complicated position is created when on this Vote the Minister has to listen to ex-parte statements by one or two of those interested. One plain duty lies before me. It is obvious that I shall shortly be called upon to give or to refuse my consent to this pooling agreement and I must make it perfectly clear this afternoon that it is quite impossible for me at this stage of the proceedings to express any opinion whatever on the merits or demerits of the proposal or of objections which may be raised to it. Hon. Members have urged that the 6.0 p.m. scope of these proposed agreements is of such a character and so vast that I should not give my consent either to the appointment of the committee or to the scheme being approved. I must, however, remind hon. Members that it has been generally agreed that in appointing this committee I am acting entirely in the manner which the Act of 1921 requires me to act, and the House will appreciate that the bulk of the discussion to-day has really been concerned with an agreement which is not only not before me at all, but which I have no certain knowledge will ever come before me. There is only one pooling agreement before me at the moment, and that is the agreement between the London and North Eastern and the London, Midland and Scottish Railways, and I am urged to hold up a decision concerning that pooling arrangement until another one, which might or might not come before me, is brought officially to me for my consent.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Has the hon. Gentleman asked the London, Midland and Scottish Railway whether Sir Josiah Stamp has not, said that there is another one following?
  Mr. PYBUS: In a matter of this kind, am I empowered to hold up an agreement which is before me, to delay something which two great railway companies are entirely within their rights in asking me to approve, until a case has been heard which is not before me? Am I justified in holding up a pooling agree-

  683
  ment of this kind, which may mean a very great increase in efficiency in the working of these railway companies, until another agreement is before me? I am sure I am not justified in deferring a decision on the matter which is before me pending one which is not before me. In any case, however, the argument falls to the ground, because if and when the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Great Western Railway did come before me with a pooling scheme, I should have to judge it on its merits in exactly the same manner as I shall hope to judge the London, Midland and Scottish and the London and North Eastern Railways agreement when it comes to me with the report of the committee.
  Mr. PARKINSON: It is not a question of waiting for the second demand. We are simply asking that the hon. Gentleman's decision shall be held up and not be put into operation until the reassembling of this House.
  Mr. PYBUS: I can give no such undertaking, and it would be highly improper if I did. I have neither power nor authority to do it. The hon. Gentleman must accept the fact that I can give no undertaking either to hold the agreement up till the House meets again or to defer a settlement on this agreement until another comes before me. I cannot accept any responsibility of that sort. I accept no responsibility for deferring a decision on one agreement until another comes before me.
  I should regret, in common with hon. Members opposite, any loss of employment or displacement of labour which resulted from a pooling scheme. It is impossible for anyone to say whether these schemes will or will not result in some temporary reduction of employment, but the fact remains, and it may be a hard fact, that neither under the Railways Act of 1921 nor under any other Act of Parliament have I power to interfere with the railway companies in the management and staffing of their railways.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: But surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that he has power to insist on the insertion of a clause in the agreement making provisions?
  Mr. PYBUS: No, I am speaking of the question of protection.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: But the hon. Member can insist on the insertion of any provision in the agreement.
  Mr. PYBUS: I stick to my point that I have no power to interfere with the railway companies in the management and staffing of their railways.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point of my interruption. He is asked to approve an agreement, and he can compel, as a condition of approval, the insertion of any provision that he thinks right and proper in that agreement.
  Mr. PYBUS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion is that I should at this moment listen to his pleadings and to those of other hon. Members, ex parte statements made in favour of inserting some clause for interfering with the management of the railways while the committee is sitting, then all I can say is that my one firm duty here is to listen, if I like, to what is said, but on no account to allow any words which I hear to influence me in my eventual decision. It must be obvious that if I am to take an impartial decision and take that decision on the evidence of the committee appointed for the purpose of advising me, it is not proper for me to be influenced in any way by statements made by the hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I thought we were in the House of Commons.
  Mr. PYBUS: Yes, obviously, but a committee has been appointed and is now sitting, and that committee is set up to advise me on the whole question. It has also been urged that I should give some indication as to whether I would hear representations from parties affected after the committee's report is in my hands and before I come to a decision. I can give no such undertaking on this point either, for if one party is heard, every other interested party must, in common fairness, be given a similar opportunity, and I should be covering the same ground as that which the committee which I have appointed is already covering.
  Mr. CULVERWELL: Bet surely the purpose of the Bristol deputation was to ask the hon. Gentleman to defer his decision in the first case in order to prevent his judgment being warped when he came to decide in the second case.
  Mr. PYBUS: I replied to my hon. Friend that I had come to the conclusion that I could not see any such deputation, and to that decision I must hold. We have now had our Debate on this subject, and I hope that, considering the importance of the business that is to follow,
  the House will be good enough to give us this Vote.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 318; Noes, 39.

  Division No. 293.]

  AYES

  [6.9 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Janner, Barnett

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Denville, Alfred

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

  Dickle, John P.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Apelin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Donner, P. W.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Doran, Edward

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Dower, Captain A, V. G.

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Atkinson, Cyril

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Knight, Holford

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Edge, Sir William

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

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

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Leckie, J. A.

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

  Eimley, Viscount

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Belt, Sir Alfred L.

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Lees-Jones, John

  Bernays, Robert

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Levy, Thomas

  Bossom, A. C.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lewis, Oswald

  Boulton, W. W.

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

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Sower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Falle Sir Bertram G.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Bracken, Brendan

  Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Llewellin, Major John J.

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

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Briant, Frank

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R,

  Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Mabane, William

  Buchan, John

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

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Burnett, John George

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  McCorqundale, M. S.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Goldie, Noel B.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Calne, G. P. Hall.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Carver, Major William H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  McKeag, William

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Graves, Marjerie

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  McLean, Major Alan

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Grimston, R. V.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Chotzner, Alfred James

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Magnay, Thomas

  Christie, James Archibald

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Maitland, Adam

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Making, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Clarke, Frank

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hanley, Dennis A.

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

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Harris, Sir Percy

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Meller, Richard James

  Collins, Sir Godfrey

  Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Colville, John

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Heilgers, Captain F, F. A.

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Henoage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Hornby, Frank

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Cowan, D. M.

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Munro, Patrick

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Nall, Sir Joseph

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Cuiverwell, Cyril Torn

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

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Curry, A. C.

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Nunn, William

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Templeton, William P.

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

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Salt, Edward W.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Pearson, William G.

  Savery, Samuel Servington

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

  Penny, Sir George

  Scone, Lord

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Petherick, M.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Pickering, Ernest H.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

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

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Pybus, Percy John

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

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

  Somerset, Thomas

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Ramsden, E.

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Ray, Sir William

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Rea, Waiter Russell

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

  White, Henry Graham

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Remer, John R.

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Stones, James

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Rothschild, James A. de

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Summershy, Charles H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.

  Blindell.

  NOES

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Milner, Major James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen

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

  Healy, Cahir

  Price, Gabriel

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, George Henry

  Thorne, William James

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar, George

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kirkwood, David

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lawson, John James

  Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Leonard, William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Logan, David Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

  Gordon Macdonald.

  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this clay, to put forthwith the Questions, That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, and of the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and the Revenue Departments Estimates.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1932.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,"
    Put, and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1932.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates (including Ordnance Factories Estimates),"
    put, and agreed to.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1932.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1932.
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of, the Revenue Departments Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [6th July].
    Resolution reported,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £304,790,226, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain, and Major Elliot.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

    IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1—(Power of the Treasury to impose duties.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word "If," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "In the event of the Secretary of State for the Dominions certifying that there has been a decision of a court of arbitration, set up by agreement between His Majesty's Governments for the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, or, failing such agreement, appointed by representatives of the Dominions assembled in Imperial Conference, that the Irish Free State have failed to implement their lawful financial obligations to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    In line 17, to leave out the word "Treasury," and to insert instead thereof the words "Commons House of Parliament."—[Mr. Buchanan.]
    In line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words "entered into after the passing of this Act."
    In line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words:
    "which have been entered into since the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."—[Mr. Maxton.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment which I propose to select is the second in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in page 1, line 19.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether you have ruled out the first Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to select that Amendment. This question will arise on other Amendments. It was discussed at very great length on the Financial Resolution.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will you tell me on which of the other Amendments the question arises?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to judge of that. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not propose to select that Amendment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I understood that it was to be selected. Is it proposed to select the proposed new Clause—(Reference to Ottawa Conference)?
    The CHAIRMAN: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman at once that it will be quite impossible to select that.
    Mr. LANSBURY: If it is not selected I do not see where we shall get the chance of discussing the question raised in the first Amendment which you have not selected.
    Mr. MAXTON: I should like to ask what are the reasons that have led the Chair to pass over the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)? That proposes to place the House of Commons in control of these duties.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have no difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman. I do not usually give reasons for not selecting
    692
    Amendments, but in this case it is not selected because it amounts practically to a negative.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that the Amendment you are calling is the one immediately following that, namely, in page 1, line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words "entered into after the passing of this Act"?
    The CHAIRMAN: The second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member.
    Mr. MAXTON: I rise to move, in page 1, line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words,
    "entered into after the passing of this Act."
    I should have thought that this Amendment was somewhat more fundamental than the Amendment not selected. The purpose of this Amendment, as will be clear to the Committee, is to agree to the principle that the Irish Free State and Mr. de Valera should be responsible for any agreements that they enter into themselves for the future, 'but shall not be held responsible for agreements that were made by their predecessors in office. In support of the Amendment, I want to urge the Dominions Secretary to realise the justice of this point of view. He has all along in the discussions on the Bill and the antecedent Resolution laid insistence on the necessity for agreements honourably entered into being honourably kept. I accept that as a sound general principle. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has reiterated more than once, that ordinary life is impossible if the agreements that are entered into are not honourably kept. But it is equally true to say that if we as individuals are to be determined by agreements that are made by somebody else, and if the agreements of the past are to be made dominant over the present and the future, no human progress is possible. If it be said, as has been argued on this Bill, that Mr. de Valera and the present Irish Government cannot depart from agreements that have been entered into with their predecessors, we simply tell the Irish people in so many words that to change the Government is a. waste of time.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: So it is.
    Mr. MAXTON: I have not reached yet the depths of cynicism of the hon. and

    693
    learned Gentleman who says that it is a waste of time to change Governments.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: What is the use of agreements if all you have to do in order to break them is to change your Government?
    Mr. MAXTON: I am saying that men can only be held in honour bound to observe agreements to which they themselves have been parties.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member must know that that is sheer nonsense.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am going back to what the Dominions Secretary is fond of going back to, namely, his experience in the trade union field, and I am going to remind him that his first step on the ladder which he has climbed so successfully was achieved when he deposed from power in the railway union of that day his predecessor, Mr. Richard Bell. From the day be assumed power, he began to alter the agreements and bargains that had been entered into by his predecessor. He began to alter all the methods, all the tactics, and all the agreements and understandings that had characterized that union in the past. There was no reason for putting him there except that he was going to change policy. That is what the Irish people had in their mind when they returned Mr. de Valera to replace Mr. Cosgrave. They wanted a complete change of policy, and they wanted Irish affairs to be run on different lines and principles from those on which they had been run in preceding years. Therefore, while I am prepared to agree, as is suggested by this Amendment, that the obligations which Mr. de Valera enters into on behalf of Ireland from now onwards must be binding on him. I say that this House and this nation are asking something which they have no right to ask when they say that Mr. de Valera, must be responsible to all eternity for a policy to which he did not assent and of which he was the most active opponent in the whole of Ireland. The purpose of my Amendment is to make this Bill operative so far as the obligations of the Irish Free State entered into by Mr. de Valera's Government are concerned, but to waive responsibility for action previously taken.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I must indicate quite clearly that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I can scarcely think that my hon. Friend seriously suggests it. Boiled down, it means this: that the Government of any country, any Dominion, are entitled, because of political changes, to repudiate any sort of obligation made by their predecessors. If that principle were accepted no Government and no business could ever be conducted. Supposing the present secretary and president of the Miners' Federation or the railwaymen's union, to which my hon. Friend referred, said "Notwithstanding the agreement we made solemnly on behalf of our members, because there is a change in the personnel we have a right to repudiate it." Does the hon. Member accept that proposition? If he does, then I ask him to visualise how any business, or -any State, could continue on those lines?
    Mr. MAXTON: Answer the point I put to you! What about you and Dick Bell?
    Mr. THOMAS: I will come to the late and lamented predecessor of myself, Richard Bell, though I do not know why these personal references are introduced.
    Mr. MAXTON: I hope that I always show a proper respect for the dead and for distinguished public figures, but surely it is a new principle in this House that one may not use the name of some person and refer to his activities in the past. Surely there is no breach of decorum or of the courtesies of debate in doing that?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not complain on those grounds at all. Richard Bell is dead, and I pay a tribute to his memory. I succeeded him, and my hon. Friend has paid me the compliment of showing the changed condition in the railwaymen's status following my succession to Mr. Bell. But I want to make it perfectly clear that I never sent an ultimatum to the railway companies and said, "I propose to tear up this agreement." What I did was to send them a reasoned statement in which I said that, in my judgment, the agreement should be altered, and they responded by asking me to meet and discuss the situation. Let my hon. Friend observe the difference in the methods.
    Mr. MAXTON: Well, if it is only a question of method!
    Mr. THOMAS: It was my hon. Friend who first raised the issue—not I. I want to say that I do not accept his Amendment, and that I cannot conceive even a Government—and here I am giving him tremendous latitude—of which he was a Member—and if ever there was such a Government he would be a distinguished ornament of it—ever accepting this principle, because it would mean, after once solemnly entering into an obligation, all the merits of which had been settled after examination and discussion, conceding the right to a successive Government to repudiate it. Business, government, the ordinary affairs of life, cannot be conducted on that basis. If that is my hon. Friend's conception of the future State, I merely say to him, "I am not accepting it to-night, and God help those who ever do accept it!"
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: The Committee ought to be very grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for moving this Amendment, because now we know exactly where he stands, and as I think we may say that he was the leader of the opposition on this point in the earliest days, it is only right that the Committee should understand his motives. He declares that, in his opinion, no treaty is binding on the Free State unless it has the assent of the present Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. de Valera. What is the logical sequence to that? It stands to reason that any agreement which is arrived at to-day can be broken if there is a change of Government in the next month, or two months, or even a year—[Interruption]—or if the said gentleman were to die, which we all hope may not happen for many years, and were succeeded by anybody else. That is reducing the whole idea of agreements to nullity. The hon. Member is asking the House to assent to an Amendment which really means that every Government in turn can repudiate the acts of its predecessors. If that were so, the whole basis of our Parliamentary decisions would fall to the ground, and it would be inconceivable that we should make any agreement with any other country or any other part of the Empire. I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for having so clearly laid down his views, because now we know where he stands.
    Mr. MAXTON: Let me assume that Mr. de Valera gets his way about this and that the arrangement is repudiated. If Mr. Cosgrave came into power, would he not expect to repudiate that in his turn?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: But that would not be a bargain. The speech of the Dominions Secretary has shown up the hollowness of the whole case by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Look at the boundary commission. There was a unanimous report of both the representatives of the South and the North of Ireland and a distinguished South African judge who was called in, and yet it is now represented as a bad report, though, as I have said, it was unanimous. This is a refusal to pay a debt, to hand over money collected. Mr. de Valera's Government is collecting this money from the Irish farmers and is holding it up. Why all this talk about arbitration? You cannot arbitrate about a debt which is admittedly and patently due. We are being asked to consider this matter as if there was some doubt about it. There is no doubt about it. The money is due, and is being held up. It is not the money of the Irish Free State. It is not the outcome of the taxation of the Irish Free State. It is private money; individual farmers made a bargain, and were glad to get the money at such a cheap price. They have not said they will not pay, and the Irish Free State have collected the money, but will not hand it over. We are not going to send over bailiffs to try to collect it. We shall collect it at the ports. Now the suggestion is put forward that Mr. de Valera is to be held responsible only for agreements made in the future—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has mistaken the Amendment. The Amendment which I put to the Committee was the second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It was not the Amendment to insert the words:
    "entered into after the passing of this Act."
    but the next one.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) spoke on the Amendment to insert the words:
    "entered into after the passing of this Act."

    697
    and I was replying to that speech. If he made a speech on that Amendment, I was also making one on the same Amendment, and so we are both involved in a common error.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I rise to support the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I understand that you will allow me to proceed on the same lines as he did.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I owe the Committee an apology. When the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was moving his Amendment I did not really hear what he was saying, because I was occupied with hon. Members who wanted to know something as to the course of the procedure, and if I allowed him to stray out of order I am afraid that one sin of mine cannot be a reason for my committing another.
    Mr. MAXTON: All my arguments were directed to supporting the Amendment which is the third on the Paper, to insert the words:
    "entered into after the passing of this Act."
    That is what I was speaking to.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I thought so, too.
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not follow the speech. I thought I had made it quite clear that the Amendment I called was the second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member—In page 1, line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words:
    "which have been entered into since the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."
    That is the one which I actually put to the Committee.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The entire Debate has been occupied with the other Amendment, and I think it would be hard on the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that after he had spoken on one Amendment we should then continue with the discussion of another Amendment on which he has not had the opportunity of saying a word.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows quite well that in Committee an hon. Member can speak a second time, and I have not the least doubt that the case for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton will be put by his colleagues, so far as it has not been put already.
    Mr. MAXTCIN: Then, I understand, the Amendment is: In page I, line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words:
    "which have been entered into since the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."
    This Amendment makes a much less claim. The earlier Amendment to which I was speaking, made the claim that the present Irish Government should only be responsible for the present Irish Government's obligations. It is upon that point that this further Amendment makes a smaller claim, which is that the present Irish Government should only be responsible for obligations which were entered into since the date mentioned in the Amendment, which is the date of the passing of the present Irish Constitution, and the establishment of the Irish Free State as a separate nation. The Land Annuities were an obligation entered into previous to that time, and they constituted a debt which was in existence before Ireland had a separate existence as a nation. It was obvious that the Committee and the Dominions Secretary were not prepared to accept the major claim of the previous Amendment, but I hope they will see the justice of the claim made in this one, that the Irish Free State Government should not be made responsible for obligations which the Irish Free State Government did not incur.
    The Amendment meets fully the arguments that were propounded by the Dominions Secretary, the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). They said that no State could exist if each successive Government denied the obligations of its predecessor. I am not asking that Mr. de Valera's Government should refuse the obligations of its predecessors, but merely that this Parliament should not attempt to make the Irish Free State responsible for debts that the Irish Free State did not incur, but which this Parliament incurred for the Irish people, before the Irish nation had a separate political identity. That is the claim of this Amendment. Since I spoke at considerable length on the last Amendment, I will not detain the Committee, but I will urge the Committee to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. THOMAS: Let me explain at once to the Committee how very cleverly, with

    699
    all respect to him, the hon. Member has moved this Amendment. Under the assumption that he was moving another Amendment, he said: "I ask the House to keep clearly in mind that no Government is bound by its predecessor." That was the substance of his previous claim on the Amendment which we assumed that he was moving.
    Mr. MAXTON: Yes.
    Mr. THOMAS: Now, he said to himself: "I cannot get away with that; I will try something else."
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not accept the phraseology "get away with."
    Mr. THOMAS: Shall I say "get on with"? Having disposed of the first Amendment, we get on with the next. Now my hon. Friend says: "What I want the House to keep in mind is that whatever may have been the position at the signing of the Treaty, nothing beyond that should be kept." I think that is a fair interpretation of what has been said. My hon. Friend, who has had, we all appreciate, a long experience in a movement, has never reached in that movement what I would call a responsible stage. I hope he does not mind my saying so. He will not misunderstand me. I refer to that stage where he would be called upon to implement something to which he is a party. He will understand that. Therefore I want to put to him, for that purpose, the circumstances of the Treaty which was signed. I do not want to dwell upon the atmosphere of that time. There were, obviously and naturally, in that Treaty certain details left over, as there are in all big agreements. This was a very big one. The matters left over were negotiated, and included in there was the matter of the Land Annuities and other matters.
    Then, in the calmer, the quiet and cool atmosphere of those negotiations, the Land Annuities were dealt with, and an agreement was reached and signed, and ratified twice by the Irish people, in so far as they returned, as a Government, those who had made that agreement. What my hon. Friend seeks to nullify is the agreement made by the representatives of the Irish people at that time. Those are the facts. It may be it was wrong to have done it. It may be that
    700
    my hon. Friend thinks that it is a bad procedure. It may be that he visualises a period where he will be making agreements, and it will be awkward for him not to forget what the previous agreements were. That does not alter the fact that in this case the representatives of the Irish people made an agreement. That agreement was accepted by us as the Government of the day. The Treaty was followed by 10 years of successive Governments by the representatives of the Irish people, and we to-day, the British Government, refuse to repudiate their signature. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would have that effect. There is very little difference betwen the previous Amendment and this, and I do not propose to accept it.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Again I rise to support my colleague the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I would ask the Committee to remember what the Dominions Secretary stated just now. He said: "Let us try to remember the atmosphere in which this agreement was drawn up." If we can only remember and visualise the atmosphere in which it was drawn up, we shall find that the Government have a very weak case. The reason is that this Government drew up this agreement and made this Treaty with a subject people, a people that had fought for their independence right down the ages. I can remember as a boy at school—not an Irish boy, a Scottish Protestant boy—that we were educated to believe that Cromwell ruled Ireland with a rod of iron. Do not forget that this is a people that fought to get rid of that rod of iron, and fought hard. They sacrificed everything time and time again. The whole history of this race is written in blood, after all these centuries of fighting for home-rule in Ireland. The Irish drank it in with their mothers' milk. The Irish were trained to believe that the liberation of their country was through Political action; that is why they were all great Home-Rulers and that is why the Irish became the greatest politicians in this country. Wherever they were in Britain, they were politicians, because they believed that through political action they would get the right to make the laws of their native land.
    After going through all that trouble, the time arrived when they got what they fought for; but you have to remember

    701
    what they have just come through. This subject people, not completely free yet, with whom we are negotiating, had not got clear away, because they were a small nation standing up against the most powerful nation upon which the sun has ever shone, the British Empire. So it is not to be wondered at that the Irish did not get all that they wanted and all that was their right as a race. No race has a right to impose upon any other nation, and Britain has imposed its will upon Ireland right down the ages, and is trying to do it again to-day. There is no doubt about that. During 10 years the Irish have laboured under this disability—Southern Ireland not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is out of the picture. It has been pampered, and special considerations have been given to Northern Ireland by this House, differently from Southern Ireland. The chief of the Free State believes that Ireland has been robbed in this agreement. The British public knew quite well. This is almost the first man who in our time has kept faith with the people who voted for him. When he went into power he did what he said he would do. [Interruption.] This National Government has betrayed the people of this country.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), knows better, I hope, than to answer an interjection which is not relevant.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: My class are being roasted as they have been all down the ages, and as the Irish have been, but now a man has arrived who is going to stand by his comrades. He is not going to be pushed on one side. Neither flowery language, nor great diplomats or any clapping on the back and coming to London to see the King and Queen, etc., will alter him. He has laid down a certain line of action for himself. Whether we agree with him or not, it is not our business. We have been told here time and time again that we have no right to interfere with the internal affairs of another country. Here we are interfering with the internal affairs of Ireland in no uncertain fashion. We gave the Irish people the right to say what kind of Government they would have. They call it the Dail, and they have elected this Dail. De Valera and his colleagues went before the people of Ireland stating definitely what
    702
    they would do if they were returned to power. This is not a light matter to Mr. de Valera, because both he and his colleagues have been in prison. I know what it is to be imprisoned for one's opinions, and so does Mr. de Valera. He has been threatened with his life being taken. So it is not a light matter to him. He went before the people of Ireland who have a right to say whether he shall be their leader or not, and the Irish people decided that. He says that he is not going to agree to a Treaty that has been signed by his predecessor.
    I do not know why the House and the Government should say that this has; never happened before, and that it is the end of all things. Why, at the Presidential elections in America this country gets excited, because somebody who is hostile to Britain might be elected President of the United States. It is the same with France, and particularly with Greece, about which I could tell a tale, only I do not want to tell anything that I have been told privately, how they are anxious lest some President should be elected who would turn down certain agreements that have been made by big financiers in this country. It is not a precedent at all. It just happens to be that this House has been in the habit of telling the Irish what they are to do, and if they do not do it, then they ride roughshod over their heads. All that has gone There is not only a different atmosphere in this House and in the country, but in the world in general. It is the order of the day, this idea of breaking agreements. Nobody knows, better than the powers behind the Throne to-day why they are so anxious about this business. They know perfectly well that if ever a Socialist Government comes in with the power of the people behind it, the same as Mr. de Valera has got the Irish people behind him, that Socialist Government will break all the agreements that have ever been administered.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that he is developing into a Second Reading speech on the Bill.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I really did not hear your Ruling, but I know perfectly well that you consider I have gone outside the limits of this Amendment. I was taking the opportunity of letting the Committee know where I and my friends

    703
    stand in this business. We are right up against the idea of the workers being wage slaves, and all the agreements that have been made have been on that understanding. The moment you get the workers to believe they have a right to be free, then we will disavow all the agreements which have ever been made. Mr. de Valera can rely on our standing by him and the Irish at the present moment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to ask the hon. Member not to press this Amendment to a Division, and for this reason. If this were carried, it would mean that the rest of the Bill would become operative in certain conditions, and I am not in favour in any conditions of adopting the procedure which the Government propose, in order, as they think, to bring any Government to reason, whether the Free State Government or any other. It is because of that that my friends and I are unable to support the Amendment. Further than that, we are unable to support it because the whole of our case in regard to the Government's proposal is that this is a matter which must go to arbitration. We are not going to back down from that. Mr. de Valera admits that. Much of the discussion so far has been on the questions which are in dispute between the two Governments. We cannot support putting in this sort of proviso in regard to any obligations after 1922, when the Government would be free to do what they propose to do in the Bill. Therefore, we cannot support the Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot understand the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, namely, that if we carry the Amendment the rest of the Bill cannot be amended or set aside. It seems to me if we carry the Amendment the rest of the Bill could still be amended.
    Mr. LANSBURY: There is no Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: There is an Amendment here. Possibly we should have put down consequential Amendments, but everybody knows the stress under which we are working. Two or three of us here attend diligently to our duties, and we have to draft our Amendments ourselves. We are not allowed a. single thing, and last night, while the hon. Member for
    704
    Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was taking part in the Debate, I drafted the Amendments. I had to consult him an hour later after he had spoken. We have not the facilities which others have. What we have done is to put down the principle, knowing that if the Committee agree to it, the whole Bill will be washed out and defeated. If we carried one of our Amendments, the consequential Amendments would not matter. If this were carried, it would be tantamount to defeat of the Bill. I am voting for all the Labour party Amendments, some of which I do not quite accept, because if any of them were carried almost all the Bill would go, excepting one or two things which might be adjusted. It would mean the defeat of the Bill, and I am voting for the principle of defeating this Bill with any one's Amendments. We had to do the best we could in the time, and put down our Amendments. Consequential Amendments would afterwards follow, but we know that on a defeat the Government would withdraw the Bill.
    I speak only for the small group with whom I am associated. We have taken arbitration, but we have taken it only as occupying the second place. We take the view clearly and distinctly that there never was a treaty on this subject between Ireland and Great Britain, that this was done by force and that, therefore, while a country or Government acting for a country might accept it at the time, such an agreement to be a proper agreement must be made by persons who approximate to equality at the time the agreement was made. There was no equality. There was a big, powerful nation equipped in the art of war in the way no other nation was equipped, and against that you have a nation which was ill-equipped from the war point of view and financially. Therefore, we say we cannot accept the idea that there was a treaty. If we could defeat the Bill without arbitration, we would do so, because we hold that there can be no arbitration if there was no treaty. Once we are defeated in our point, then we try the next best thing. Not having gained our point, we try to make the tribunal satisfactory on both sides. But we have never admitted the principle that there are agreements on this subject.
    Those who vote for this Amendment will be voting for an Amendment which

    705
    is calculated to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, and must, if carried, mean the ultimate withdrawal of the Bill. We take an entirely different view of the Treaty from that taken by the majority of the House. We do not accept the Treaty argument. We take the view that, as with trade unions and other organisations, it may well be that these things have been forced on a beaten people ill-equipped to resist, and I say that in such circumstances we cannot accept them as being agreements. Agreements presuppose something like equality in fighting ability and capacity to sustain between the two rivals, and we say earnestly, to those who are desirous of seeing that everything possible is done in this House to place on record their opposition to this Measure, that they should vote with us.
    Question, "That the words,
    "which have been entered into since the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two,"
    be there inserted ", put, and negatived.
    Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, after the word "obligations," to insert the words "to the British Government."
    This Amendment is of a different order from the last one. It is not obstructive, and it is not destructive. We think that it would correct a defect in the phraseology of the Bill. The point is a simple one, and is, I hope, obvious to the Government. The Bill says:
    "If it appears to the Treasury that any failure of the Government of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations."
    That may mean obligations to anyone under the sun. It may mean general obligations as between the Irish Free State Government and its own nationals. There is no limitation. The Bill as it is phrased at present takes power for the British House of Commons to butt in on Ireland's affairs and make her observe obligations whether we have anything to do with them or not. All that this Amendment proposes to do is to limit the operation of the Bill to failures of the Government of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations to Great Britain. I think the Dominions Secretary will agree that that is all we are entitled to do, and it is certainly all that this House has in mind. It is only obligations as between the Irish Free State and Great Britain
    706
    that the House is anxious to see implemented, and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the addition of these words makes for greater clarity and precision, and makes the wording of the Bill conform to the intention.
    Mr. THOMAS: After the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I am sure there will be no complaint from below the Gangway if I say right away that no Amendment will be accepted. I am sure my hon. Friend will not challenge that, after the speech we have just heard. The hon. Member made it perfectly clear, notwithstanding the plea of the Leader of the Opposition, that the object which they had in view—I am sure he will not quarrel with this statement—was clearly and definitely to destroy the purpose of the Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: As regards the Amendment in question, that is true, and I do not wish to deny it, but we put down two other Amendments. This one we thought was a good drafting Amendment to put the Bill in order, and the other Amendment is the one in page 2, line 17, after the word "to," to insert the words "livestock or."
    Mr. THOMAS: That being so, there is no difference between us. It is quite clear that the object is definite: Destroy the Bill if you can, but, if you cannot destroy it, make it as little effective from your point of view as you can. This particular Amendment proposes to insert the words "to the British Government"—
    Mr. MAXTON: We are trying to make it better.
    Mr. THOMAS: Then I am sure that, if I can satisfy my hon. Friend that it is better without these words, he will agree. The object of the Amendment is to deal with what we may call for short the Joss to someone, and the Amendment proposes to insert the words "to the British Government." I want to put it to the House quite clearly that there could be no purpose in submitting this Bill to the House unless the British Government was incurring a loss. It may be argued that they are not entitled to recoup themselves, but that Is the object of the Bill; my hon. Friend may rest assured that we are only concerned with the loss to the British Government. The British Govern-

    707
    ment in this case means the British taxpayers, who will be called upon to bear the loss unless we get the money from some other source. If that is the only object of the Amendment, there is no need for it, and we are with the Mover, for once, in protecting the British Government. The hon. Member for Gorbals said that the previous Amendment had had to be drafted hastily, without consideration or consultation with legal experts. I now give him the benefit of the best legal advice. He may take it from me that our words are much more watertight than his, and that, therefore, there is no need to accept his words.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Anyone coming from Scotland is always glad, particularly with one's knowledge of the Dominions Secretary, to accept something for nothing. It is always thankfully received, small and mean as it may be. I am doubtful, however, about the right hon. Gentleman's legal advice about Ireland. I remember some other Irish advice which was rather expensive, and I am rather doubtful about such advice. I may have been inclined to belittle myself and my colleagues about the hasty drafting of our Amendments, but I am inclined to wonder if they are not better in the end, seeing that common sense is applied to them, than some legal Amendments upon which a great deal of time and money has been spent. At least they have never cost the country large sums of money. I cannot see the right hon. Gentleman's case quite as he has put it. I would ask the older Members of the House to read the words of the Bill:
    "If it appears to the Treasury that any failure of the Government of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations has resulted, or is likely to result, in a direct loss to the revenue of any public fund of the United Kingdom or in an additional charge on any such fund.…"
    All that we ask is that, after the word "obligations," the words "to the British Government" should be inserted. Let me suppose a case. I admit that it may be far fetched, but I can quite imagine it happening. Suppose that the Irish Free State has obligations to someone outside Great Britain—say to a, Colony—and that failure to implement those obligations may have an effect on a public fund in Great Britain. In that case the obligation is not to Great Britain; it is
    708
    to someone else; and all that we ask in this connection is that as a precautionary measure the obligation in question shall be defined as an obligation to Great Britain. If we had represented bigger interests than we do represent, and had been more accommodating, we might possibly have got what we ask.
    Mr. HEALY: I want to draw attention to a statement made by the Dominions Secretary. I know he does not wish to mislead the Committee. He says all these agreements were ratified.
    The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member can raise it later on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HEALY: I was only replying—
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wants to do that, he must do it at a later stage.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: Let the right hon. Gentleman forget that he was annoyed at my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) saying we were anxious to smash the Bill. Surely we have not left that in any doubt. That stands. It is constant, as we used to say in mathematics. We have admitted that our Amendments were drawn hurriedly and that we are not experts. I think the right hon. Gentleman might be as candid and say that the Bill has been drafted very hurriedly. He knows perfectly well that in the course of examination of Bills in this House—it is about the only valuable function that the Committee stage performs—adjustments are made in words to make the intention of the Government more clear. It is all very well to say he knows precisely what he wants, but it is not precisely what he wants that becomes the subject of litigation later on. It is what the Bill says. As I understand it, what the House wants in this legislation is power to collect moneys for certain outstanding obligations of the Irish Free State and that the Bill should lapse as soon as that immediate purpose is served. They do not want to give the Committee power to butt in at any time between now and 50 years hence and use this weapon to make Ireland observe obligations which we have nothing to do with. They only want to use it with reference to obligations that directly affect the British Government.
    Sir GEORGE GILLETT: I should like to ask the hon. Member whether his attention has been drawn to an earlier part of the Measure. I should have thought his point was met on the first page, line 5, where it refers to "any loss incurred by any public fund of the United Kingdom."
    Mr. MAXTON: That is the Preamble. Here we are talking about obligations. That is the word that the Law Courts will fasten on to in the event of any dispute. The word is used in the most general sense, unlimited and undefined. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to have a bigger weapon in store than Parliament believes it is giving him, he ought to tell us. If it is his intention not merely to have a weapon that is to raise the necessary revenue to pay the Land Annuities but one to use against Ireland on any and every occasion when they think some obligation has not been met, in honesty he ought to tell us. If the purposes of the Bill are to be limited to the intentions that have been announced to the nation, these words in our view are necessary to make that quite clear.
    Mr. THOMAS: I was not annoyed by the statement of the hon. Member's colleague. How could I be annoyed? I thank the hon. Member for indicating so clearly and definitely that every successive Amendment that he had was directed to a purpose that he made perfectly clear. Let me also assure the hon. Member that, in talking about 50 years, he is about 49 years and nine months beyond the time. The Government have no other object than to recoup the money that they believe they are justly entitled to. They have no other object than to prevent the constituents of the hon. Member and his friends being called upon to bear a burden as British taxpayers that we do not think they ought to bear. When that is accomplished, there will be nothing else. The Amendment is hastily drawn and, on the advice given to me, it is bad. They can take it from me that, if their object is the same as mine, it will be better attained by my words than by theirs.
    Mr. DEVLIN: We have once again heard the declaration from the right hon. Gentleman that the purpose that he has in view is to secure certain sums of money which he says are due to this country,
    710
    and the method by which he proposes to recoup himself for the refusal to pay is by putting taxes on the food of the British people, because I take it that the taxes that will be put upon Irish imports will be largely food taxes. If he puts up a tariff against Irish imports, the Irish Government will tax English articles coming into Ireland.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member seems to be getting far from the Amendment. The question before the Committee is whether the obligations are due to the British Government or to anyone else.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I did not raise this point at all. It was raised by the Dominions Secretary, who told the Committee why the Bill was introduced and who has made it clear 90 times that the purpose is to raise an amount equivalent to the amount which be claims is due on these land annuities. He has told the Committee, without being ruled out of order, that the Bill is for the purpose of securing this £3,000,000, and that he wants to relieve hon. Members' constituents of the responsibility of having to bear this burden, and the method by which he proposes to relieve them is by putting a tax upon Irish food which British working men will have to pay.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the hon. Member has not followed the Amendment that we are dealing with. We are in Committee and the Amendment is in page 1, line 19, after the word "obligations" to insert the word "to the British Government." I have explained that the obligations are only those to the British Government and nothing else.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not claim that I am discussing the Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is not discussing the Amendment, he must resume his seat.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will resume my seat after you have heard what I am discussing. I am discussing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Amendment. There is no need for presidential or any other kind of indignation. I have yet to learn that, when a Minister makes a series of statements dealing with a subject which is absolutely germane, any individual Member is to be denied the right to discuss, analyse and dissect those

    711
    statements, and that is precisely what I am doing now. I am not concerned with the Amendments one way or another. I take it that they are largely proposed as a matter of Parliamentary procedure. There is not much hope that any of them will be carried. I know that they are moved, with the characteristic skill of hon. Members below the Gangway, for the purpose of embarrassing the Government, but I recognise that they cannot possibly have any effect. The real effect of the Bill is to raise £3,000,000, and I repeat, How are you going to raise it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to raise that matter. It might come in on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," but not on the Amendment.
    Mr. DEVLIN: All right, you can have the rest of it then.
    Mr. TINKER: I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs cannot accept the Amendment. He urged that because Members below the Gangway had stated that they intended to wreck the Bill whatever the consequences, he was not prepared to listen to any kind of Amendment. That is not a right kind of attitude to adopt. In regard to any Bill to which they object the Opposition take a direct line against it on Second Reading, and afterwards attempt to improve it. It is the work of the House of Commons to try to improve a Measure. The dispute in this matter is between the Irish Free State and the British Government, and all that the Amendment seeks to do is to make the position clear in the Bill. The Secretary of State states that the whole outline of the Bill is to make good any loss, and if that is so, why cannot he accept words to make it clear and definite so that everybody will know what the Bill really means? We often find in regard to Acts which have been passed that lawyers comment on the fact that they ought to have been made more definite, and point out that if the House of Commons meant this thing or that thing they should have made it more definite in the Act. The Amendment is not for the purpose of wrecking the Bill, but improving it.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for
    712
    Dominion Affairs sneers at my hon. Friends when they state their difficulties in dealing with Amendments which have had to be put down in a hurry to a Bill of this description. The Bill is not very definite about anything at all. If the Bill were put into the hands of a person who had not been reading the newspapers or perhaps listening to the wireless, he would not know what it was about. It does not state that it is for the purpose of recovering certain Land Annuities. It does not mention the term "annuities." It does not specifically state what funds are in arrears. It is not clear as far as the public outside are concerned. I do not know whether it is the proper way of presenting a Bill of this description, but it strikes me as being particularly vague. If it were stated that the Bill was for the purpose of securing money to meet certain lapses in the payment of Irish Annuities, the position would be much clearer than it is at the present time. While the right hon. Gentleman prides himself on the clearness of his drafting, I would point out that I have a recollection of drafting carried out on the Front Bench opposite with regard to an Irish question which cost the country £100,000. I suppose that perhaps the same legal advisers are responsible for the drafting of the present Bill. There was much cause to regret the drafting of Bills long before the present Bill came before the House. Would the insertion of these words make the Bill worse? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to what I said previously. The object of the Bill has been defined in the explanation which has been given, and it is to the British Government, and the British Government only, that this default applies. I have given the hon. Member reasons, and I put it to him that if he is as anxious about the British Government as I am, he will accept my word and not bother about the Amendment.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me which default? The Bill does not say.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to be controversial, but I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not been in his place or has not followed the controversy.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes.
    Mr. THOMAS: Then there is no reason for me to reply.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I know that Annuities are said to be in default, but the Bill does not declare them. That is my point. It does not mention Irish Annuities; it is as vague as it can be.
    Mr. LOGAN: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the loose phraseology of the Bill. We are told that it is draftsmanship, and that the Clause is quite plain. We are told that it is tantamount to including "the British Government," and yet the words are not to be inserted. If it is tantamount to including "the British Government" why should there be any objection to making it absolutely clear? It says:
    "If it appears to the Treasury that any failure of the Government of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations…"
    To whom? Is the Dominions Secretary, of all people, going to tell us that as far as draftsmanship is concerned his word is the last? I should think that it is the first and the last in all things. Any elementary school boy on reading the Bill would certainly say: "Daddy, who do they refer to?" You would say, "I do not know. It says, Implement their obligations.'" He would then ask, "Who to Daddy?" He would think that they had left out some words. Is there no necessity to make the Bill explanatory? It has been a hurried Bill introduced into the House in a panic, and now because the Government are in a panic they will not accept something which puts English into the Bill. Why should not the words "to the British Government" be inserted? Why not be specific and put into the Bill what you really mean? If the right hon. Gentleman is really serious and wishes to make the Bill definite and understandable, surely he must realise that the first thing one wants to know, if the Irish Free State are under an obligation, is to whom they owe that obliigation? What harm is there in inserting the words "to the British Government"? I want to obstruct as much as I possibly can.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must realise that it is not in order to obstruct.
    Mr. LOGAN: With all due respect to you, Captain Bourne, I should have thought it, and not said it. I will continue with my thoughts without giving expression to them. I am at a loss to understand why an Amendment of this kind which has been so ably and intelligently moved should not be accepted by the Government. I am in full agreement with my hon. Friends below the Gangway.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    It seems to me that the House suffers, as it has suffered all through these Debates, from the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown. We have sought to have legal definitions given in regard to difficulties that have arisen. I recognise that the Secretary of State for the Dominions, as we have been told from time to time, is a very distinguished negotiator, that he has handled delicate and difficult situations, and that he has gone through many trials in the arena of controversy. He was congratulated from these benches last night on the fact that he has shown marvellous acumen, but this Debate has demonstrated that, however successful his career may have been in the sphere of diplomacy and negotiation, he has shown himself to be a very bad lawyer. That being so, I want to know why a Law Officer of the Crown is not here or why both of them are not in their places to advise the House, to advise individual Members, and to advise the Government as well as the Secretary of State for the Dominions upon the points that have been raised. Therefore, in order that our minds may be made perfectly clear upon the issues involved, I move to report Progress.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 261.

    Division No. 294.]

    AYES.

    [8.2 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Buchanan, George

    Edwards, Charles

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Betsy, Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Greenwood, Rt. Hun. Arthur

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Daggar, George

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Healy, Cahir

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

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

    Maxton, James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Milner, Major James

    Kirkwood, David

    Parkinson, John Allen

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Price, Gabriel

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, William James

    Mr. Groves.

    Leonard, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Maitland, Adam

    Albery, Irving James

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Mender, Geoffrey le M.

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

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of Lennon)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

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

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Munro, Patrick

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Bernays, Robert

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Blindell, James

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nunn, William

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    O'Connor, Terence James

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

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Briant, Frank

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hornby, Frank

    Pearson, William G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Penny, Sir George

    Burnett, John George

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Petherick, M.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pybus, Percy John

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

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

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

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Clarke, Frank

    Janner, Barnett

    Ramsden, E.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jennings, Roland

    Rankin, Robert

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ray, Sir William

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Remer, John R.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lees-Jones, John

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Curry, A. C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

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

    Levy, Thomas

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lewis, Oswald

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dickle, John P.

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford. Sir John Hugo

    Doran, Edward

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Salt, Edward W.

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

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mabane, William

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Scone, Lord

    Elmley, Viscount

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Falls, Sir Bertram G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McLean, Major Alan

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

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

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Templeton, William P.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Smithers, Waldron

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Somerset, Thomas

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Thompson, Luke

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Stones, James

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Storey, Samuel

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Withers, Sir John James

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Sir Victor Warrender and Captain

    Austin Hudson.

    Original Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 249.

    Division No. 295.]

    AYES.

    [8.12 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Healy, Cahir

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lansbury, Rt. Hen. George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lunn, William

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Maxtor and Mr. Buchanan.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Albery, Irving James

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hornby, Frank

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Curry, A. C.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Davison, Sir William Henry

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

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Dickle, John P.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Doran, Edward

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Dunglass, Lord

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

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

    Edge, Sir William

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Bernays, Robert

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Janner, Barnett

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Eimley, Viscount

    Jennings, Roland

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Blindell, James

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Boulton, W. W.

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

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

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Briant, Frank

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Burnett, John George

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Glucksteln, Louis Halle

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lees-Jones, John

    Cassels, James Dale

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, M.)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Levy, Thomas

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Clarke, Frank

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Clary, Reginald George

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Reginald George C

    Gritten, W, G. Howard

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mabane, William

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Ramadan, E

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Rankin, Robert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Ray, Sir William

    Stones, James

    McLean, Major Alan

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Storey, Samuel

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Maitland, Adam

    Remer, John R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Mender, Geoffrey le M.

    Hentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Mannirsgham-Bulier, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Templeton, William P.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Martin, Themes B.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Thompson, Luke

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

    Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ruggles-Bribe, Colonel E. A.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Vaughn-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Munro, Patrick

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Normand, Wilfrid Gulld

    Scone, Lord

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Nunn, William

    Selley, Harry R.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Penny, Sir George

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Perkins, Waiter R. D.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Petherick, M.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Somerset, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Sir Victor Warrender and Lord

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

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Erskine.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell)—in page 2, line 10, after the word "description" to insert the words:
    "(other than articles included for the time being in the First Schedule to the Import Duties Act, 1932)."
    Before I call upon the hon. Member to move that Amendment, I must point out that it covers to a large extent the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in page 2, line 17, after the word "to," to insert the words "livestock or." I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took a discussion on these two Amendments together, reserving to the hon. Member for Gorbals the right to claim a Division on his Amendment if he desires.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Are we to take the Divisions one after the other?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we cannot do that, because there is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)
    720
    which comes in between; but I will call the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals after we have disposed of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after the word "description," to insert the words:
    "(other than articles included for the time being in the First Schedule to the Import Duties Act, 1932)."
    The purpose of the Bill is to give the Government authority to impose taxes upon a long list of unspecified articles. The words in the Bill are:
    "there shall be charged on the importation into the United Kingdom of articles of any class or description imported from the Irish Free State, or exported from the Irish Free State to any other country and thence brought into the United Kingdom, such duties of customs as may be specified in the Order."
    The right hon. Gentleman up to the present moment has not taken the Committee into his confidence and it is difficult to ascertain whether it is intended to tax all articles coming from the Irish Free State or whether there is to be a selection of articles to be taxed at a variety of rates. Is it the intention of

    721
    the Government to charge a duty upon all articles coming from the Irish Free State? The Amendment proposes to limit the number of articles. Under the Import Duties Act of 1932 there is a Free List in the case of foreign goods coming into this country. In that Act provision is made for a 10 per cent. general tariff on all goods coming from foreign countries, but in this Bill Ireland is to be treated not as a foreign country, on equal terms with Denmark, France, Spain and the Argentine, but as a country subject to special discrimination. The Free List which operates in the case of trade between continental countries and ourselves is not to be allowed in the case of Ireland, which is to be treated worse than any foreign country. Apparently it is the intention to subject Ireland to this special injustice and indignity because the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. de Valera have been unable to bridge the very small difference which now exists between this country and Ireland.
    In the 1932 Act provision is made for the free entry into this country from all parts of the world of wheat in grain, meat, that is to say, beef, veal, mutton, lamb, pork and bacon, and so on, and provision is also made for the free importation of livestock, flax and hemp, hides and skins. The Free List is to be applied in the case of goods coming from foreign countries but is not to be allowed in the ease of goods coming from Ireland. Bacon can come in from Denmark without paying duty, and the Dominions Secretary says "That is all right; that is sound business, in order that our people can have cheap food; but we shall not allow the same kind of meat to come from Ireland duty free because we want to teach Ireland a political lesson, and to show that we are bosses over Ireland in matters of this kind." This thing has been carried too far, this different treatment of Ireland compared with other countries.
    There is a further strong reason against the Bill. It has already been said that it is not the Irish people who will pay this tariff, but the people of this country. How much satisfaction will it be to the Dominions Secretary to know that the people in Newport, the town to which he belongs, where are his school friends and the chums to whom he refers to often, have to pay a tariff on food imported from Ireland, while they can get food
    722
    from Denmark or France or Belgium or Scandinavia without paying a tariff? Will that be any satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman? All this trouble has arisen because the Government are incompetent and because the right hon. Gentleman has not been as competent as the House had a right to expect him to be in connection with this miserable dispute. The people of Newport, of South Wales, the industrial workers all over the country, will be paying these Irish annuities.
    If the Dominions Secretary could devise a scheme by which tariffs on imports from Ireland were not paid by the working classes of this country, if there were some means of raising the taxation from Irish sources, our resentment against the Bill would not be 30 strong. Instead of that the Government are making the poorest of the poor pay for some imaginary default on the part of Mr. de Valera. It is an injustice to the people of this country, an injustice to Ireland and the Irish people. It is a malicious and wicked discrimination. I hope that there will be sufficient support in the House to secure equal treatment, in the matter of tariffs on foodstuffs, for Ireland and other countries against which a tariff has been applied. We have opposed the tariffs as applied to all countries, but we oppose this one especially because it will make our own kith and kin the victims.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish to put a point which is of particular interest to the purchasing public. As has been said, this Bill discriminates against the Irish Free State in comparison with other nations. In this Amendment we are asking that the Free List under the Import Duties Act shall be applied to articles that come from the Irish Free State. It can he assumed that the Dominions Secretary will not accept the Amendment, because it would practically destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. The Bill proposes to put duties upon bacon and other articles of food coming from Ireland. In the shops of Great Britain we are likely to have Irish bacon on which a tax has been paid and. Danish bacon which has been allowed to come in free. What guarantee has the purchaser in this country that the Danish bacon, although it has paid no tax, will not be sold at the same price as the Irish bacon which has paid the tax? The Bill not only

    723
    discriminates against Ireland but places the purchasing public in this country in a very peculiar position.
    Moreover it will place the merchants who deal in foodstuffs in a still more awkward position. Imagine anyone going into a shop to purchase an article such as bacon, and seeing that article offered at two prices. Not remembering that a duty was responsible for the higher priced article, if he was thinking of quality instead of price he would buy the dearer bacon in the belief that it was of better quality. The merchant is going to be placed in the peculiar position that if he does not add to the price of Danish bacon the possibilities are that in a district where people can afford to pay decent prices he will be left with the Danish bacon on his hands; and, contrariwise, in a working class or poor district he will be left with the Irish bacon on his hands.
    In bringing forward this Bill the Government are displaying a character which I am convinced has not been revealed in this House or in the House that stood here prior to the fire, by any statesman or any Government that has passed legislation. The method adopted in the Bill is one of the most fantastic methods, one of the most vindictive methods of trying to collect what the Government claim to be a debt, and what those whom the Government look upon as debtors deny is a debt. Because the Government have 500 Members behind them they believe they have the power to apply a club to the heads of those who, they say, are their debtors. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the day will come when not only those who once held progressive views and who still claim to hold those views, who are Members of this Government will feel ashamed of the part they have played in passing this Bill, but when even those whom we look upon as reactionaries and who constitute the majority of the Cabinet and of the lesser officials of the Government, will be equally dissatisfied with the part they have played in these proceedings.
    What attitude will be adopted by some of the Government's own supporters who represent agricultural and stock-breeding constituencies? It is proposed to impose a tariff upon livestock coming into this country from Ireland. According to an answer given in the House of Commons
    724
    only a day or two ago the greater part of the livestock which comes into this country from Ireland, or a large proportion of it, is for breeding purposes. A supplementary question was put to the Minister on that occasion as to why we could not dispense with the importation of this Irish livestock, and in reply to his questioner who was a Tory Member, the Minister said that we could not do without the introduction of this livestock from the Irish Free State. I think hon. Members opposite who represent stockbreeding constituencies will agree that we cannot do without it just now, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be questioned by their own supporters about this barrier which they propose to raise against the importation of stock for the improvement of British stock.
    At the present time they are filled with the idea that they are going to have another smack at Ireland because Ireland has dared to be naughty towards this great strong National Government. Because Ireland has dared to suggest that Ireland also has a voice in the selection of a tribunal to arbitrate upon this dispute; because Ireland will not agree, entirely and at once, to the tribunal asked for by the British Government; because they dare to differ from this wonderful and powerful British Government, you are going to use all your strength and power to do what? To pass this vindictive legislation for the purpose of collecting £5,000,000. If this is what you can do to those whom you have looked upon in the past and in the days of the War as your own kith and kin, and people of your own blood, for a paltry £5,000,000 a year, what sort of action should you have taken towards Italy and France? In the case of those countries you forgave a total of over £600,000,000.
    Mr. THORNE: Nearer £1,000,000.000.
    Mr. MACLEAN: You can forgive the foreigner his debt, but, in the case of a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, you produce the club. You are going to be the strong and powerful men instead of the generous statesmen. I do not say that the Government are going to play the part of Shylock. Shylock was an honourable man compared with this Government. Shylock at least had his bond. The Government's bond in this case is in dispute; Shylock's was not.

    725
    He stood by the letter of his bond; the Government stand by what they think is the letter of a bond which has never been produced and which is disputed. If there is an agreement, if we are discussing a debt which is alleged to be based upon that agreement, why have not all the material papers been lodged in the Vote Office for the information of Members? Why is not the ultimate financial agreement, which I understand has not yet been agreed to by the Irish Free State, which is, as yet, only something in the air, not to be found in the Vote Office? Why are we to take so much upon trust from Members of a Cabinet who will not trust the Irish Free State?
    Mr. J. JONES: They will not trust one another.
    Mr. MACLEAN: We are fast approaching the day when distrust among themselves will bring them down. But I want to Appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. THORNE: It is no use appealing.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I know that the present Government have no hearts, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment and to show, at least, that the Government are beginning to consider the point of view of other people, and are not content merely to see matters from their own point of view and exercise 6a judgment which in my opinion is warped.
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) opened his speech by saying that if this Amendment were carried it would destroy the Bill. That was his own statement, and he wound up his arguments in favour of the Amendment by expressing the hope that the Government would accept it. The position is that my hon. Friend pleads with me, at this stage, by accepting his Amendment, practically to withdraw the Bill. He knows perfectly well—no one better—that there is "nothing doing" in that respect. He also knows that it is not a fair argument, either from his point of view or the nation's point of view, to argue that any discrimination in regard to foodstuffs or other matters covered by the Amendment is directed against Ireland merely because we, the Government, desire to discriminate against Ireland as apart from Denmark or any other country. My hon. Friend
    726
    knows perfectly well that as far As the British public are concerned that argument will not go down. If Denmark or any other nation had entered into a solemn agreement—
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: In this case it is disputed that there is an agreement.
    Mr. THOMAS: I will come to that point in A moment, but accept for the time being that there was an agreement. If Denmark or any other nation entered into an agreement and broke that agreement, and if the breaking of that agreement involved, the British public in a liability, which in our judgment they were not entitled to bear, then, speaking for myself, I would not hesitate to do what is proposed in this Measure.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If Denmark had disputed some point in an agreement into which they had entered with this country, or into something which they disputed as being an agreement at all, would not the right hon. Gentleman, instead of imposing any vindictive tariff on Denmark, have placed the matter before a tribunal?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we are beginning to anticipate the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), which raises the whole question of the tribunal. I think we had better leave it till that Amendment is called.
    Mr. THOMAS: I was going to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member made it clear that the acceptance of the Amendment meant. the destruction of the Bill. Therefore, no one can argue for a moment on any other basis than that, in his judgment, the agreement that we are taking steps to preserve from our point of view is one that, in his judgment, notwithstanding anything that the Irish Free State may say, ought to be wiped out.
    Mr. MACLEAN: No.
    Mr. THOMAS: It is no good saying "No" when the hon. Member has admitted that the only step to recover this money is the Bill which we are introducing. No one suggests any other proposal. I am asked as to the validity of the agreement.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better leave that question till the next Amendment.
    Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the Amendment before us is that to obtain the amount of money requisite to meet the deficit would be impossible, if we accepted the Amendment. Therefore, having decided, rightly or wrongly, but rightly in our opinion, that we do not intend the British taxpayer to bear this burden, which we do not believe he ought to be called upon to bear, the acceptance of the Amendment would make it impossible to obtain the necessary revenue. My hon. Friend opposite knows that very well, and he has admitted without any ambiguity that the acceptance of the Amendment means the destruction of the Bill. The Bill having received a Second Reading and being confirmed by the majority of the House of Commons, the hon. Member knows very well that it would be impossible to accept the Amendment, which would destroy the very principle which the House has already approved.
    Mr. THORNE: I must say that I am a little surprised at the statement of the Dominions Secretary, because he said that he would not allow the taxpayer to pay this additional £3,000,000 or £5,000,000, whatever it is, but he never said that the consumer was not going to pay it. It is plain to my mind, and it is as plain as the nose on one's face to anyone who has given this matter the least consideration, that these duties which are to be imposed on imports from the Irish Free State, whether they be Battle, eggs, butter or cheese, will have to be paid by the consumer; and the consumer will be called upon not only to pay the additional duties, but something else as well, because it is evident that any importer who has been in the habit of buying things from the Irish Free State, if he has been buying, say, £100 worth of butter or eggs, and there is to be an additional charge of 100 per cent., will be called upon to pay £200 instead of £100 for those goods, and will want 5 per cent. on the £200, and the result will be that the consumer will have to pay double. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to come down to my Division, or to the Division of any one of us, to come down Green Street, or down Queen's Road, or down Silvertown—
    Mr. J. JONES: Or down Petticoat Lane.
    Mr. THORNE: I do not know about that. I could show my right hon. Friend in any of the shops any amount of Irish rolled bacon, any amount of cheese, butter, eggs, and things of that kind, and whatever he may say, or however he may wriggle out of it—and I have had a good many dealings with my right hon. Friend during the last 30 or 40 years in the trade union and Socialist movements, and he can wriggle out of anything. He is the champion wriggler. I was rather surprised by the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is evident to all of us that, whatever we may say to the contrary, the Government are going to impose these taxes.
    I was going to reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the evening, that he was not inclined to accept any Amendment of any kind to this Bill. If I had been Leader of our party, I should have seized on that statement in two minutes. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean, and it will be referred to in the course of a few minutes, perhaps. I have been in this House since 1906, and I have never heard a Minister of any party make the same declaration that the right hon. Gentleman made to-night. Perhaps he is just thinking about what he did say; I am not quite sure whether he remembers it. Anyhow, we are going to support the Amendment. We know that the result is a foregone conclusion and that whatever we do we shall be beaten in the Division Lobby, but I am amazed at the quarrel that is going on over the paltry sum of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. My hon. Friend mentioned about what was given to Italy and France, but he was a long way short of the mark. Ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what we gave to France and Italy. As a matter of fact, we gave £500,000,000 to France and £400,500,000 to Italy.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is not in order on this Amendment.
    Mr. THORNE: Well, I have got it out now.
    Mr. HENRY HASLAM: The last speaker left the Committee in no doubt whatever as to who, in his opinion, will pay this tax. He said it was the workers of this country, the people whom he re-

    729
    presents, and therefore it is clear that, in his opinion at any rate, this tax will not fall on the people of Ireland, and that they will be under no disadvantage from the imposition of this tax. He puts forward the orthodox Free Trade view, if it is not somewhat stretching that expression, that the tax will fall wholly and solely on the people of this country. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, on the other hand, seemed in the first part of his speech to take the opposite point of view. He said that the Irish farmers would be the victims, and he referred to the bludgeon that was being forged against the people of Ireland. Therefore, in the first part of his speech at any rate, he took entirely the opposite point of view. In the second part of his speech the hon. Member made a striking change. He went over to the other point of view which the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) has just been putting, namely, that the duties will fall entirely on the people of this country. The hon. Member evidently remembered that the party with which he is associated had during the greater part of this Session put forward the point of view that any kind of duty which is placed on a foreign import is certain to be paid by the consumer. Do hon. Members think that they can have it both ways, that they can say that these duties will be paid entirely by the people of this country, and then turn round and talk about the unfortunate Irish victims?
    Mr. THORNE: It is evident what my hon. Friend meant. If you put on a 100 per cent. tax, the farmers will not he able to sell as much as they did before.
    Mr. HASLAM: In that case the consumer will not pay so much. According to hon. Members opposite, the Dominions Secretary will not only impose vast burdens on the people of this country, but will at the same time ruin the Irish people. That argument will not go down with the people of this country. The argument of the hon. Member is entirely falsified when we consider that the Irish produce imported into this country is only 7 per cent. of the total food supplies imported. That is so small that no rise in prices can possibly be anticipated. The hon. Member talks about discrimination against other countries. Surely the whole object of this Bill is to discriminate and to collect a debt. Denmark does not
    730
    owe us money, nor do other countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is, on a solemn agreement. The Irish Free State are in possession of this money; it has been collected from the farmers. We know that, because the Irish Free State Government have put it in a separate account. The other countries to which we have behaved generously, however, were unable to pay. That is an entirely different state of affairs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stand firm and will brush aside the ridiculous arguments which are advanced from the other side, and will maintain to the end the simple process of this Bill, which is to collect a debt which is justly due to the people of this country.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: On the Second Reading of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was severely taken to task by some of the elder statesmen in the House, notably the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), because he declared that in this Bill there was an exhibition of a desire for revenge. This Clause and the insistent way in which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the Amendment bears out the statement made by my hon. Friend. This is undoubtedly a punitive Measure. I do not understand why there should be such insistence on the fact that the Irish Free State owes a debt, the validity of which it doubts, and that we should rush to take measures such as this and refuse to consider the effect of them upon our own. people and upon the great mass of the people of Ireland. After all, there are other people who owe us debts. The Prime Minister at this moment is engaged in protracted, and I should say very bitter, negotiations about debts owed by nations who deliberately state that they will not redeem them and will not pay. Time after time in the last 12 or 18 months nations have, declared that they will no longer continue to pay debts—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very far away from the Amendment. His remarks are more appropriate to the next Amendment.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I was merely illustrating my point. We are adopting a very revengeful and punitive attitude

    731
    towards the people of Ireland, which is involved in only a small debt, while we admit the right of other nations to repudiate their debts and to declare that they will not pay, and we negotiate with them on the terms of repudiation.
    Mr. HASLAM: This debt has been paid for 10 years.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: It does not matter how long they have been paying. After all, time does bring some changes, and it must be borne in mind that, although we make a great deal of fuss about this debt, the whole of it has never been accepted—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ruled earlier in the Debate that that subject is really appropriate to the next Amendment, and not to this one.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not accept the point of view that this payment will ruin
    the people of Ireland or ruin the people of England. The whole thing is a very petty affair, but what will be left behind by the insistence of the provisions of Clause 1 is a, bitterness and a cantankerousness in the relationship between this country and all succeeding Irish Governments which will probably cause us to pay bitterly in the end. The Bill is a wholly bad one. I have an Amendment down in regard to livestock; it is particularly vicious that livestock should not be excluded. If we prohibit the importation of Irish livestock it must hit the Irish farmer, and he is to be made to suffer and to go through the mill. The whole thing is of a decidedly reprehensible character.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 296.]

    AYES.

    [9.4 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Healy, Cahir

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

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

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Buchanan, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dagger, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Gordon Macdonald.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burnett, John George

    Doran, Edward

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Cassels, James Dale

    Edge, Sir William

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

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

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Eimley, Viscount

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Clarke, Frank

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Colville, John

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Bernays, Robert

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Blindell, James

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Briant, Frank

    Croom-Johnson, R. p.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Dickle, John P.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Greene, William P. C.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Donner, P. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Slater, John

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Munro, Patrick

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Hornby, Frank

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Nunn, William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Stones, James

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sugden, Sir Wllfrid Hart

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Summersby, Charles H.

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Templeton, William P.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnto

    Petherick, M.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

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

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

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Thompson, Luke

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

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

    Knight, Holford

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ramsden, E.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rankin, Robert

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ray, Sir William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Lees-Jones, John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Levy, Thomas

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rhys, Hon. Charted Arthur U.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Weyntouth, Viscount

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Manley, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Womersley, Walter James

    McLean, Major Alan

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    sandman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Magnay, Thomas

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-Ward

    Maitland, Adam

    Savory, Samuel Servington

    and Commander Southby.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Scone, Lord

    Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that so long as the Treasury are satisfied that the Government of the Irish Free State are paying into a suspense account or suspense accounts to abide a final decision by negotiation or arbitration sums sufficient to implement their obligations as aforesaid, no such order as aforesaid shall be made, and further."
    The object of this Amendment is to leave this dispute over until some tribunal has decided what shall be done. When the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made the announcement on Monday that the annuities' money had been put to a suspense account the House was filled with excitement, and it seemed to me that had the House known that beforehand probably the Money Resolution would not have
    734
    been brought forward on Monday, and probably the Government would have stayed the whole of the proceedings pending some final settlement. If I am correct in that surmise I think we should show better judgment even at this stage by proceeding along those lines. If we have made a mistake we do not improve things by continuing in our error. The Secretary of State for the Dominions, speaking yesterday, made quite clear what we are trying to do. He said:
    "The object of the Bill is to provide the amount of default; that is to say, whatever be the figure clue 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."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th July, 1932; col. 528, Vol. 268.]
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The money is still in Mr. de Valera's control. It is stated that it has been placed to a suspense account. He does not say it has been put into a banking account. He says it is there. He might as well say it is in a London bank.
    Mr. TINKER: I am speaking to the Amendment. I am taking it that the Committee knows where that suspense account is. It is certainly in the hands of the Irish Free State Government, and we are trusting to their honour that, when the decision of the Tribunal is arrived at, the money will be paid over if the Irish Free State Government lose; they will keep it if they win. We are trusting to that, and that is the line of argument which I am attempting to follow.
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs stated that our position would be that we are going to exact payment. Let us see what that means. It does not merely mean that for one twelvemonth we shall settle what we claim is the amount of money owing to us. I have to assume that we shall have to try to work it out, so much on bacon, or eggs, or whatever it may be, in order to make up the £5,000,000. For a period of twelve months we shall try to get that money, and, when we have got it and the annuities fall due once more next July, we shall again proceed to put the machinery into operation, and so we shall try to recover the £5,000,000 every year. Does anyone think that that line of action will continue, or that it will be allowed to continue? No, it will break down before we arrive at that stage. We think that we are right, and they think that they are right. Some tribunal must operate. That will eventually be the position which the House of Commons will have to take up. I think I know what the English people will say. It is: "What is the use of driving these people down to the very lowest depths? Let us have some tribunal. Let us settle this matter."
    The Government think that they have an exceptionally good case. If that is so, why should they be afraid to go to any tribunal or to submit their case to anyone? It is merely pique. We think that because Mr. de Valera has said certain things he has to be taught a lesson. The greatest lesson that you could teach Mr. de Valera would be by saying to him: "We will accept your position and the
    736
    tribunal that you want. We believe that our case is an unanswerable one, and that wherever we go we shall win. We will let it go wherever you desire." That would be the best answer we could give to Mr. de Valera, and it would show to the Irish people that we were ready to do our utmost, because we believed in the fairness of our case. This Amendment gives us an excellent chance to recover the position and not to cause the bitterness that will be caused if we proceed.
    The duties will not only hit the Irish people, they will hit our people also. We shall wish before long that we had accepted the position that we now have the chance of securing. Hon. Members will recall the striking speech made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin). He told us from a long experience what had happened, that he had sat on these benches advocating certain courses in Irish matters, and that, every time, his suggestions were cast on one side and were not accepted. When John Redmond put certain suggestions before the House, it was: "No, we cannot accept them." Later on we were glad to accept them. Now we have an excellent chalice of saying to the Irish people: "We will accept what your leaders ask for. All that we ask is that the money should be kept in a fund." I trust that this Amendment will be accepted in that spirit, because that is the way of getting out of our difficulty with credit to both parties.
    Major MILNER: In rising to support my hon. Friend, and the other hon. Members associating with me in this Amendment, there are three grounds which I would like to indicate to the Committee very briefly upon which I hope the Amendment may be accepted by the Government. The first one is that it is now clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the statements which have been made by various hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to repudiation of agreements and breaches of faith, and so forth, are not accurate statements of fact, the fact being that the Free State Government have of their own volition—it may be because of some statutory enactment, as was suggested by the Dominions Secretary, or it may not be for that reason—taken upon themselves to put the moneys which are in dispute into a separate suspense banking account. That indicates beyond any possibility of

    737
    doubt their bona fides in this matter. I see the learned Attorney-General. I would like to ask him in how many cases, where there has been a dispute, he has known the defendants, either voluntarily pay money into court, or themselves put that money on one side into a private suspense account. [interruption.] It is perfectly true that this matter may not be in court, but this is a disputed claim. It is a matter in which the British Government say that certain sums are due and the Free State Government deny that those sums are due. I think I am right in saying that they have said this in one letter, dated 5th April:
    "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."
    They follow that up by paying the moneys in dispute into a separate banking account. I suggest to the learned Attorney-General and to other legal gentlemen, whom I see present, that most of us who are lawyers would be very glad if defendants in legal cases would take it upon themselves to put moneys on one side when, nevertheless, they claim to have a perfectly good case. Such action would at any rate ensure payment if and when judgment is obtained. I suggest to the Committee that that action, a purely voluntary action on the part of the Free State Government—with the exception of a portion of the money which, I gather from the Diminions Secretary, has by law to be paid into an account—indicates their bona fides and their willingness to abide by the decision of a court of arbitration.
    The second reason why I submit to the Committee that this Amendment should be passed is that the Bill which we are now discussing is to impose certain duties. Clause 1 says that on certain conditions or in certain events an Order shall be made. This Amendment, if passed, would provide that that Order imposing duties should not be made so long as these moneys remain on one side in that separate banking or suspense account. I suggest, in rather different words from those used by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that this Amendment gives the British Government, who have put themselves into very considerable difficulties by the action that they have taken, an
    738
    opportunity of staying their hand and making a gesture, before carrying this matter to its conclusion, as they have so often threatened they would do. As long as the Free State Government keep these moneys on one side, there is an opportunity yet for a fair settlement to be arrived at on the one point which is outstanding, namely, as to who shall be the arbitrators or the chairman, as the case may be, of the court of arbitration. I think the right hon. Gentleman might take advantage of that opportunity to get out of the difficulty into which he must be aware he has placed the Government since Monday.
    The third reason is that when he received this information as to the payment of the money into a suspense account the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way on more than one occasion to say to the House that that information was vital, and simplified the issue and so on. If that communication to the effect that those moneys had been paid into a separate account was so vital, what action has the right hon. Gentleman taken upon it? He told us yesterday that he had written a letter, but he did not go into the full details of that letter nor has the Committee had a copy of it. If this matter is such a vital one and the payment of the money into a suspense account so important and it so narrowed the issue, what action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take upon it? I should have thought if it so changed the situation, he would have either withdrawn the Bill or taken some steps to alter it in some form or another. Instead of that, he has apparently taken no action at all. The matter was vital, and it obviously put an entirely different complexion on all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members as to repudiation and so on. It indicated clearly that the Free State would recognise their obligations when those obligations were proved before a competent court, namely, a court of arbitration with a chairman who could be agreed upon by all parties. It seems to me that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, there was a change in the situation by reason of this information coming, and, if that is so, I submit that this Amendment is amply justified and that the Committee would do well by passing it to postpone putting into force the powers which they are

    739
    presumably about to confer on the Government of taxing various imports from the Irish Free State, as long as the moneys in dispute are paid into a suspense account.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. THOMAS: The first observation I will make is that which I made on three previous Amendments, because in the course of the discussion each speaker has indicated that if this particular Amendment were carried it would kill the Bill. That having been stated, there was no need to repeat it, but, throughout the whole of this Debate, I have endeavoured to try and simplify the issue as between what I would call any legal quibble and something that the ordinary man in the street could understand. The last speech, delivered by a very distinguished legal representative, confirms me in my view that, if I had been consulting him as a, lawyer, he would not have given the opinion that he publicly gives as a Member of the British House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Hon. Members who shout "Order" know perfectly well that I am in order.
    Mr. COCKS: Is it in order to suggest that the legal profession is above the House of Commons?
    Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman I am referring to did not find it necessary to rise on a point of Order on the point I am making.
    Mr. COCKS: I did.
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but that is because you are not a lawyer. The lawyer was much more clever than the hon. Member, and he did not raise it, and I still put to the Committee this simple proposition. The Mover of the Amendment and the supporter said quite clearly that if it were accepted it would destroy the purpose of the Bill.
    Major MILNER: I am within the recollection of the House that I said no such thing. What I did say was that the acceptance of the Amendment would postpone the operation of the Bill in view of the fact that no Order could be made under the Bill as long as this money was in a suspense account—quite a different thing from putting an end to the Bill.
    Mr. THOMAS: I will apply myself to those on that side of the House who are not lawyers and not connected with the law but who are used to dealing with what we call trade union negotiations. Suppose that an employer gives an intimation that, notwithstanding a trade union agreement between the employer and employés, and regardless of the views of the trade union leaders, he is going to reduce the wages of the employés, and whatever the difference may be, he is going to put the money into an employers' suspense account. I do not want the lawyers on that side of the House to answer me. I want the trade union leaders to get up and say what they would do in those circumstances. There is none of them, outside the law, who has received a democratic vote of his members, and who can claim to be a trade union leader, who would not give the legal gentlemen a very short answer on that particular point. Therefore, the answer that the ordinary trade unionist would give to the lawyer on that point, I give at this particular moment.
    Mr. PRICE: As a trade union leader, I say that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting a case where a trade union leader would not be confronted with such an argument. The right hon. Gentleman has already agreed himself that there is a case for arbitration, and the question he puts to us, as trade unionists, is what we would do where there was no dispute. If we admit that there was a case for arbitration—which the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted in this case—then we should take the view that arbitration ought to take place.
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not want to be unfair. I do not mind dealing with the lawyers, but I am now dealing with trade union leaders, and I put to them this situation. I will apply to this question the ordinary trade union method. There was in existence, between a particular trade union and their employers, an agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disputed!"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow trade unionists, who know trade union practice, to correct me. [Interruption.] That is my point; they would want to go to a lawyer. I am dealing now with my hon. Friends who have been connected with trade union practice for 40 years. There is an agreement. Certain members of the union do not think

    741
    that the general secretary made a good agreement, but, at all events, he was the general secretary of the union, he had the consent of his executive, and he made an agreement. For the purpose of my argument, I agree that it suits you to say that it was a bad agreement, but the head of the union and the executive committee endorsed it. Then there was an election for a new president and general secretary of the union, and a new president and general secretary were elected. Does my hon. Friend, again on the basis of trade union practice alone, assume that, because there is a, change by the democratic membership of the union, the successor can go to the employer and say, "I repudiate that agreement"? My hon. Friend knows, and no one knows better, that to attempt to do that would destroy the fundamental basis of all collective bargaining.
    Mr. PRICE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this? We are speaking about an agreement. He puts the case as though the agreement were definite, but he himself has admitted during the whole of the Debate that we have agreed to arbitration. He has admitted that there is something in the agreement that means arbitration, and the Amendment under discussion simply asks that we go forward with arbitration and suspend this Bill.
    Mr. THOMAS: I will deal with my hon. Friend's question, because he is an old trade unionist and it is so much more convenient in trade union language. I am sure he will appreciate that he has missed one or two points. In the first place, again using trade union language, there was an agreement. To use the lawyers' expression, that agreement was disputed, but it was an agreement by a Prime Minister, who had been returned as Prime Minister for the Irish Free State. It may be that we had no right to treat him as a Prime Minister—
    Mr. HEALY: The people did not know anything of the agreement.
    Mr. THOMAS: If hon. Members will keep cool, I will deal with all these points, but do not let us get confused; the hon. Member is not in the same category as a trade union leader, and I am dealing with my hon. Friend who intervened. I will put the matter again. A Prime Minister, having been returned as a Prime Minister, signed an agreement
    742
    with the British Government. Then he went back to his people, and, in accordance with—
    Mr. LOGAN: Ours did not.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am talking about Mr. Cosgrave.
    Mr. LOGAN: Oh, I thought you meant Mr. MacDonald.
    Mr. THOMAS: That shows how excited the hon. Member can get on a wrong issue. Mr. Cosgrave, having signed an agreement, and having gone back, in accordance with Parliamentary procedure in Ireland, and risked being challenged, then goes to an election, and, following the election, is returned again as Prime Minister. I ask the hon. Gentleman who intervened—I am putting it purely on trade union practice—how would he feel if, the executive committee and general secretary of a union having made an agreement, and. having gone to a vote of the membership, in which the membership endorsed their action, subsequently, because there were changes, someone else comes along and says, "That is not legal"? [Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. Friend only intervened with a genuine desire to do the right thing. I have given shortly the facts of the case. The Amendment says, "As long as the Irish Free State keeps this money in a suspense account, do not do anything." Again using trade union methods and language, which the Opposition will understand, I would ask them what they would say to the employer who intimates that he is breaking an agreement with his workmen, regardless of any consequences, without even discussion with them, but who says: "As to the one or two shillings a week by which I am reducing your wages, please observe that I am placing it to an employer's suspense account." The trade union movement would deal with an employer who dealt with it in that way.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That has happened. May I cite an example? During the War, an increase of 12½ per cent. was granted to the men. The employers in certain industries paid it, and, after paying it, stopped paying it to some but continued to pay it to others. What then happened was that that 12½ per cent. which was not paid to the men was paid into the bank by the employers, the case went to

    743
    arbitration, the arbitrator decided that the men were entitled to it, and the employers lifted the money from the bank and paid it to the men.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am glad that my hon. Friend has reminded me of that incident; I had forgotten it. I know it all too well. He knows, however, that the men went on strike to get it—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: No.
    Mr. THOMAS: The draftsmen for whom my hon. Friend speaks did not, but he knows perfectly well that his colleague the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will not agree with him, because he led the strike.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman, when be is a Cabinet Minister, ought to try to know facts. The facts are as follow: The strike that my hon. Friend led was a strike for a definite 2d. a day. The strike for the 121 per cent. happened 12 months later. The two were unconnected.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Hear, hear.
    Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows nothing of the circumstances that we are talking about.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I was so delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman corrected.
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not want to go into the history of the 12½ per cent. There is someone on that bench who led a revolt on it long before the hon. and learned Gentleman heard of our movement. We have never agreed, and will not agree, that the breaking of agreements is accepted as a trade union principle. The allocation of this money does not affect the principle and for that reason we are not accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. LOGAN: What the discussion in the last 20 minutes has been about I am at a loss to understand. I understood that what was before the Committee was an Amendment to insert the words:
    "Provided that so long as the Treasury are satisfied that the Government of the Irish Free State are paying into a suspense account or suspense accounts to abide a final decision by negotiation or arbitration sums sufficient to implement their obligations as aforesaid, no such order as aforesaid shall be made."
    744
    I am not interested whether only two Members of the Committee know anything about what has happened in the trade union world and, as no one except the two hon. Members can corroborate the story, it has to be accepted on its merits. Therefore, that discussion can be dismissed. I should like to recall the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech to-day. I can understand one in an irresponsible position not knowing the value of words, but, when one comes to occupy a responsible position, speaking in the British House of Commons on a matter that is arousing world-wide attention, one expects to find a responsible Minister. I have always been taught that, when matters are serious, frivolity must go. Every attention must be paid to the utterances of those in a responsible position. The right hon. Gentleman to-day made this remarkable statement to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He said: "I am not going to accept any Amendment." [Interruption.] I am not concerned with you. I will deal with you afterwards if you are going to speak. I am dealing with someone who is responsible and not irresponsible. I should not like it to be thought by the outside world that we are irresponsible on so great an issue. [Interruption.] I have been longer in the world than the boy across the road, and my children generally keep quiet when their father is speaking. If they do not, I spank them. They are better conducted than some Members of this House.
    The right hon. Gentleman said the door to negotiation is open. Even at the eleventh hour we are prepared to make almost any concession that is possible in order to put an end to this difficulty. You cannot adopt the bludgeon and you cannot drive by force a nation which has never believed that it could be conquered by anyone. We are living in a world when representatives of European States are meeting in conference to decide how to settle matters. We are dealing with a nation which shed its blood in the cause of the English people. We are going to close the door in the face of negotiations. We are not going to give an opportunity to those people to take a rightful stand. Let it be understood by Members of the House that Irishmen are sitting at the table with equal rights to have the things of life, and they demand that we shall deal with this problem in

    745
    equity and justice. Having succeeded one who held another position in the House, I have a right to speak the views of the people whom I represent and who, when times were critical for the English nation, went out to shed their blood. I demand that you should listen to the voice of reason and not close the door when the opportunity is given to do justice to people who well deserve it. I am not going to enter into the merits of de Valera or Cosgrave—both honourable men—but surely it is not going to be said by the British House of Commons that, when a nation changes its Government, free expression is not to be given to their views and that there is to be no redress for what has happened in the past.
    What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman talking about what they do in trade unions? I am not concerned about what they do in trade unions. I belong to no trade union, I am independent of trade unions. I am here to represent my people, and I am not concerned with the petty disputes that go on in trade unions. Why lower the dignity of the House of Commons by talking about what trade unionists do? [Interruption.] What is there to laugh about? Is not the dignity of the House of Commons above trade unionism? Is not this the place where laws are made Is not this the place where we expect men of honour, no matter what their political differences may be, to do the just, right and proper thing? Surely, if it be right to conciliate, to do trade with Russia and to make agreements in order to end the diffiulties with regard to Germany, how much more justification have we to confer with our neighbours across the Channel to try, if possible, to get rid once and for all of all our difficulties? I do not want to go back over 700 years; I desire to recognise that to-day there ought to be a better and brighter understanding between the British race and men of my blood.
    I want to do the right and proper thing. This is the forum in which the members of the British race have a right to speak, and therefore I wish to point out that there is a difference of opinion. Mr. de Valera repudiates some of the liabilities, and says that it is not right to pay them. He says that it has not been contradicted. It is stated that the moneys belong to the Irish nation. Whether that be true or not, I do not wish to enter into the
    746
    merits of the ease. There has not been an hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches who has dared to say that the legal claims of Ireland in this position are incorrect. The Dominions Secretary has said, "I am prepared to enter into negotiations." Is this his method of doing so? Is this the right and proper way when the question at issue is only whether the suggested tribunal is to be found within the Empire or outside the Empire? One would think that we were living in an 'age when reason had gone wild and that there was no system, in this enlightened year 1932, in the British House of Commons. We have been told, and it is not denied, that Mr. de Valera has a suspense account into which the money has been paid. No hon. Member in this House dare say for one moment that Mr. de Valera is not an honourable man. He may not be a trained politician, but there is no one here who can say that, in view of the love and respect shown to them by their own countrymen, both he and the Irishman who preceded him are not honourable men.
    10.0 p.m.
    There is a difference of opinion, and the British House of Commons is asked, in justice, to consider the position. The debts of the Irish nation are not the debts of to-day. Any statesman who knows anything of Irish history knows that during the long travail of Ireland the question of its debts and the liability of England to Ireland has been one of the tremendous things which has menaced the Irish situation. I thought that we were getting out of our difficulties and into calmer waters. I remember the days when these benches were filled with Irish Members fighting, for a different type of man. This is not a problem which can be settled by the Dominions Secretary saying, "I am not going to accept any Amendment." You cannot do what you like in the British House of Commons. You have to consider, not merely the question of £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 due from Ireland, but the greater possibility of trouble, and, what is more, the honest, equitable manner in which you ought to deal with those debts. That there may be debts and that you may have a right to recover them it is not my purpose to dispute, but the question at issue is, Cannot a way be found without putting into operation such a drastic Measure? [Interruption.] One would not think

    747
    that this is a House of Commons with so many chattering. I have a parrot at home which is silent when one speaks.
    The House of Commons must face the seriousness of the position, and if hon. Members realise the gravity of the situation they will not be influenced by the Dominions Secretary. England is at stake in this great matter. I ask the Dominions Secretary at this late hour, not as an old negotiator of friendly societies, but as an ordinary Member of the House of Commons, and as one coming from the Scotland Division of Liverpool, to get rid of the flippant trade union way of dealing with these matters, and to get down to the seriousness of the position. I consider that his method to-night was flippant. He did not do, himself justice. I think that he did an injustice to the trade unions by mentioning that he was associated with them. I hope that he will get down to the fact that we are dealing with an Amendment asking that the Committee should agree that no Order shall be made as long as there is a suspense account, and that it will take no action until a tribunal has met. Mr. de Valera wants a tribunal to be appointed, and says that he is not going to have it inside the Empire. What does it matter in the settlement of disputes whether a tribunal is in the Empire or out of it? What does it matter on a great issue? Who settled the Great War? Who won the War? You are now deciding who is the guilty one. I suppose that the one who pays the most money will be considered the guilty one. Get down to reason. Let the Dominions Secretary admit that if he had his way he would not be afraid to allow any tribunal in the world to settle the matter. Let him admit honestly to this House that a diehard National Government. anti-Irish in its methods, is determined to dragoon him. Let them go on with their dragooning policy. I say last, but not least, that if they intend to do what they propose they are making a fatal mistake. No living Irishman would like to see the sores of the past opened again. The National Government have an opportunity to solve this riddle, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. MANDER: If one who is not a trade union leader may be permitted to intervene, I would like to offer a few
    748
    remarks on the Amendment. I think the Government are perfectly right not to accept the Amendment. I believe that it would have the effect of indefinitely postponing the operation of the Bill. I cannot see from the arguments we have had that there is any alternative to the Measure the Government have brought forward, but I hope that when they have got their Act, as I believe they will, they will show great restraint in the use of it and will not put any part of it into operation until they are absolutely convinced, after exercising all the possibilities, and waiting as long as they can, that there is no alternative. I believe that would be the wish of the whole House, and it is consistent with the Amendment. When we come to consider the question of any alternative, no one has really put forward any. It might be said we could go to war. No one wants to do that. It might be said that we could seize the Customs. That has been done in other parts of the world, but no one wants to do that. We could prohibit all imports of Irish goods. That would bring the matter to a head within 24 hours.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member says that there is no alternative. There is an alternative, and it is a reasonable alternative. Deal with the matter as the German debt has been dealt with. Wipe it off.
    Mr. MANDER: I was referring to what seemed to me to be a reasonable alternative. The issue is not one simply of annuities alone. It is a question of the position of the whole Anglo-Irish Treaty, and there is a great deal behind it. If we were to allow this default to take place without taking any action of any kind we should be acting disloyally, not to those who have shown themselves to be the friends of England, but to those who have shown themselves loyal to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which they signed on their side and which we signed on our side. From the point of view of decency and loyalty to those who stood by their bond, not our bond, but their bond, some action of the kind proposed is necessary.
    There is a reference in the Amendment to what I think would lead to a considerable amount of difficulty. Reference is made to arbitration. If the Government accepted the Amendment and we waited until an arbitration court could be set

    749
    up there might be delay for a considerable length of time. I hope the dispute will go to arbitration as soon as possible, but what is the arbitration to be and on what basis is it to be? Is it to be as a justiciable dispute on the basis of the law as it is at the present time, is it to be an arbitration over the whole of the equities, and a decision ex aequo et bono?
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: What does the hon. Member mean when he refers to the law of the matter I There can be no law between Great Britain and Ireland unless there is a court to enforce it. There can be an agreement.
    Mr. MANDER: I am not proposing to enter into a legal argument. There is a dispute as to whether or not certain things are legally binding, and I am suggesting that we ought to be quite clear whether it is to be arbitration on the basis of law as it is at the present time or whether it is to be simply an arbitration on what is right and fair regardless of the actual state of the law. I am in doubt whether the matter has been thoroughly thought out from that point of view. The question of the tribunal has been causing a certain amount of difficulty. There can be no doubt that we are governed by the Agreement of the Imperial Conference of 1930, that there should be an Empire Tribunal, which was agreed to by all the Dominions. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal. I understand that it is the boundary dispute that is the cause of the difficulties and the suspicion. If Mr. de Valera and his friends would only think the matter over they would not have much difficulty in finding inside the British Empire people who are, I will not put it any higher than this, not prejudiced in favour of Great Britain. They could find people who would not go out of their way to take the British point of view. Really, there is no substance in their fear. It is a psychological fear, and if it were taken into consideration and looked at calmly it could be overcome.
    There is something in the history prior to 1930 which perhaps explains the reason for the proposal that has been brought forward. When the Optional Clause was signed at the League of Nations in 1929 three members of the British Empire said that they thought that the World Court was perfectly competent to try disputes between members of the British Common-
    750
    wealth. Those three countries were Canada, South Africa and Ireland. In the case of Canada and South Africa they said that while they thought that it was perfectly competent to go outside the Empire, they preferred, on the whole, to make use of an Imperial court for this purpose, and that is what they have acted upon. The Irish Free State ratified without any reservations of any kind, as the other Dominions did, and they claimed that they were entitled to go to the World Court, and they thought that they could take this country there too. But they abandoned that position by the agreement of 1930. If they had not abandoned that position there would have been a certain amount of substance in their coming forward now and claiming that there should be consideration of the question of taking the dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, although no doubt we should not have agreed to it. That point has gone because of what was agreed to at the Imperial Conference of 1930.
    In this Debate, turning very largely on difficult legal matters, it would have been useful if from time to time we had had an intervention from the Law Officers of the Crown. The Secretary of State for the Dominions has many eminent qualities. He argues his case always with skill, but I do not think that law is his strongest point. If the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General had been able to get up and put the matter from the legal point of view, it would have been helpful in the Debate. I do hope that the Government when they get their Act will show the greatest restraint and patience in putting it into operation and that they will do all they can, by persuasion and sweet reasonableness, in trying to get the other side to accept an Empire court, perfectly fair and perfectly just. If time is allowed it may well be that we shall get agreement on those lines. If the matter is not settled on the lines I have mentioned then I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of laying it before the Ottawa Conference, because if there is any question of one member of the British Empire leaving it, it is a. matter for the whole commonwealth of nations. They have a right to consider it, and it might be that their influence at a critical time might restore that harmoney and good will which we all want to see.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I have said something about the attitude of the Liberal party on a previous occasion, but they seem to go from one humiliation to another. Here we have a perfectly reasonable Amendment, providing that the Bill shall not operate pending the time a decision is arrived at by a court of arbitration mutually agreed upon. A more reasonable request on the part of public representatives, in a great deliberate assembly, dealing with a serious and vital matter, I have never heard; yet the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) gets up and delivers a speech of the most violent hostility to it.
    Mr. MANDER: I urged the Government to do what the Amendment in fact proposes.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member's peroration was the Amendment in flowery language. I am not dealing with his peroration, but with his proposals and his opinions. I have heard a great deal about contracts and the sanctity of observing obligations and the importance of keeping your word. Surely no Liberal Member is in a position to take up that attitude. There were no written contracts, no obligations except obligations of honour, between the Liberal party and the Irish Nationalist party by which the Liberal party were secured in office for 20 years by Irish votes. That was on the basis of Mr. Gladstone's concession of Home Rule for all Ireland, and when we had paid the price of retaining the Liberal party in power you betrayed the Irish party—
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: On a point of Order. What relation has the history of the Home Rule dispute to the Amendment before the House?
    Mr. DEVLIN: We have, of course, strange scenes in this House, like the hon. Member as the defender of the Liberal party.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: May I have your ruling, Captain Bourne, on the point which I have put?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Devlin) was making a somewhat far-fetched illustration, but I did not take it as anything further.
    Mr. DEVLIN: This is a far-fetched discussion. We are dealing with contracts,
    752
    with honour, personal honour, and political honour with national obligations, and I object altogether to unctuous Liberalism, which is not Liberalism at all, coming here and telling the Tory party and Tory leaders how strong they ought to be in dealing with Ireland. What is the proposal that they are supporting? They have made the welkin ring, at least some of them who are now Protectionists have, with the horrors that await us if we have food taxes in these islands. Yet this is a food tax Bill, because the only way in which the British Government can get the £3,000,000 or £5,000,000, or whatever the amount may be, is by taxation of the products of Ireland, which are mainly agricultural.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting right away from the Amendment, which deals with arbitration and not with the way in which the money shall be raised.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I am replying to the speeches that have been made. But I pass from that and leave the Liberal party where it was or where it is. God knows where it may be—the once great party of honour, of moral, of prestige, the party that lived on great names and honourably-maintained bonds, now merely bondsmen of the Tory party in this House. I come to the speech of the Dominions Secretary. He has told us of his great experience as a negotiator. He has had a much more successful experience as a diplomat or negotiator in trade union affairs than he will secure in dealing with the question that we are now discussing. Does he lay down the principle, as a trade union leader, that if an arrangement or a contract is entered into between employers and employed, that contract is to stand for ever? Do not circumstances change it? I do not know any worse analogy that could be brought forward than that brought forward by the Dominions Secretary.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am glad of the opportunity to intervene, because I have known the hon. Member so many years. No, that is not the analogy I laid down. I raised the trade union side only because it was challenged from the other side of the House. The analogy that I drew was that I did not believe an agreement should remain for ever, but I did agree that before an agreement, solemnly made,

    753
    could be altered, it must be by agreement between both sides, and it should not be repudiated by one.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman himself raised the question of the trade unions. In this case precisely the same changes of circumstances have arisen as would arise in relation to an adjustment of differences between employers and employed in industry. What the right hon. Gentleman has done, I do not think wittingly, has been to misrepresent the whole situation. What is the situation? I challenge him to confess this. The British Government agreed in 1925 that neither Northern Ireland nor Southern Ireland was to bear any portion of the National Debt. They also agreed, and we all agreed, and no one can contest it, that the Land Annuities were part of the National Debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If those in power at the time did not choose to raise that question it was perfectly within the honourable ambit of the purposes of a subsequent Prime Minister or President to raise that question and to contest it. Therefore, I do not think that upon that basis you have any case it all.
    You are not satisfied yourselves that you have a ease which you are prepared to submit to arbitration. [Interruption.] Yes, that is so because we are told from the Liberal benches that it is a case of using the big stick and we all know how that has been used against Ireland. You are not willing to submit your case to arbitration. I watched the atmosphere which was created here the other day when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) announced that it was Mr. de Valera's intention to pass these annuities into a suspense account and retain them, pending the decision of the arbitration tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary became excited. He was more than excited he was joyfully hysterical. Not only did he become joyfully hysterical, but an atmosphere of joy permeated this Chamber and everyone said, "Now, we have found a way out of the difficulty." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No" but did not the Secretary of State on that occasion express the wish that he had known of that fact before? Why did he wish he had known it before? Because in that case his attitude—at least, I gathered so much—
    754
    would have been different from the attitude which be had taken up to that point.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Why was it not communicated to the Government?
    Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member, I presume, is secretary to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to hon. Members that the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Devlin) has not given way.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will give way if the hon. Member likes. I only say that it is most disrespectful to his leader. It is questioning the right hon. Gentleman's capacity to reply to me.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I would like to ask the hon. Member the question which I ventured to put to him across the Floor. Why was this proposition about the suspense account communicated to the Opposition and not to the appropriate authority upon this side?
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think that a matter of procedure of that sort should have created Ministerial hysteria. That was simply a question of the method of communication and I do not see why the fact that it was conveyed to the Opposition instead of to the Government, should have created elation not to say hysteria in this Chamber. I suggest to the hon. Member that he would do better to leave to the skilful negotiator who occupies the position of Dominions Secretary the duty of defending the Government on these matters.
    I come to another aspect of the question. What is the meaning of an honourable contract. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and his Leader and several other Members of the present Government were once heads of a Labour Government. They got into their position as a Labour Government by the votes of the people on precise promises made to the people. They remained a Labour Government for years, upon Labour principles which were admitted and accepted by that vast body of the electorate who sent them here. Did they break their contract to those people when they smashed the Labour Government and went over to a Tory Government? Does

    755
    it lie in their mouths to talk about contracts, in view of circumstances of that character? Would they ever have assumed position of responsibility, power and honour, and, to some extent, of glory, in the Socialist and Labour movement, if the people who returned them had known that some day or other they would become leaders and chief propagandists for the policy of Protection and all that Conservatism stands for No.
    10.30 p.m.
    I have no objection to having this question determined by arbitration, but I object to the glibness of the apostolate. Instead of these high-sounding phrases, which fall so clippingly from the mouths of those who sit on those benches, why do you not get down to the facts of the situation? The facts of the situation are that you are going to embroil this country and the Empire in a dirty little war about £3,500,000, a dirty little economic war, in which you will suffer as well as the Irish people, because this, as I have said, is to be a food tax, which will have to be borne by the common people of England, by the working classes in the industrial centres of this island. And you will not get any advantage financially in the slightest extent.
    What I foresee—I may be wrong[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] You say I am wrong, and that shows I am right. I never would have thought I was right until you told me I was wrong, but at all events it does not require great prescience, or wisdom, or the power of prophecy to see what will happen. You will get the amount, whatever it may be—£3,000,000, or £4,000,000, or £5,000,000—when this Bill operates, no doubt, but there will be reprisals. That is a nasty and unholy expression to use in the relationship between the two islands. We know what physical reprisals brought—hatred and loathing of the name of this country in Ireland, and that it shamed and dishonoured you throughout the world.
    But this is a meaner sort of reprisals. It is to make not only the Irish people suffer, but the great masses of the English people to suffer as well. That is what it means, and Mr. de Valera will proceed to put taxes upon English articles, and he will get back the £5,000,000 that you obtain from him through the process of this Measure. I
    756
    cannot understand this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Nobody can understand it, unless unintelligent, and that is why it is understood on the benches opposite. But my point is this: This Amendment asks you to suspend the operation of the Bill pending the time when an award will have been given by the arbitrator, if arbitration should take place. That is the most natural thing in the world. But supposing you do not, and that the arbitration subsequently goes on, and in the meantime you have raked in this amount, how are you going to pay it back again? A portion of it will have been paid by the English consuming classes in this country.
    The Bill is absurd and grotesque and will not carry out the purposes which the right bon. Gentleman has in his mind, and I once again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take the wretched thing out of the public gaze, to bury this Bill where many other hateful Measures should have been buried, in obscurity and contempt and oblivion, in the past, because assuredly you are doing no good to this country, and you are doing mischief to the Empire. You are presenting yourselves as appalling creatures who are going to appeal to other nations for financial mercy, and this is the sort of feeling that you show to a little peasant race of 3,500,000, in order to deal, not with the economic question at all, or the question of finance, but to teach them a lesson. I have been talking to responsible men in this House, and I have heard them say, and I agree, "It is not a question of £3,500,000. Other motives move us. We must teach them a lesson." You have tried for 700 years to teach them a lesson. They have survived the lesson, and it is you who have been taught. You have failed to break that spirit, indomitable and indestructible, which has lived and burned in Irish hearts for centuries, when they were prepared to make bigger sacrifices than the miserable sacrifice of £3,000,000 in land annuities. Do not believe that the men who failed to crush the spirit of this people with torture and the sword are going to kill the courage and spirit of the people with a miserable Bill of this character.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 271.

    Division No. 297.]

    AYES.

    [10.37 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Healy, Cahir

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

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

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Leonard, William

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lunn, William

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Macdonald.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Albery, Irving James

    Donner, P. W.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Leckie, J. A.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lues-Jones, John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Levy, Thomas

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Little, Graham., Sir Ernest

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

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

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

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

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Bernays, Robert

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Birchali, Major Sir John Dearman

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Blindell, James

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McLean, Major Alan

    Bouiton, W. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Maitland, Adam

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Winder, Geoffrey le M.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Goldie, Noel B.

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

    Silent, Frank

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Burnett, John George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Munro, Patrick

    Cassels, James Dale

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H 'ncastle)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nunn, William

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    O' Donovan, Dr. William James

    Camlet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hornby, Frank

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Clarke, Frank

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Penny, Sir George

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Colville, John

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Petherick, M.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Copeland, Ida

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Janner, Barnett

    Rankin, Robert

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ray, Sir William

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Curry, A. C.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Remer, John R.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

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

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Smith, Louts W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Robinson, John Roland

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Stones, James

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Storey, Samuel

    White, Henry Graham

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Templeton, William P.

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

    Major George Davies and Lord

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Erskine.

    Slater, John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, after the word "to," to insert the words "livestock or."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 38; Noes, 273.

    Division NO. 298.]

    AYES

    [10.47 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Healy, Cahir

    Milner, Major James

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Groves.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Burnett, John George

    Curry, A. C.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Butler, Richard Austen

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

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Donner, P. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cassels, James Dale

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Dunglass, Lord

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

    Eastwood, John Francis

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Bernays, Robert

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofrie

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Clarke, Frank

    Elmley, Viscount

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Blindell, James

    Celfox, Major William Philip

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Colville, John

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cooke, Douglas

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Briant, Frank

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Magnay, Thomas

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maitland, Adam

    Sandereon, Sir Frank Barnard

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Mender, Geoffrey le M.

    Savory, Samuel Servington

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Grafton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Slater, John

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'castle)

    Munro, Patrick

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Nunn, William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Stones, James

    Hornby, Frank

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Storey, Samuel

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

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

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Penny, Sir George

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Templeton, William P.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Petherick, M.

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

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

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Janner, Barnett

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

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

    Jerson, Major Thomas E.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Joel, Dudley J. Barneto

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

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

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsden, E.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rankin, Robert

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Ray, Sir William

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rea, Walter Russell

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

    Leckie, J. A.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Remer, John R.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scryrngeour

    Levy, Thomas

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Robinson, John Roland

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ross, Ronald D

    Womersley, Walter James

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Runge,, Norah Cecil

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

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Major George Davies and Lord

    McLean, Major Alan

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Erskine.

    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(5) A separate account shall be kept by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of all receipts in respect of duties of customs payable hereunder and particulars of such account shall be furnished to the Treasury each month.
    (6) If and as soon as it shall appear to the Treasury from the accounts so furnished that a sufficient sum has been raised by means of the aforesaid duties of customs, the Treasury shall forthwith by order direct that no further duties of customs Shall be paid under this Act."
    I think that these words require very little by way of commendation to the House, in face of the repeated assertions of the Dominions Secretary that it is his desire, in submitting this Bill to the House, merely to safeguard for the Treasury a certain definite sum of money. He has told us over and over again that he desires to secure, through the medium of this Bill, nothing more than is just sufficient to compensate the Government for the loss involved by the retention of the moneys with which we are concerned, and the purpose of the Amendment is to give effect to that

    763
    assertion, which has been made on behalf of the Government so often during these Debates. It may well be that the form of words which I submit to the Committee are not acceptable to the Government. As to that I am largely indifferent. The only thing that I and my hon. friends want to safeguard is that the sense of the Amendment shall be accepted by the Government. If they desire to submit to us some better words that will effect the same object, we shall be quite willing to consider them on Report. What we desire is that a separate account shall be set up by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and also that, when the appropriate sum which the Government desires has been achieved, no further moneys shall be collected by means of this Measure.
    11.0 p.m.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I hope to be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on this point. He says that all that he desires is that the sense of these words should be accepted by the Government. I am happy to give him the assurance that a separate record will be kept of the Irish Free State Special Duties, and that particulars will be furnished to the Treasury, not merely once a month, but four times as often, that is to say, four times a month. As for the powers of the Bill to raise Customs duties, we do not wish to raise them in excess of the amount that is necessary, or likely to be necessary, to make good the amount in default, and I give my hon. Friend the further assurance that, if it should appear, from the accounts of the duties collected, that their yield is greater than that which is necessary, or even that which is likely to be necessary, to raise the amount required, the Treasury will amend the Order with a view to providing as nearly as possible the amount required and not more. Of course, however, it would be impossible to put these words as such in a Bill. These are assurances given by me on behalf of the Government. The administrative difficulties of putting this into the Bill would be very great, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I know the hour is rather late and the Debate has been sufficiently protracted to render it unnecessary for me to make anything like an exhaustive review of what the Clause contains. I have been present at many Debates where the relationship between different nations has been under discussion, and it has always been the practice to speak with great restraint because the complications that might follow between nations are very great indeed. But this evening I have heard taunts thrown across the Floor and I have heard jeers and gibes and laughter concerning our relations with Ireland which I have never heard when discussing our relations with any other Power. Not even the abhorred Russia has given occasion for such ribaldry as I have heard this evening. I have never before seen a Committee stage handled in such a frivolous manner. The co-operation of the Liberal supporters of the Government with the Conservatives has rendered the Dominions Secretary so contemptuous of what might happen that at the beginning he intimated that he was going to accept no Amendment on the Paper. I have never before heard a Minister make such a statement. It is an affront to the dignity of the House of Commons, and it does not deal with this great question in the way it deserves to be dealt with. The Secretary of State has got up on Amendment after Amendment and said, "It has already been admitted that every Amendment is designed to kill the Bill and, consequently, I do not propose to answer the discussion."
    It has been a first-class disaster that the Dominions Secretary should be an ex-Labour leader. It would have been far better for our relationship with Ireland if we had had the most diehard Conservative in the House as Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has been so anxious to get Tory cheers that he has been incapable of dealing with this grave issue in the way it should be dealt with. He has outheroded Herod, and he seems anxious to go down to history as the English Bismarck. There is nothing at all in the recent history of the dispute to warrant the high feeling which liras been created. Every time the word "repudiation" is hurled across the Floor of the Rouse, the word "robbery" is hurled across the Floor of the Irish Parliament. We do not get a

    765
    proper perspective of the dispute by talking as though our interpretation of the dispute is the only one which can possibly be held. Nations have gone to war in moods of that kind. It has been said that there are certain honourable relationships between nations to which they should abide. Eminent jurists have spoken about international obligations. It must be known to hon. and right hon. Members that national jurisprudence is only very slowly coming into being. An endeavour is being made to build it up at The Hague and also between the nations of the world, but it does not follow that one nation can be capable of an illegal act against another. It may be guilty of a dishonourable act and of unfairness, but it cannot be said that one nation can violate a legal act. As long as States have sovereign powers and none of their sovereign powers has been broken off and attached to an overriding authority, there can be no violation of international law.
    Much that has been said about this dispute is quite irrelevant and befogs the whole question. The Irish people take a certain view of the obligations into which it is alleged they have entered with this country. We take another view. Three or four months ago it looked as though the relations between the two countries were so strained that no amicable settlement could be arrived at. Mr. de Valera in Ireland said: "We are going to withhold this money; we are not going to pay it over." And then the hard-and-fast adamantine resistance on both sides gave way to negotiations. The negotiations occurred, and they resulted in a further narrowing of the gulf. The two sides said that they were prepared to settle the matter by arbitration and a further substantial narrowing of the gulf took place. Feeling had been excited in Great Britain and the House of Commons by the statement that Mr. de Valera was collecting money from the Irish farmers which was due to the land stockholders and would use it to relieve Irish taxation. That has not occurred. The money is now being held separately, and, although it is held in the custody of the Irish Free State, the substantial fact remains that the money is not being held up in order to relieve the Irish taxpayer.
    Therefore, it is a falsification of the position to say that Ireland has trans-
    766
    ferred the burden from the shoulders of the Irish farmers to the shoulders of the British taxpayer. That was true before, but it is no longer true. The money is simply being held in suspense, and because we have accepted obligations to stockholders we are paying out the money in the meantime and have not got access to the pool in Irelana. I submit, not to the historical functions of the House, not to the national mood of the Committee, but to the dispassionate sense of the Committee, that there is no justification at all for the language which has been used this evening, and for the charges that have been flung across the Floor of the House.
    There is a very simple matter in dispute. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may take a certain view of what Ireland has done and may use the word "repudiation" but I beg of them to realise, whatever may happen, with respect to this dispute, that the Irish Sea is very narrow, and that we have to live with this nation for many generations to come. The people of my generation have already suffered sufficiently from the bitterness, the prejudice and the myopia of the past generations, not to want that sort of thing to happen again. I do not find, among the new Members of the House, the bitterness and prejudice that I find among the older Members; those who can remember the black-and-tans and things of that description, are unable to bring a dispassionate mind to bear upon this problem. I would ask the Committee to strip itself of those old bitter memories and to look upon the situation as it exists at the moment. The Dominions Secretary may win the applause of the House of Commons at the moment but he will win the contempt of generations to come by his failure to be a bigger man, to be prepared to do the unpopular thing and tell the Conservatives in the House of Commons that the mutual relationship and harmony between the common people of Ireland and Great Britain is more important than sticking to the very letter of the bond. This dispute started with bitter hostility and a wide gulf between the two nations which has narrowed down to the point that the two countries are prepared to submit the difference to arbitration. The only point of disagreement is how the tribunal shall be constituted. The common man outside the House of Commons a few weeks

    767
    ago was taking the commonsense point of view and saying that the Irish Government had no right to collect money from the Irish farmers and to throw a burden on the back of the British taxpayer. That was a perfectly commonsense view to take. That ground of complaint has disappeared. The hon. Member opposite shakes his head. Is it or is it is not a fact that the Irish Free State at the moment is not using this -money for the relief of her own taxation?
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: That does not stop the burden going from their backs and being put on the backs of the English taxpayers?
    Mr. BEVAN: I have endeavoured to show that here is no case of money being taken by one nation and used to relieve the obligations of that nation, while putting the burden on the shoulders of the other nation. That is not the situation at the moment. It may subsequently become the situation, but at this moment it is not the situation.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Who is paying?
    Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the Irish farmer is making annual payments to the Irish Government.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Who is paying the interest on the bonds?
    Mr. BEVAN: It is not necessary to have any historical résumé. The English Government has honoured the obligation to the stockholders and pays the money to them, but in honouring our obligation to the land stockholders, we have no right to dishonour the contract into which we entered with the British consumer. It was said that we would hand over the money from the Irish farmer to the stockholder, but what we are saying is that the English consumer of Irish butter—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) may call that an engaging smile, but I call it an empty grin.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Do not be personal.
    Mr. BEVAN: I have no desire to be discourteous, but if hon. Members are discourteous to me it relieves me of the obligation to be courteous to them.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I am asking the hon. Member not to be discourteous.
    Mr. BEVAN: I was not referring to the hon. and gallant Member. I was referring to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont).
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I have no desire to be discourteous. I thought that the hon. Member was being funny, and I laughed.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member says I have succeeded in being funny. He will note that I have not accused him of succeeding at anything. In the course of the Debates on the Finance Bill and in every tariff Debate it has been admitted that a revenue duty may be partly a revenue-producing duty and partly a protective duty. There is no means of determining what amount of the £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 the consumer in this country will have to pay or the producer in Ireland will have to pay. Free Traders and tariffists alike have agreed that in most cases the burden is distributed over both, but it is perfectly true that we are transferring the burden of meeting our obligations to the stockholders to some extent to the consumers of Irish goods. If the present prices of foodstuffs represent the tug of war in a competitive market, any easing of the burden in one market must result in a raising of prices. If it is not so then the prices at the moment are not competitive but artificial. They are either the result of a tug of war or an artificial conspiracy, and if you ease the burden in one part you must give a competitive advantage to another. The matter having been narrowed down in the way it has, what is the right hon. Gentleman now proposing to do? He is proposing not to levy duties to extract £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 from the Irish people, but in order to impose an Imperial tribunal on the Irish nation.
    Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary. The question of a tribunal of any sort was never mentioned by the Irish Free State. It was first offered by the British Government, and as far as levying any taxation is concerned, if the Irish Free State accept the Imperial tribunal at this moment, the Bill will cease to operate, but it will not cease to operate unless they accept it.
    Mr. BEVAN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It proves conclusively my statement. If these duties are imposed and in the course of a week or two Mr. de Valera comes forward and says that he is prepared to accept an Imperial tribunal, will these duties continue, nevertheless? I want an answer. It is a very important matter. It is a matter which is bound to arise as a first-class issue at Ottawa.
    Mr. THOMAS: My answer is that if Mr. de Valera, on behalf of the Irish Free State, accepts the last offer that I made on behalf of the British Government for an Imperial tribunal, this Bill will not operate, but if he does not accept it this Bill with all its consequences will operate.
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to regard those cheers as most unfortunate. I am not striving to make a party point at all. [Interruption.] This party has not, since the beginning, taken the stand that the point of view of Mr. de Valera is right. No authoritative speech made from these benches on behalf of the Labour party has taken sides upon this matter. We say that there is one State, a sovereign Power, taking a certain view of its obligations, and there is another State, a sovereign Power, taking another view of its obligations. We say that, if it is important to settle such disputes between foreign nations by arbitration, it is all the more important so to settle such disputes when they arise within the British Empire. That is the view to which we adhere. All along we have striven to introduce into the discussions an atmosphere of dispassionate restraint, which has been absent from the other side.
    I repeat my question: We understand that if this Bill is passed and Mr. de Valera refuses to accept arbitration, the Bill operates. If these duties are imposed and in the meantime Mr. de Valera comes forward and accepts a tribunal drawn from within the Empire, will the duties be withdrawn?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes; not from the standpoint of the House of Commons, but from the standpoint of the people in Ireland. If Mr. de Valera accepts the offer of arbitration made on behalf of the Government by me yesterday, this Bill
    770
    will not operate, but if Mr. de Valera does not accept arbitration within the Empire, this Bill operates immediately.
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BEVAN: Those cheers will not survive the discussion of this question in other parts of the Empire. It must be remembered that South Africa and Canada do not take the same view of Imperial power as the House of Commons takes. What the right hon. Gentleman has said is this and he has confirmed in each particular the statement that I made: The purpose of these duties is now to impose upon a part of the Dominions a tribunal that the Imperial Conference would not impose upon itself. If two parties to a negotiation have narrowed the negotiation down to a certain point, and if punitive action is taken by either, it will be taken on the last point in dispute, and the last point in dispute here it not whether these Annuities are legally due or not, but as to how the tribunal which is to settle the matter shall be constituted.
    Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Does not the hon. Member consider that the right and proper thing for Ireland to have done was to have met the claim and raised the question afterwards in the proper constitutional manner?
    Mr. BEVAN: If we were considering the matter as between two subjects within the same realm it would he different, but the Statute of Westminster makes Ireland, apart from certain reservations, a sovereign power, and there does not exist an agreed constitutional way of settling this matter. That is what is forgotten, and that is the central point. At the expense of labouring the matter, I would ask the Committee to think over that point carefully. The next question which we have to consider is this. Is Ireland reasonable in refusing an Empire tribunal? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Imperial Conference discussed the matter and failed to arrive at an agreement. South Africa and Ireland said, "We will not.accept a permanent tribunal as a way of settling inter-Dominions differences." Is Ireland less reasonable than South Africa? [Interruption.] I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to give me his attention. His attitude is consistent with his

    771
    behaviour during the whole of the evening on this matter, and it is not only a discourtesy to the Committee, but it reveals a complete incapacity to realise the seriousness of what he is doing. What you are now saying is that Ireland is no more reasonable than South Africa. So you have two difficulties—Ireland and South Africa—and you are widening the area of dispute.
    Is it so important a departure from constitutional precedent that Ireland should want to go outside the Empire for this purpose? Canada has led the Dominions in demands for infinitely more substantial matters than this. In the history of the last 50 years, the Imperial Constitution has been modified in an infinitely more substantial degree—in other respects. Fiscal autonomy, separate ambassadorial representation, a demand for treaties to be considered, separate representation at Geneva—in all these matters Canada and South Africa have asked from the British House of Commons infinitely more important modifications than that which Ireland is demanding now. There is no justification for regarding this question as so supreme an issue that we must engage in a fiscal war with Ireland and embitter relations between the two peoples. We plead with the Dominions Secretary to allow the matter to stand over until it can be discussed in the friendly atmosphere of Ottawa.
    Mr. ROSS: Will the hon. Member advance the money in the meantime?
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member must remember that we are not in the Oxford Union, but in the House of Commons, and he should not put cheap points of that description. I am asking that if you want success to come from the Ottawa Conference, you will assemble in as friendly an atmosphere as possible. Remember that there are Irishmen all over the British Empire, and my experience is that the greatest patriot lives outside his own country. There is more love of Wales among the milkmen of London than among the colliers of South Wales, and I believe there is infinitely more love of Ireland in Australia. Canada and South Africa than maybe in Ireland itself. Therefore, assemble at Ottawa in the most friendly set of circumstances possible. Take no step at all
    772
    that might make things more difficult for infinitely more important plans to be fructified. Do not allow the Dominions to get the impression that you are using your power here to impose on the Dominions a method of arbitration to which they have taken exception.
    In conclusion, I realise that what I have said will perhaps have made no impression upon the British House of Commons, but I am satisfied that when this matter comes to be arbitrated before a tribunal much more important than we are, they will take the view that the Tories, as always, have their faces turned towards the past and are blind to contemporaneous realities.
    Mr. DIXON: I enter into this debate with considerable reluctance, because I have found, in the many years during which I have been in this House, how useless speeches are, and that fact was never more impressed upon me than this afternoon. But when the honesty, the decency, and the commercial honour of a great people such as I belong to, the Ulster people, are condemned in this House by an Ulsterman, who is always only too ready to condemn his own people when sitting here in a Parliament which he has called a foreign Parliament, when I find an Ulsterman such as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) coming here and making charges such as the charges that I am going to read out to the Committee, I think this Committee will forgive me for once in a way, for saying a word or two upon this matter. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone made the following statement:
    "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."
    That is absolutely not true.
    "She is getting contributions from the British Exchequer, although millions have been paid by Southern Ireland in the Free State, to the British Exchequer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1932; col, 377, Vol. 268.]
    That was the statement of the hon. Member in this House, and let me tell the Committee that again and again I have heard him make the very opposite statement in our House of Parliament in Ulster. I have heard him say to the Prime Minister across the floor of the

    773
    House there, "Here you are, giving millions of Ulster's money to this great, rich Empire of Great Britain—£7,000,000 that you have taken out of the mouths of the starving and unemployed women and children of Ulster—and you have handed it over to a foreign Parliament." That is this Parliament, and yet he comes here and challenges us in Ulster with barely meeting all the charges which have been made upon us by the British Parliament.
    I would like to say how much I appreciated, on the part of the Ulster people, the attitude taken up by hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Bench here and of the Labour party when they were a Government, because they dealt fearlessly and honourably with us, and I beg the Leader of the Opposition to get up and say that we Ulstermen met every demand which the Labour party, when they were in office, made upon us, honestly and honourably. I believe he is good enough to get up and say that here. Let me tell the Committee what we are doing. The Ulster people never agreed to the setting up of the Free State and the partition of Ireland. The partition was brought about by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone and his friends. We always wanted Ireland to be united here in the freest of all Parliaments and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That was what we always fought for, and to say, as he said, that we Ulstermen agree to this or any other charge being made is as true as anything else that the hon. Gentleman has said during these debates. What were the actual facts with reference to the 1920 Act?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not enter too much into matters conected with the position of Ireland which has nothing to do with the question of these charges.
    Mr. ROSS: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) discussed this issue yesterday.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are now more confined in what is permitted to be discussed than we were on Second Reading. We are talking now of one particular Clause.
    Mr. DIXON: I was only answering the charge that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone made that the Ulster people agreed to pay £7,000,000 annually
    774
    to the British Government and that they had run away from that promise. The case I was making was that no such agreement was ever made. The actual working arrangements under the 1920 Act was that the Exchequer Board decided the taxable capacity of the Ulster people, and I am bound to tell the Committee that every demand that was made upon them by the Exchequer Board, demands which had Arisen from a Committee consisting of Englishmen with a Scottish Chairman, has been met by the Ulster people. Therefore, the charge of bad faith that has been laid against the Ulster people by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone is absolutely untrue and should never have been made.
    A paper has been issued to Members with reference to the sums of money which were supposed to have been paid by Ulster on the one hand and the Free State on the other in their contributions to Great Britain. If hon. Members read that paper, they will find that all the receipts which came back to Ulster are put down, but none of the receipts which came back from the Free State are put down. My only comment is that Mr. Hatry is doing time for bringing out a balance-sheet of a similar character. Another point which was raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone is extraordinarily important and should have been given more attention by the Committee. That is the question of the committee of arbitration. I hope that if the British Government set up a committee of arbitration, they will take great care to see that the committee are well compensated for sitting, because they will need it before they are finished. No matter what committee is set up, if those who are represented in this House by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone do not have representation, it will be wrong, it will be corrupt, and it will be followed to the last day of its life by every Irishman who is a follower of his.
    Take what he said about the Boundary Commission. In all the years I have been in this House I have never heard any hon. Member make statements such as were made by the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh without being pulled up in some way or other. He said that a judge of the High Court of one of our Dominions was a corrupt, incompetent and get-at-able person. That is what he said. As the question

    775
    has been raised here, let me show how the Boundary Commission was composed. I do so to show what chance there would be for any tribunal such as we have been asked to set up to deal with this question. The Boundary Commission consisted of three gentlemen. One was Mr. McNeill; he and Mr. Arthur Griffiths were practically the founders of the Free State as it exists to-day. At the time of the 1916 rebellion, Mr. McNeill was the actual leader and he would have remained leader, only when he found that there would be so much bloodshed he advised at the last moment that no rebellion should take place, and he lost the leadership. I do not think anyone in Ireland or out of it will challenge the devotion of Mr. McNeill to the Irish cause, as he saw it. Another member of the Commission was Mr. Fisher, a well known London journalist. The third member and the Chairman of the Commission was a South African judge, Mr. Justice Feetham. He was a gentleman, who was certainly not liked in Ulster, and there was no reason why he should be liked, for during all his political life he had gone in for a watery form of Home Rule. He was one of the Round Table Conference. His appointment was hailed with joy by certain people in this House, who thought, "now we have them."
    The Commission sat and took evidence, and then it suddenly dawned on them that the evidence was going entirely contrary to what had been expected, and that if the Commission was to continue Ulster would get a good bit of Donegal and Monaghan and Cavan. Then what happened? The Free State withdrew from the Commission and said "We will agree to anything so long as the report of the Commissioner is not issued"; and it has been never issued. If it had been, some of the good boys of Donegal would be in the Ulster Parliament now. I am giving these facts to show the dangers and the realities of what we are up against. Further, for years afterwards those Commissioners had to walk about with detectives behind them. Mr. Justice Feetham had to sit in his Court with two detectives behind him. Let me tell the Committee this: that if I were asked to set up a Committee I would put on it one or two members
    776
    from the other side, because that would finish them.
    I apologise for taking so much time. It is a very wrong atmosphere in which to go into this question. The atmosphere that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone wanted to bring into this Committee was that my right hon. Friend, the Dominions Secretary, and those who are going to vote for this, are against the Free State and want to down the Free State commercially, and in every other way. A greater fallacy was never put forward. I say to him here and now that for 10 years, when Mr. Cosgrave was President of the Free State, we worked with him amicably, commercially, and in every possible way that we could. I say again, on behalf of the Ulster Government, that we would far rather see the Free State happy than see it miserable. There has been too much trouble, and I would rather go racing.
    I will vote for this, but I am voting against the interests of many of my friends in Ulster and, as many of my Clydeside friends will know, against the interests of the men who put the cattle on the boat and bring them over. This is going to hit them and to hit many of my friends in the Free State. The worst of it is that it is going to hit myself. I want the Committee to understand that I love Ireland just as much as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone. I have a real and honest sympathy for the Dominions Secretary, although he took a different view of the Irish question than I did. He spent the best years of his life for what he thought was Home Rule I always knew that Home Rule would bring misery and unhappiness. I am more of a Unionist here to-night than I have ever been. You must not believe that because a man is an Ulsterman he cannot be a decent and loyal Irishman.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down opened his speech by declaring that he did not know what good speeches did in this House. I confess that after listening to him speak after a silence of 10 years as a Member of this House, I am afraid he has not created a better atmosphere for the appreciation of speeches than hitherto existed. For the life of me I could not understand what his purpose was in making that speech.
    Mr. DIXON: May I tell you?
    Mr. DEVLIN: You did tell us.
    Mr. DIXON: Well, I will tell you again. It is in defence of the decent people of Ulster.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I know the sort of people that you represent.
    The CHAIRMAN: Both hon. Members should address their compliments to each other through the Chair.
    Mr. DEVLIN: "Around this circle, my compliments will go." The hon. Gentleman has selected a very evil moment for a speech. He talks about the "decent people" that he represents; only within the last fortnight we read the story, the most disgraceful story recorded in modern history, of how his followers wrecked trains, beat women—[Interruption.]
    Mr. DIXON: Just let me say this. Not only is the statement of the hon. Gentleman untrue, but only yesterday or the day before, when the matter was raised, he said "Leave that out."
    Mr. DEVLIN: You would like to leave it out. You select your own case and you select mine as well. The hon. Member has the impudence to come down to this House to make a personal attack on me. I do not object in the least. I enter into this conflict and every other conflict in the full determination that I am prepared to get what I give. When the hon. Member starts to talk with that disgusting unctuousness of Ulster loyalty and how he represents the decent people, I am going to tell the Committee here and now the character of the people he represents. One of the things the hon. Member did not tell the Committee was that after the Feetham Commission he and his friends so gerry-mandered the constituencies in Ireland that it takes 20,000 more voters to return me to the Northern Parliament than it does to return him. I know my own limitations, but at all events, electorally, I am worth more than half of him. But the hon. Gentleman should not be too hard on a humble politician like myself because politics with him is merely a well-paid, dissipation. Like men of his class, he serves the State at a very high price, but he has one advantage over many people in commerce, that he determines his own price and states his own value. I am a very poor
    778
    man and he is a very rich man. He is one of the best-paid patriots in Ireland. When he tells me I am an enemy of Ulster, let me tell him this. I could have gone into the Free State and occupied a very prominent position. I could have gone into this party, I think, and have occupied a very big position in it, but I remained in Belfast, the last thing that any selfish person would do, where I have devoted my whole life—not to horse-racing which the hon. Member, on his own admission, has.
    Mr. DIXON: It is the dogs you have gone to.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The only time I remember that I 'have gone to see greyhound racing was at the request of the hon. Member's leader, the Prime Minister, to assist a charitable purpose in the interests of hospitals. That is a mean and unworthy sugestion from this sporting and racing politician who, after being inarticulate for ten years, delivers the elocutionary performance which he has given the Committee to-night. Who are these decent people with whom I have remained in Belfast and fought for and defended against every interest I have? They are the people who in pursuance of their regilious duties on a solemn occasion were beaten and the trains that carried them wrecked—women and children beaten, mobs attacking their houses—a disgraceful orgy, abuse and attack that aroused the indignation and resentment of every decent person throughout. Europe.
    The CHAIRMAN: Though occasionally when an hon. Member is led into a somewhat personal attack on another hon. Member one must allow that to be answered, I hope the hon. Member will confine himself to replying to those personal attacks and not drag in other bodies in Ireland which have nothing to do with the matter.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will leave it at that; he will probably not make a speech for the next 10 years; but I will come to some of the statements he has made. It is true—I do not deny it—that I have repeatedly said in the Ulster Parliament, and I say here now, that when you set up two Parliaments in Ireland you ought to have let them manage their own affairs and keep their own money. In the South

    779
    of Ireland you are wanting to take their money, and you are snaking money contributions to them. I am an Irishman as well as an Ulsterman, and I want fair play for the South as well as the North. The right hon. Member told us about his loyalty. Let me tell him that, in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Healy), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed the House that in the last six years Ulster paid £4,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer, and got £6,000,000 in return. It is no wonder that he calls you Hatry.
    Mr. DIXON: That is quite incorrect. [Interruption.]
    12 m.
    Mr. D EVLIN: These gentlemen think that they can, in their rare interventions in these Debates, make any sort of attacks and charges that they like, and which the right hon. Gentleman, when he is face to face with me in the Ulster Parliament, dare not make there. He comes here because he thinks he has his friends around him. I have spoken in hostile assemblies before, and I am not afraid of them here and now. Let the right hon. Gentleman not deal with my figures when he comes here to talk about loyal Ulster; let him deal with the figures recited by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [Interruption.] If the figures I have quoted are not correct, the Financial Secretary can contradict me. They are not my figures; they are his. If there is to be a row about this business, it is not between them and me, but between you and them, because they are your figures. I should not pay any attention to these people but for the fact that they are always parading their loyalty to the Empire and to this country, and their contribution to the Treasury takes the form of getting £6,000,000 and paying £4,000,000. They are the rich Province. and they tell us we are not loyal, but we take up the attitude that I take up of demanding freedom. Even when you have divided the nation into two you ought to give their Parliaments the most vital of all rights, and that is the right to control their own finance. That is my position. I am sorry I have had to intervene in this Debate again, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman
    780
    who is a racing man and a sport, has waited until he believed I had left the House.
    Mr. DIXON: That really is not worthy of the hon. Member. I did not speak until he came in.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman should have given me notice. This is not a Parliamentary or political contribution to the Debate. I have no doubt spoken strongly in the House. I may have spoken violently and passionately, but I have made no personal attacks upon anyone. I regret that these altercations should take place in the House—[Interruption.]— If the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a high regard for the glory of the Imperial Parliament and some appreciation of the diffisulties that exist here, will come over from his occupation of a London barrister and meet me on an Ulster platform we can discuss the question there. I object to him parading his loyalty. What are the facts of the situation? The first rebellion that took place in this Empire since the revolt of Canada against the interference of this country took place in Ulster. They were the architects of that rebellion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman left horses and took to guns. He brought shiploads of guns into Lame. They taught the people to rebel.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep strictly to the Clause.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Very well. If they keep their tempers I will keep to the Clause. I have said enough. Anything further I will say in the home sacrosanct to him and to me, where we come from and where we ought to stay, in my opinion. If I had anything to do with the concerns of this country I would say to North and South alike, "Go home and live in your own country. Do not come here to interfere in our affairs. You have Parliaments of your own. Stay there. If you did, the Irish people, North and South, uninfluenced by peregrinating politicians, racing and otherwise, would settle down and adjust their own differences. If you had passed a Measure to give Ireland one Parliament, no doubt we should have had unhappy controversies such as we have here to-night, but we would have settled them there and then. These gentlemen know that they have you behind them with all your power and

    781
    wealth, and in the incidents which have occurred in the House in the last few days there has been a rich and powerful party behind these paraders of loyalty. Therefore, I say that I regret to have had to intervene again in this Debate and to give this as my answer to the right honourable, gallant and racing Member for East Belfast.
    Mr. MANDER: I only rise for one moment in order to put a question—
    Mr. COCKS: Sit down!
    Mr. MANDER: I will sit down if the Chairman says "sit down." I rise in order to put a question to the Government of which I have given notice to the Attorney-General. It is very important that we should be as clear in our minds as possible as to what we are doing in this most difficult and deplorable situation. I want to put a question in order to clarify a certain point. Will the Attorney-General be good enough to state whether, with regard to the arbitration proceedings which are being discussed, it is the proposal of the Government—and also what is the view perhaps of the other side—that the matter has to be decided as a justiciable dispute on the basis—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I want to ask for your ruling, Sir Dennis. I understand that, apart from the little disputes we have had, we are now discussing Clause 1. I ask whether in this Clause there is any reference to arbitration or to arbitration courts. If it is not mentioned, are we entitled to debate on Clause 1 a subject which is not contained in that Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the matter should be elaborated, but, after a Debate such as we have had, I think that the hon. Member may be justified in asking a question on arbitration. Of course, the matter cannot be discussed at length.
    Mr. MAXTON: Further to that point of Order. Admittedly, the question is of interest and importance to the House. There is the Third Reading stage tomorrow. I and my hon. Friends have observed very closely the Rules of Debate on this matter, and we are going to see to it, as far as the Rules of the House support us, that the Attorney-General is not allowed to make statements which are
    782
    not in keeping with the Rules of Order of the House. I put it to you, Sir, that there is no place for a speech by the Attorney-General on the question of arbitration in what we are doing, namely, discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part."
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member can rely upon me, as far as possible, to keep the learned Attorney-General in order as much as I would any other Member.
    Mr. LANSBURY: If, as may very well be, the Attorney-General makes a statement which nay hon. and learned Friend may desire to controvert, I do not think that it is fair to lay it down that only the question and answer are to be allowed on so important a subject. It is not as if there will not be full opportunity tomorrow, when the Third Reading is taken, for the question to be put and answered. I respectfully suggest that we ought not to embark on a discussion at this hour of the morning upon something which is not really relevant. We had, I beg to point out, an Amendment on the Paper which you did not call and which therefore we were not allowed to debate. It seems to us at least rather extraordinary that a question should be answered on so controversial a subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to me he would have heard me say, that I did not intend to allow discussion.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is not our point.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman's next point is a purely hypothetical one, such as I have often complained of his raising before. [Interruption.] If in using the word "Complained" I have uttered words which have hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings in any way, I am sorry.
    Mr. COCKS: Our feelings, too.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will put it another way. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a hypothetical question, as he has done before, and I have been obliged to tell him that I cannot be called upon to give a Ruling as to whether, if somebody takes a certain line in a speech, it will or will not be in order. I must wait until I hear it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I make this Motion to put myself in order and to get this matter cleared up.
    The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) desires to put a question to the Attorney-General on a highly controversial question which has no relation to the motion before the Committee. We feel that in this matter there cannot be merely question and answer, and that if the Attorney-General gives a reply which we consider is not a correct one we have a right to debate it. You have laid it down that there shall be no Debate on the subject. Therefore you have, I say very respectfully, dealt with the question beforehand and ruled that there is to be no discussion. I very respectfully suggest that if the Attorney-General is allowed to give an answer we must be allowed to discuss that answer. Seeing that it deals with a question which has nothing whatever to do with the Clause before the Committee. Moreover, the hon. Member who wishes to put the question will have ample opportunity to do so on the Third Reading.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion from the right hon. Gentleman, because it would be with the nature of a Motion to report Progress in order to discuss a Ruling which I have given from the Chair. I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that I was not here for some three hours, and am not quite certain what Debate has taken place on this point of arbitration. I am also at present under this further difficulty that the hon. Member who was addressing the Committee had not completed his question. I do not yet know what his question was, but so far as he had gone when he was interrupted on the point of Order it did seem to me that it had reference to a matter which was frequently referred to in speeches in the earlier part of the Debate when I was in the Chair. I did my best, on such information as I could gather, to understand the purport of the question, and I thought that it was one which might be rightly asked and rightly answered, but I did not think it was a matter which was open to discussion. If the hon. Member is allowed to complete his question, when I have heard it, I can consider whether I will allow it to be answered.
    Mr. LANSBURY: You have given your Ruling, and we have to accept your Ruling, on the understanding that at least you were aware of what the hon. Gentleman was going to ask; or we cannot understand your Ruling, I am sorry to say.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will understand better when I have given the Ruling.
    Mr. LANSBURY: But you have given it.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I gave, to the best of my ability, an answer to the question of Order which was raised. I did not raise the question myself. This is the difficulty in which I often find myself. I am asked whether a certain question which is threatened, or may I say proposed, to be asked, will be in Order. I made the best guess I could as to what the question was to be, and I gave my opinion. That is the whole matter. I cannot say definitely till the question is asked whether it is in Order or not. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, whether he agrees with my Ruling or not, and whichever way I rule when I have heard the question, will accept my Ruling.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Obviously, both myself and I hope, all my colleagues, will in the last resort accept your Ruling, whatever it is, but I beg to ask you to remember that you have already given a Ruling, and the Ruling was that you would allow the question and you would allow the answer, but no discussion on the answer, and it was on that that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself rose. You ruled, first, that the question should be asked, and, second, that there should be no discussion, and it is about that that we are protesting. As I understand that we may get out of the difficulty another way—
    Mr. MANDER: I think I may be able to make a suggestion which will perhaps dispose of the matter to the satisfaction of the Committee. I have no desire to put forward anything which will place any hon. Members in a difficulty. What I suggest is that, in accordance with your Ruling, I may be permitted to put the question now. I do not propose that an

    785
    answer should be given to-day. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to be here to-morrow but perhaps the Government will be good enough to give an answer.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    The CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. Member. I understand that he wishes to ask the Government a question. Hon. Members who think they know definitely what that question is going to be think that it is a question which should not be asked nor answered in this Debate. The hon. Member will ask his question, and I am prepared to give my Ruling, as to whether I think it should be dealt with in this Debate. If I rule that it cannot be dealt with in this Debate, the hon. Member's question must not be taken as one which is asked with a view to an answer being given on another occasion.
    Mr. MANDER: My question is this: whether the proposed arbitration proceedings in the dispute between this country and the Irish Free State must be on the basis of a justiciable dispute, in the existing state of the law, between the two countries, or whether it is proposed to deal with the matter on the basis of equity, giving a decision, as it is called ex aequo et bono.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is not in the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a different Question to any which was raised in any part of the Debate this afternoon. The question of arbitration generally was a matter which has been argued, as to whether this Clause should be passed, or whether, on the other hand, some method of arbitration should be adopted. If the hon. Member asks a question of detail of this kind, it depends entirely upon whether there will be any arbitration at all. I must rule that, in any event it would he entirely outside the limits of this Clause, as a matter of detail which could not be raised, on an assumption that something is agreed upon which is not contemplated by the Clause or the Bill.
    Mr. McENTEE: I was associated for many years with the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of spokesman for the Conservative Government in this Debate. I was associated with him sufficiently closely, and for a
    786
    sufficient length of time, to know that during all that period he deplored the action of the Government of the day, and that he also lent his aid in negotiations that were then taking place to bring about a spirit of arbitration and of conciliation that he now apparently has forgotten. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? I have listened to the speeches which have been made during the time that I have been in the Chamber. I am making a plea, as one who was associated with him for many years and who admired his desire for conciliation and arbitration in the days when he was representing a different party and a different point of view from that which he holds to-day.
    I want to remind the Committee of the consequences of the action that was taken by the Government in those days, and to remind Conservatives, particularly, that they were just as blatant and as cocksure as they are to-day that all that they have to do is to issue their commands and the people over in Ireland will obey. In those days, I held their point of view, I was associated with their party. I was a member of an Orange institution. Because of the associations of my childhood and early manhood, I was led to believe that peace in Ireland lay along that road.
    I was in Ireland a few weeks ago. I was in Belfast and I would like to pay a tribute to the courtesy and generosity of the people of Belfast on the occasion of my visit. I went there to Dublin, and I must pay the same tribute to the people there. In Belfast one thing struck me as a visitor who had not been there for many years. There were arms everywhere. The policemen carried arms as they walked about the streets in every part of Northern Ireland. In Southern Ireland there were no arms. The policemen did not carry them; the soldiers did not carry them—they were prohibited. Coming back from that very short trip—it had something to do with this case—travelling from Belfast, I heard the beating of the drums, the "war drums" as they call them there. Our friends opposite who represent that section of opinion in Belfast, will know what I mean. The drummers were practising for next week—the Twelfth of July. I wish it were possible for every Member of this Committee to visit Belfast next week and to have visited Southern Ireland a week or two

    787
    ago. Speaking as a Southern Irish Protestant, who lived among Catholics for the greater part of my early years and who received nothing but courtesy and consideration from them although associated politically with those in the North of Ireland holding an entirely different point of view, I want to say that I left my own country because of what I saw in Northern Ireland. It compelled me to think and I joined another party. But I can say this. I have never been an Irish Nationalist. I have never devoted one moment of my time to Irish Nationalism. I have never been an admirer of Mr. de Valera. [An HON. MEMBER: "Splen-did!"] The hon. Lady who interrupts might keep her interruptions to herself.
    12.30 a.m.
    When Mr. de Valera made his first statement in regard to retaining the money now in dispute I wrote a letter to a brother of mine. [Laughter.] Some of the hon. Members who laugh may not laugh five years from now. I am mentioning the matter for this reason. I then held the view which is now apparently held on the Front Bench opposite, that Mr. de Valera was entirely wrong and had no justification for his action. I expressed that view in the letter to which I refer, and I do not see that there is much to laugh at in that. The reply which I received made me examine the facts and I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, who probably has not examined the facts in the spirit in which I did so, that there is a case on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman's position in this matter is "my country—right or wrong," but that will not carry him very far. It will not settle the dispute. The sword never settled anything, whether it be the physical sword or that sword proposed to be used by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs now. Very much greater power was exercised by this country in an endeavour to compel people in Ireland to accept the view of a front bench of Tories in past days than the right hon. Gentleman has now. It failed, and a Conservative Government was compelled by sheer force of circumstances to take action that it declined to take for a great number of years. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, although he may be quite sure in his own mind that the imposition of a tariff may settle this
    788
    matter, it will not settle it for Ireland or for this country, but will create a feeling of bitterness here and in Ireland and in many other parts of the world. I regret the wordy warfare that has taken place between two hon. Members who are Irishmen, one from the North of Ireland and one from the South. It may be laughed at here, but it will not be laughed at in Ireland. I left Ireland nine years ago, and I represent a constituency which the Dominions Secretary knows well. I have to ask myself what the people in that constituency expect me to do in the circumstances which we are now discussing, and the answer I will give is that, when it is a question of possible bloodshed and of certain hardship, they would expect me to be conciliatory. I learned my conciliatory attitude to life as much from the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs, who has lost his ideals, as I did from any other man living. He taught me that there is no possibility of settling anything by force. I put it to him now—I am trying to put it to him, I ought to say, because he is not listening He pays no attention. It is of no importance to him. May I say to him: Do you prefer just to hold on to office and forget all your principles? Is it too much to ask you to listen for a moment and not to interrupt when there is somebody earnest and determined and begging of you just to remember those principles for which you stood for so long? I ask you if you will now try a little more conciliation and make a little more effort just to settle that one small point between you and Mr. de Valera. You did not know that money was being held in a separate fund.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better address the Chair.
    Mr. McENTEE: I will address the right hon. Gentleman through you. He was inclined to deny that money was being held in a separate fund. When the proof was given to him, he said that it makes all the difference in the world, and I say to him now: "let it make just this other little difference, that you will hold your hand in this action that might have disastrous consequences all over the world." The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill with all its consequences will operate. I wonder whether he has considered what the consequences may be. In the first place, a few farmers in Ireland will pro-

    789
    bably be ruined. That is perhaps a very little consequence. We know that farmers in Ireland have been ruined over and over again by the past policies of this House. But there may be other consequences. I wonder who is going to pay this money ultimately. The farmers of Ulster and Southern Ireland may be ruined. The right hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Dixon) said it would affect him; that many of his friends in Northern Ireland will possibly be ruined, too, and many of the people in this country who trade with them. This taxation when it is imposed has to be paid by someone, and it cannot be paid until the goods come in here. Does anyone imagine that the importer here will pay it? He will pass it on to someone else, and ultimately it will reach the consumer, so that it is mainly the poor people in our own country who will have to pay. The poor people will be the victims. But if the tax is not recovered and the goods are kept out, how will the Government get the £5,000,000? I have heard a threat in this House that this is a game which the other side can play. They in their turn can also impose a tariff to recover the money you are recovering from them. I wonder where this stupid, ridiculous war will end. [Interruption.] It will not be ended by a few laughs from a. few stupid, ridiculous over-fed people on the other side of this House.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to introduce these personal remarks.
    Mr. McENTEE: I will withdraw that remark, but I wish people who made those remarks earlier when speeches were made from this side would withdraw. They were not asked to withdraw. I am serious here, and I do not come here to be laughed at by anyone. My experience is that the people who will ultimately suffer in this stupid, ridiculous struggle will be our own people here in this country.
    Over 90 per cent. of my constituents are poor people, and they will have to pay in consequence of this Bill. I am making a plea to the right hon. Gentleman
    to try a little more persuasion and conciliation.
    Mr. HOWARD: Tell that to Mr. de Valera.
    Mr. McENTEE: I would not hesitate if he were here, but it takes two people to make a settlement. I resent the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We are going to impose our form of tribunal, and he says that, if they do not accept our form of tribunal, then—let me quote the right hon. Gentleman's words—"This Bill with all its consequences will operate." While it may operate, I venture to make this prophecy, the right hon. Gentleman, if he lives for another 10 years, and if I do, we will be able to discuss this matter from a different point of view, and he will regret the action which he has taken to-day. He will regret it because of its consequences and of its operation to which he is so anxious to give effect. He said he would accept nothing. I am not like other people; I am in position; I have power, and I am going to wield it. I say to both of you, you can pass your insulting remarks one to another as long as you like. [Interruption.] The people opposite will judge you and when the opportunity comes some of the insulting remarks you are passing will be remembered.
    Mr. THOMAS: indicated dissent.
    Mr. McENTEE: Of course you are, [Interruption.] I was in the last Parliament. I sat here for hours, literally hours night after night, listening to speeches by some of you who definitely desired to waste time. If you think you can try to shout me down by that kind of thing, you are making the mistake of your lives. The right hon. Gentleman will not listen to reason. He has power, but I would remind him that the people have power, too.
    Mr. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: ayes, 207; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 299.]

    AYES

    [12.45 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Albery, Irving James

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Hornby, Frank

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Bateman, A. L.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Robinson, John Roland

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Rosbotham, S. T.

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

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Bernays, Robert

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Blindell, James

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Boulton, W. W.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.

    Janner, Barnett

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Briant, Frank

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Ken, J. Campbell

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Slater, John

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Kimball, Lawrence

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Burnett, John George

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Leckie, J. A.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Carver, Major William H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Levy, Thomas

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

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

    Stones, James

    Colville, John

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Cook, Thomas A.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Copeland, Ida

    McLean, Major Alan

    Sudden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Magnay, Thomas

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Crossley, A. C.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Templeton, William P.

    Curry, A. C.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

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

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Mitcheson, G. G.

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

    Donner, P. W.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Munro, Patrick

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nunn, William

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

    Eimley, Viscount

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Penny, Sir George

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Petherick, M.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Womersley, Walter James

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rankin, Robert

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Captain Austin Hudson and Commander Southby.

    NOES

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Healy, Cahir

    Milner, Major James

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Dagger, George

    Lawson, John James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Mr. Edwards and Mr. Duncan

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Graham.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes,26.

    Division No. 300.]

    NOES

    [12.55 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Albery, Irving James

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Apsley, Lord

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hornby, Frank

    Robinson, John Roland

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Rothschild, James A. de

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

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

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

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Bernays, Robert

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Blinden, James

    Janner, Barnett

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Boulton, W. W.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Slater, John

    Briant, Frank

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Somerset, Thomas

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E

    Burnett, John George

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Levy, Thomas

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Castlereagh. Viscount

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Stones, James

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

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    Colfax, Major William Philip

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Colville, John

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Conant, R. J. E.

    McLean, Major Alan

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Copeland, Ida

    Margeseon, Capt. Henry David R.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Templeton, William P.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

    Curry, A. C.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

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

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Munro, Patrick

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Donner, P. W.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

    Nunn, William

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Elliot. Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Waterhouse. Captain Charles

    Eimley, Viscount

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Emrys-Evans. P. V.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Penny, Sir George

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Esserthigh, Reginald Clare

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Petherick, M.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

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

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Greene. William P. C.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Rankin, Robert

    Captain Austin Hudson and Lord

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Erskine.

    NOES

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

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

    Healy, Cahir

    Milner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hirst, George Henry

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Dagger, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Tinker.

    Clauses 2 (Value of articles for purposes of Act), and 3 (Short title and construction), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

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

    BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forth-
    796
    with," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. H. Williams.]
    Lords Amendment considered accordingly, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Five Minutes after One o'clock.

  CHINA (LEGATIONS).
  CHINA (LEGATIONS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES AND FREE PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES AND FREE PLACES).
  FLYING CLUBS (SUBSIDY).
  FLYING CLUBS (SUBSIDY).
  WIDOW'S PENSION.
  WIDOW'S PENSION.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (RELIEVING OFFICERS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (RELIEVING OFFICERS).
  TUBERCULOSIS (M. SPAHLINGER'S TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOSIS (M. SPAHLINGER'S TREATMENT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES).
  OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE WAR.
  OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE WAR.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
  WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
  WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
  CEYLON (PRISON INQUIRY).
  CEYLON (PRISON INQUIRY).
  STREET TRADING (GIRLS).
  STREET TRADING (GIRLS).
  BRENTFORD FAIR.
  BRENTFORD FAIR.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER (PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER (PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
  COAL PRICES (FARMERS).
  COAL PRICES (FARMERS).
  ROADS (EXPENDITURE).
  ROADS (EXPENDITURE).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
HIRE PURCHASE AND SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
EXTRADITION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we proceed with to-day's business may I be allowed to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House whether he would be good enough to give us some idea of the work to be got through before the end of this Session?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am glad to answer the noble Lord's question. To-morrow I propose to ask the House to have a purely formal meeting at four o'clock to receive from another place the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill, which is expected to pass there some time to-morrow. I thought we might take the same opportunity of giving a Third Reading to the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill, which I do not think any of your Lordships would desire to debate on Third Reading. As the Amendments will have to go to another place it would be a great convenience if we could get that disposed of.
650
I am afraid that on Monday I shall have to put down a Motion to suspend Standing Orders to pass the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill through all its stages. Your Lordships will realise that it is a matter of urgency. It will, of course, be a certified Bill so, presumably, there will be no Committee or Report stage. I thought also that it would be well on the same occasion to take the Report and Third Reading of the Sunday Entertainments Bill. Otherwise it will be almost impossible to get our Amendments discussed in another place. Then there will be the Public Works Loans Bill and the Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill—both certified Bills—which are down for Second Reading to-day. I thought we might also take the Third Reading of those Bills.
On Tuesday there will be the Commons agreement or disagreement with your Lordships' Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Commons agreement or disagreement with Amendments to the Sunday Entertainments Bill and possibly—it depends on what happens to-day—any discussion which may be necessitated by disagreement between the two Houses with regard to the Children and Young Persons Bill. There is also a Motion by Lord Lovat in regard to piers in the Highland counties. If all goes well we propose on Wednesday to ask the House to adjourn till October 27, with what is now becoming the usual power for the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons to summon us at short notice if emergency should arise.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There is one other point I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount. I presume that on Monday we shall sit at three o'clock?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I had not intended to propose that, but if the noble Lord thinks there will be any prolonged discussion we could do so. I had rather anticipated that there would be no very long debate on the Second Reading of the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill and I thought that a quarter past four would be soon enough. If the noble Lord or any other member of your Lordships' House thinks that will not give satisfaction I shall be glad to meet the convenience of the House.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not want to press the point at all. I only thought that possibly on the Irish Duties Bill there might be a certain number of your Lordships who would wish to speak. It has become rather convenient to meet at an earlier hour.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make inquiry through the usual channels and decide that in consultation with other members of your Lordships' House before we adjourn this evening.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): 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—
(b) that such sums as may be specified by the authority not exceeding the amount estimated by the authority as the amount of the profits which will be received from cinematograph entertainments given while the place is open on Sundays, and from any other entertainment or exhibition given therewith, and calculated by reference to such estimated profits or to such proportion of them as the authority think fit, will be paid as to the prescribed percentage thereof to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and as to the remainder thereof to such persons as may be specified by the authority for the purpose of being applied to charitable objects;
and for the purpose of any conditions imposed by an authority as to the payment of sums calculated by reference to such estimated profits as aforesaid, the profits shall be computed in such manner as the authority may direct.
(3) If, in any place allowed under this section to be opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, any person is employed on any Sunday contrary to the conditions subject to which the place was allowed to be so opened and used, and it is proved—

(a) that the employment was solely due to an emergency caused by a mechanical breakdown, or to the unavoidable absence of a skilled worker due to attend on that Sunday for whom no substitute could readily have been obtained; and

(b) that the emergency was notified, within twenty-four hours after it occurred, to the authority by whom the place is licensed under the Cinematograph Act, 1909; and

(c) that the person employed on that Sunday contrary to the said conditions received a day's rest in lieu of that Sunday;

that employment shall be deemed not to have been a contravention of the conditions subject to which the place was allowed to be so opened and used as aforesaid.
(5) This section extends to every area in which places licensed by the authority having power in that area to grant licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, were, within the period of twelve months ending on the sixth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, in pursuance of arrangements (not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions) purported to have been made with the authority, and shall also extend to any borough or county district to which it may be extended by an order laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, and approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved in paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), after "percentage thereof," to insert "if any." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is one which I think will meet with general approval. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that there will be no obligation upon the Secretary of State to prescribe that any percentage shall be set aside for the purposes described in Clause 2. It was never intended that it should be obligatory on the Secretary of State to set aside a sum of money in any one year. The maximum limit was prescribed of 5 per cent., but it was always intended that he should only have power to prescribe such a percentage as seemed to him, after consultation with the authorities and the Privy Council, could be usefully spent. If it turned out in any

653
one year there were no useful means of spending the money the percentage would be annulled.
It was not quite clear in the Bill, or at least it was thought it might not be, that it was open to the Secretary of State to say that there should be no percentage and the words "if any" are proposed to be inserted so that the paragraph will read:
"calculated by reference to such estimated profits or to such proportion of them as the authority think fit, will be paid as to the prescribed percentage thereof, if any, to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund."
I have to explain that there is another Amendment down with regard to Clause 5. Those two Amendments read together make it certain that the Secretary of State will not be under any obligation to prescribe any percentage at all in any year unless he thinks it useful so to do.
As I am mentioning this Fund I do not know whether it would be convenient to your Lordships if I were to answer the questions raised by the most rev. Primate yesterday. The most natural place would be on the question that Clause 2 stand part and perhaps the Committee would prefer it to come then. I was only wondering whether we should not approach that discussion a little more intelligently if I were to give now an answer to those questions.
LORD ASKWITH: I think it would be more clear if it were done now—certainly with regard to my own Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Before the noble and learned Viscount continues there is one point I should like to mention. I think the noble and learned Viscount stated that the amount to be taken from the profits and put into the Fund was in no case to exceed 5 per cent., but in lines 3, 4 and 5 of page 2 the Bill says:
"such sums as may be specified by the authority not exceeding the amount estimated by the authority as the amount of the profits,"
and there it would seem they could take the whole of the profits. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will explain how those two things work in.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If my noble friend looks through the clause carefully he will see that he is dealing with two different things. Where it is said that
654
the authority may take away the whole of the profits that is the sum which they may insist on being paid over to charitable purposes. Lower down in the part we are now discussing, where we are dealing with the percentage, that is where the amount must not exceed 5 per cent. of the total taken away. The 5 per cent. will be found in the Definition Clause which states that the prescribed percentage "means such percentage, not exceeding 5 per cent." I hope that point is cleared up.
I will now just answer the two or three questions which the most rev. Primate was good enough to address to me yesterday with regard to the Cinematograph Fund and its application. The most rev Primate summarised his questions at the end of his speech in column 630 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He asked first: "Is this Fund to be earmarked specially for a proposed film institute or available for all concerned in the development of the industry?" The answer is that it is not to be specially earmarked for a proposed film institute and that it is to be available for all concerned in the development of the industry. As the most rev. Primate told your Lordships, there is at present no film institute. There is no reference to it in the Bill. It is true that in the debate in the Committee stage in another place the mover of the original Amendment moved it largely on the ground that a very influential committee had made a report which suggested the creation of such an institute. If such an institute be created it will be eligible to apply for a share in the Fund. Whether it will get any such assistance will depend on the nature of its constitution and the nature of the work it is performing. I think therefore I can answer that first question in a way which will be entirely satisfactory to the most rev. Primate.
The second question addressed to me was: "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?" Quite obviously if the film institute is constituted and if it is to have a public character it will be necessary that its constitution and powers should be submitted to Parliament, because you cannot set up a public body without public assent through Parliament. I cannot

655
answer whether the film institute will ever be created. It exists at present only in the report of the committee which has only just been made and has not even been considered by the Government as a whole. Whether or not any such institute will be created and, if it is, whether it will be given a public character are matters which rest with the future. If it is to be given a public character obviously it will be a matter for public discussion.
Then the most rev. Primate, although I do not think he refers to it in his summary at the end, asked whether this film institute was to have any kind of censorship over the films? As I understand, there is no suggestion that it is to have a censorship and so far as I am aware there is no sort of idea that any such duplication of censorship powers is desirable in the public interest or likely to be created. I can assure any of your Lordships who are concerned about the matter that we are not in any way committing ourselves to a film institute whose existence, powers and character are at present unknown, and I am glad to give those assurances which I think would have been satisfactory to the most rev. Primate had he been here, because he said they would largely influence his mind in deciding how far the establishment of the proposed Fund was desirable or not.
The position is that under Clause 2 a Fund is to be administered by the Privy Council for the purpose of the improvement of films and of the character of cinema entertainments, an object which I am sure, after some of the speeches that we have heard from Lord Danesfort and others, will commend itself to your Lordships' House; and we provide by Amendments that we are coming to presently for the most careful audit and for account being given to Parliament of any use that is made of the money paid into that Cinematograph Fund. We are not in any way proposing to give this money to the film institute, if such Fund comes into being, nor are we pledged as to the character that the film institute, if it ever exists, will assume. I am much obliged to your Lordships for allowing me to explain that now, and it will probably be more convenient to discuss the nature of the institute when we come to Clause 2. Possibly, also, my explana-
656
tion will make it easier to concentrate upon relevant points, rather than debate something which is not mentioned in the Bill and is not now in existence, and of the nature of which your Lordships possibly have no more definite idea than I have. My explanation will make it clear that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to prescribe any particular percentage.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, after ("thereof") insert ("if any").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had on the Paper an Amendment, in paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The noble Lord said: I do not know if your Lordships would discuss this now.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment is consequential on the omission of Clause 2.
LORD LAMINGTON: I quite agree, and I do not know whether your Lordships would wish to discuss this Amendment now or wait until we reach Clause 2, which I hope will be deleted from the Bill.
LORD IRWIN: Might I suggest that the Amendment should not be moved at this stage? Then, if we are successful in moving out Clause 2, no doubt the House would be willing to accept this Amendment, as consequential, on the Report stage.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM,LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had placed on the Paper an Amendment in the same terms, said: I quite agree with the suggestion which has just been made.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There seems to be complete unanimity, and I was going to make the same suggestion. I am much obliged to Lord Irwin for his suggestion.
LORD GREVILLE LORD GREVILLE moved to omit from paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), "to such persons as may be specified by the authority for the purpose of being applied." The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is to ask the noble and learned

657
Viscount if, under this Bill, the authorities have power to delegate to an outside body the distribution of the Fund for charitable purposes. My reason for asking this question is that on Tuesday there was a meeting of a great many charities of London—about 190 were represented—and they were asked which of three bodies they would like to have the power of distributing the Fund. The bodies mentioned were, I think, the London County Council, the Cinematograph Proprietors' Association and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware how at present charities obtain their share of the money from the Sunday performances. It is left to the charities themselves to go round and visit the various cinemas in their district, and anywhere else, and endeavour to get their names on the list and obtain a share of the profits. This may or may not be a very good way of doing it, but what I want to be assured of is that if these powers are delegated by the local authorities to outside bodies, there should be some proper rule and method for allocating these profits. At present it is rather in the nature of a cat and dog fight as to which charity can get to the door of the cinema first and get a share of the profits. That is the reason for putting down the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("thereof") to ("applied") in line 18.—(Lord Greville.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is obviously a matter very proper to be raised and considered. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord's description of the present position is quite complete. No doubt it is true that the charities go to the cinemas and try to pursuade the cinemas to allocate some of their profits to them, but before that takes place the council itself has to draw up a list of approved charities. What happens then is that there is a list made up by the County Council—I am speaking of London, because that is what principally matters now—on which certain charities are placed, when the County Council has satisfied itself—or themselves, whichever Lord Bertie pleases—as to the position and objects of the charity. The County Council also assign for each charity on its list a maximum sum beyond which it
658
may not receive any moneys out of this Fund. When that has been done the approved charities can obtain from the different cinemas any sums not exceeding in the aggregate that maximum. As I understand it, and as my noble friend has told your Lordships, there has been some discussion as to the best plan for the future, and I gather that that discussion has not so far resulted in any agreement.
As I understand it, under the Bill there will be one of two different methods which will be open to the licensing authority. Firstly, it will be open to the licensing authority to require all the payments by the different cinemas to be made to certain persons nominated by the London County Council who will be responsible for the distribution. I suppose they will set up a committee which will deal with it themselves. The other plan is to require each cinema to make its payments to persons specified, who would presumably be the secretaries of the charity or charities which are to benefit from the Sunday opening of the particular cinema or cinemas. So that under the terms of the Bill it is open to the licensing authority to keep the distribution in their own hands and it will be possible for the charities themselves to urge the authority to adopt that plan. Personally, if I may express an opinion, I think it would be a very great pity if the distribution of the money were not kept under the more direct control of the London County Council or the licensing authority, and I very much hope that agreement between the cinema industry and the local authorities and the charities may be reached on those lines. My noble friend put down the Amendment in order that the matter might be discussed, and not with a view of pressing it to a Division. Therefore I am not dealing with the technical difficulties of form to which the Amendment would give rise.
LORD GREVILLE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. My only reason for putting down this Amendment was to draw attention to the fact that when a charity got on this list it was entirely at the good will of the various cinema concerns. The actual authority did not place any charity on the list, but accepted the list of charities from the Cinema Association, or whatever the body was.

659
Having drawn attention to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "it is proved" and insert "either (i) it is proved." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the following Amendment go together. If your Lordships are good enough to accept them, the effect will be to give an employer a good defence who not only genuinely believes, but also has reasonable grounds for his belief, that the person whom he is charged with employing contrary to this Act has not been engaged by somebody else during the six previous days. He will have to prove to the satisfaction of a Court two things: (i) his genuine belief, and (2) that he has reasonable grounds for it. I think in many Acts there are similar provisions, and I hope on this occasion that the suggestions that such a provision should be inserted will appeal to your Lordships; otherwise, however unwittingly an employer has acted, he may find himself convicted quite unjustly on technical grounds, and such conviction will always stand on record against him, which would be manifestly unfair.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("it is proved") and insert ("either (i) it is proved").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Government agree that it is reasonable that an employer should not be mulcted if he can prove that he did not knowingly contravene the Statute in question. I understand that the noble Viscount's words are calculated to protect the employer to that extent, and the Government are therefore willing to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of paragraph (c) in subsection (3), to insert:
"or (ii) it is proved—

(a) that the person was employed contrary to the said conditions only by reason of his having been employed on each of the six days previous to that Sunday in connection with similar entertainments or exhibitions by an employer other than the employer who employed him on that Sunday; and

660

(b) that the last-mentioned employer had, after making due inquiry, reasonable ground for believing that he had not been so employed as aforesaid."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential, and is the one to which I referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "(not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions)." The noble Lord said: The object of Clause 1 of the Bill as it originally stood was to enable the practice of granting licences for Sunday entertainments to continue where licences have been granted in the past. The Bill has been so amended that past practice cannot be taken into account where permission granted to cinema owners has related only to specific occasions. The alteration has been made by the insertion in subsection (5) of the words "(not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions)." If these words were allowed to remain subsection (5) will not operate in the West Riding of Yorkshire, on whose behalf I have the honour to move this Amendment, unless a Special Order is made pursuant to the latter part of subsection (5) and the Schedule of the Bill, for the reason that all Sunday openings of cinemas in the West Riding are under arrangements relating only to specific occasions. The general rule is not to grant more than one permit per month. As there is no difference in principle between the conditions on which Sunday permits are given in the West Riding for specific occasions and the conditions included in subsection (5), there would appear to be no satisfactory reason for the retention of these words in the Bill. In fact, if they are left there they will interfere with a good many charities getting a considerable amount of money which they are now obtaining.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, lines 32 and 33, leave out from ("arrangements") to ("purported") in line 34.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, but in fact the words which are in brackets are put in for the deliberate purpose of preventing what the

661
noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, would like to see happen. The position is this. This Bill is in the nature of a compromise and the purpose of the Bill is primarily to preserve the status quo; that is to say, that in areas in which Sunday openings have taken place regularly in the past without apparent objection by the people Sunday opening shall continue, but that in other places it shall not take place unless the procedure is gone through which is set out in the Schedule and under which it will be necessary to ascertain that the people of any fresh district really desire a change and really desire to adopt Sunday performances.
It so happens that there are three or four areas in this country—the West Riding seems to be one; I believe Birmingham is another—where there has not been regular Sunday opening but where occasionally, for some particular charitable purpose, the authority has seen fit to license an opening. The best instance., I think, is Birmingham where there is known what is known as Cinema Hospital Sunday and on one Sunday in the year all the cinemas are open in order to raise a fund for charitable purposes. If these words which my noble friend seeks to delete are omitted the result will be that in such a place as Birmingham—which I take as a very convenient instance, because once a year the people do not mind, they probably approve of, the practice of opening cinemas to provide a fund for hospitals—it would be possible, without the people being consulted at all, to open the cinemas every Sunday of the year as a regular thing. It may be desirable, of course, to open cinemas all over the country, but that is not the scheme of this Bill. The scheme is that it shall only be done in places where it has commanded assent up to the present, and if any new area wishes to adopt the move of opening on Sunday that shall be done by at first ascertaining that the people of the district want it.
That arrangement, which is really a compromise accepted—I will not say agreed to—by each side, is completely destroyed if the Amendment is carried, because the result then is that without any such consultation of the people of the district, without any inquiry such as is prescribed by the Schedule, wherever it can be shown that once a year, for
662
example, a cinema has been licensed to open for a special purpose, hereafter it may be possible under the terms of the Bill for every cinema in the district to open every Sunday in the year. I am quite sure that is not a proposal which would commend itself to your Lordships because, quite irrespective of whether or not any of us think that it is a good or bad thing to open cinemas on Sundays, the whole scheme underlying this particular Bill is to ensure that you shall not upset the existing arrangement under which cinemas are regularly opened, without giving the people power to be consulted. It will still be open for West Riding, if it sees fit, to take advantage of the Schedule, and if the people desire regular openings they can get them by the machinery of that Schedule without any great loss of time and without great expense; but if this Amendment is carried, then, without the people being consulted, it will be possible to open not merely occasionally but regularly, and to make the Sunday opening of cinemas a regular practice in districts where hitherto it has been the practice for them to open only occasionally. On those grounds the Government hope that this Amendment will not be carried.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved to add to the clause:
"(6) This section shall not extend to Wales and Monmouthshire."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name seeks to exclude from the provisions of the Bill Wales and Monmouthshire so far as they relate to the granting of licences on Sunday. When I ventured to express the views of Wales upon this measure on Second Reading the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House, with his usual courtesy and fairmindedness, said he was quite prepared to listen to any arguments I might be able to bring forward to-day in Committee, but he indicated that there were elements of doubt in his mind whether those arguments would finally convince him. I think the Committee will, however, allow me a few moments to express as briefly as I can the position of Wales in regard to this Bill.
I begin with legislative precedents. I will remind the Committee once more of the two precedents which I adduced on Second Reading, the passing of the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill and the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. All I wish to say in regard to those precedents is this. It seems to me that they are an evidence of the fact that Parliament has, in the past, recognised the special conditions and needs of Wales in legislation. Another thing I should like to say in regard to both those special Welsh measures passed by Parliament is that there is not a shadow of doubt as to the value, the benefit and advantage of those measures to the public life of Wales.
Another point which I might be allowed to mention in connection with those Parliamentary precedents is this. When we are endeavouring to appraise the importance of Parliamentary precedents in a case of this sort, I think we ought to remind ourselves that these special precedents made in the case of Wales are only incidents in a long-continued demand for a certain degree of devolution of Parliamentary powers in relation to strictly local affairs. That is a big question, and I will not attempt to go into it to-day, but I think the time must come when, in the interests of the public business of the nation, some form or degree of devolution in regard to the treatment of local affairs must be carried into Parliamentary practice, and in that Wales has a very distinct and vital interest.
In the meantime, what are we in Wales to do? The only thing we can do when a Bill like this is presented, which has behind it undoubtedly the general assent of the majority in England and is passed against the majority view of the people in Wales, is to move, as I am doing, to exclude Wales. Here we come to the crux of the situation in regard to what we have for a long time regarded in Wales as a Parliamentary injustice—namely, that in relation to a great deal of the legislation passed by Parliament, it must be passed with the support of the majority of the representatives of England but against the wishes and views of the majority of the representatives of Wales, and this has happened in this case. As I reminded the House on Second Reading, in regard to the first form of this measure in the House of Commons twenty-five Welsh Members voted against it and five
664
for it, and when the second form of the measure came up for discussion—the Bill which we are to-day discussing here—in Committee eighteen voted for the exemption of Wales from the operation of the Bill and only two were found to support its inclusion. That, I think, will show the House what the position is. It does seem to me that it is a case which ought, at all events, to receive some consideration.
There is this further point in considering the situation of the Bill in regard to Wales. This Bill is not the result of a long-continued demand from the electorate of the country. It is not the result of the verdict of any Parliamentary Election. This Bill, as it comes before us to-day, is the result of what might be termed almost an accident—the wrong interpretation placed upon the law of the land by a certain number of local authorities. Because of that the necessity has arisen for dealing with this legal difficulty. Let me say at once that I recognise the necessity for dealing in some way with that legal difficulty, but the question that is raised in my Amendment to-day—namely, the exemption of Wales and Monmouthshire from the operation of this clause—is not whether that is necessary or not, neither is it a question of whether it is desirable or not that there should be some amendment of the law to meet the undoubted changes which are taking place in public opinion in regard to Sunday observance. The sole point which is raised in my Amendment to-day is whether it is desirable, whether it is right, whether it is just to force the consequences of this special legislation, which has become necessary owing to this accident in the legal position, upon Wales against the views and wishes of the great majority of the people.
I am not going to detain the Committee longer. I think I have stated, in outline at all events, the main reasons why I move this Amendment. The people of Wales open this Bill and they see in it the words: "This Act shall not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland," and they ask the question: "Why should it extend to Wales?" I think I may be allowed to say this much. The people of Scotland have every right to their views in regard to Sabbath observance, and I recognise the strength of the feeling they entertain with respect to that matter. The feeling in Wales

665
upon that point is at least as strong as it is in Scotland, and I venture to submit to the noble and learned Viscount and to noble Lords behind him that if it is right that the feeling of Scotland upon this point should be regarded, what is right for Scotland, it seems to me, should not be denied to Wales. I therefore move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("(6) This section shall not extend to Wales and Monmouthshire.")—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I really do not appreciate what the grievance of the noble Lord is. He says this Bill is being forced upon Wales. Nothing is being forced upon Wales. Nothing can happen until the local authorities with the approval of the inhabitants of those localities ask for a draft order. There is a complete safeguard for Wales, and home rule.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Nobody can doubt the sincerity with which this Amendment was moved, or fail to appreciate the moderation of the language in which the argument was couched. I venture respectfully to agree with my noble friend Lord Mount Temple that if this were forcing Sunday opening upon Wales it ought not to be allowed. I see no reason why Parliament should compel any part of the country to open its cinemas on Sundays when that is repugnant to the wishes of the inhabitants. The noble Lord dealt with the necessity of devolution, and for a wider power of local government in Wales. I will not enter into that topic, but in fact this Bill gives it to him because he will no doubt be aware that at the present moment there is no area in Wales which satisfies the condition of Clause 1 (5) of the Bill, and there is only one district in Monmouthshire—Bargoed—which, so far as we know, has Sunday opening. With that solitary exception of the district of Bargoed there is nowhere in Wales where there will be Sunday opening. The only effect of the Bill as far as Wales is concerned will be that if the majority of the people in a particular district of Wales want Sunday opening they will be able to get it by means of a draft order after public inquiry instead of by more expensive and cumbersome means of a Private Bill.
666
My noble friend says the people of Wales do not want Sunday opening. Then they will never get it. The Bill only provides in a case like Wales, where there is no Sunday opening, that if the people of a district make up their minds that they want Sunday opening, and if after all these precautions have been taken of inquiry and investigation by the Secretary of State it is determined that the people really want Sunday opening, it shall be possible for them to get it by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament instead of by a more expensive Private Bill. Why should Wales be denied this privilege which is being extended to England? I think the noble Lord is really getting the local option which he so earnestly desires. If Wales does not want Sunday opening she will not have it, but if she wants Sunday opening it seems very unfair that we should make it snore expensive for her to get it than the rest of the Kingdom.
LORD CLWYD: I do not of course intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. I fully recognise the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that there is no coercion in the Bill on this matter and that if local authorities wish to take advantage of the Bill they can do so. The view, however, of those whom I represent to-day is that a change would be made by the passing of this Bill in regard to the law governing Sunday entertainments. It will bring Wales at all events within the possibility of being involved in, that change. Those whom I represent to-day hold very strongly the view that no such change should be made and that Wales should not be brought within that possibility until the people of Wales have had an opportunity of saying that they wish it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD RHAYADER LORD RHAYADER moved to insert the following new subsection:
(6) This section shall also extend to every county area in which places licensed by the authority having power in that area to grant licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, were within the period of twelve months aforesaid opened and used on Sundays for the purposes aforesaid for occasional performances conditional upon the profits being applied to charitable purposes provided that no licences for such occasional performances shall be granted in excess of twenty-four in any one year."
The noble Lord said: I desire to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Earl of Strafford, but not exactly in the form in which it appears on the Paper. I propose to put in the word "county" and move it in this form: "This section shall also apply to every county area" and so on. The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with the point which was raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax. The cause of the Amendment is the insertion of the words in subsection (5) "(not being arrangements relating only to specific occasions)". Those words were not in the Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons. They were put in, I think, on the Report stage in the other House. The effect is to deprive the West Riding of Yorkshire and the County of Middlesex of the power to allow cinemas to open on specific occasions on Sundays for charitable purposes.
I move this Amendment on behalf of the County of Middlesex. I do not think that when the Bill was introduced it was intended to interfere with that County, where the County Council have kept the licensing of cinemas in their own hands. They have not delegated the power of licensing to the magistrates or to anyone else. They have kept the licensing of cinemas in their own hands and they have on rare occasions allowed cinemas to open in certain places in their area on not more than twenty or twenty-four Sundays in the year. There seems no good reason, when you are sanctioning what has been done in London in the matter of Sunday opening, for depriving the County of Middlesex of the power to continue what they have been doing. If this Amendment or some Amendment to the same effect is not made in the Bill the result will be that the County Council of Middlesex will be quite unable to allow an occasional Sunday cinema opening for charitable purposes. It will have to be all or nothing. Either they must allow cinemas all over the County to be opened on Sundays or none at all. They wish, and I think rightly wish, to have this discretionary power, which they have certainly not abused. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment in the exact form in which I move it, I hope they will take the matter into careful consideration and see whether
668
they cannot meet the wishes of the County Council on the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rhayader.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment, I think, raises the same point as the one we dealt with on the Amendment of Lord Fairfax a little while ago and I really said most of what I had to say on that Amendment. I would like, however, to point out that the proposal which the noble Lord puts forward would put the County Council in a very invidious position. They are to be allowed, if his proposal is carried, to license twenty-four performances in any one year. I gather that that does not mean twenty-four performances in every cinema in any one year. I observe that he agrees that it does not mean that. It means therefore that the County Council would have the very invidious task of selecting a certain limited number of cinemas. The Amendment does not even meet the point which my noble friend said he wanted to meet—namely, that of allowing in some cases occasional performances for charitable purposes. I will take again the instance of Birmingham, where the practice is to license every cinema on one Sunday which is called Cinema Hospital Sunday and to give all the proceeds to charity on that occasion. Obviously that could not be done under this Amendment. There are many more than twenty-four cinemas in the City of Birmingham. I think the simpler course is to adhere to the principle which has been laid down in the Bill—that is to say, where Sunday opening is a regular thing it should go on and where it is not then the neighbourhood must be consulted before it is adopted as a practice. I am sorry I am not able to give a more encouraging answer, but that is the view which the Home Office has formed after considering the merits of the proposal which my noble friend has brought forward.
LORD ARNOLD: May I take this opportunity to make a very mild, but still a firm objection to the use of the term which the noble and learned Viscount has just employed? The noble and learned Viscount did the same yesterday. Technically, the Home Office has no place under the Constitution at all, and if I may say so with great respect I do not

669
think it is in accordance with Parliamentary practice to quote Government Departments in that way. Quite properly we are not allowed in this House to criticise civil servants and I do not see why they should be quoted against us. Surely the noble and learned Viscount could either say "the Government" or "the Secretary of State."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly did not mean to quote a civil servant. That would be most irregular. The reason I referred to the Home Office or the Home Secretary rather than to anybody else is that I am here speaking on behalf of a Minister whose Department is not in my charge, and I thought "the Home Office" was a convenient expression to cover that Department. I am obliged to the noble Lord for suggesting that we should not use any language which could be construed as invoking the opinions of civil servants, who do their work most excellently and certainly ought not to be drawn into any sort of controversy. If any word I used could be so construed I unhesitatingly withdraw it.
LORD RHAYADER: I confess to some disappointment with the answer which has been given to me. I was led to hope that some more favourable opinion would have emanated, if I may use the expression, from the Home Office. The noble and learned Viscount has not met the point of the Middlesex County Council who are not in the same position as Birmingham. The only course open there is to get some local authority in a given area to make application and that application can only be, not for a specific, but for a general performance. I will not press the matter now, but I will put down the Amendment again on Report and I do ask the noble and learned Viscount to give the matter further consideration because I think he has not really met the difficulty which confronts either the West Riding or the Middlesex County Council.
LORD DANESFORT: May I support the appeal of the noble Lord opposite that, the noble and learned Viscount will give this matter further consideration before Report? This is regarded as a subject of great importance by some very important local authorities in the country. There is the Middlesex County Council and I am also asked to support
670
it on behalf of the West Riding County Council. As to the dislike of the Home Office I have some hesitation in always accepting a view put forward by a particular Department, and I venture to urge that before this Bill comes before us again the noble and learned Viscount may not merely take the view of the Home Office, who do not seem very favourable to any change in the law however reasonable, but will possibly consult some other members of the Cabinet with a view to meeting the opinion of important local bodies which he must be anxious to conciliate in order that the Bill may work smoothly.
LORD RHAYADER: In the circumstances I will withdraw the Amendment. I intend to put it down again on Report when I hope it will receive more favourable consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provisions as to Cinematograph Fund.
2.—(1) There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a fund, to be called the "Cinematograph Fund," and all sums paid to an authority in accordance with conditions imposed by them under the last foregoing section for the purpose of being transmitted to that fund shall be so transmitted at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.
(2) The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund shall be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.
(3) The accounts of the Cinematograph Fund shall be audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Privy Council, and his report thereon shall be laid before Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "shall," to insert, "subject as hereinafter provided". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, and the one a little later in my name, at line 11, are both part of the same plan. Their object is to ensure that both the creation of the Fund and the administration of it shall not involve any burden on the taxpayer. Your Lordships will appreciate that that is an object which is important at any time and imperative at the present time. It is not anticipated that the cost of administration will be

671
other than negligible but, whatever it is, clearly it is desirable that it should be met from the Fund itself. The method deducting from the Fund a contribution in aid of the Privy Council vote is the normal method prescribed by the Treasury in such cases. I move this Amendment in order to make intelligible and feasible the proviso which I shall presently move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("shall") insert (",subject as hereinafter provided,").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "encouraging." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment and the two succeeding ones standing in my name is to give a free hand to the Privy Council. To follow out what the noble and learned Viscount has said, this would leave it open for the best man to come in and win. If a film institute ever exists it may apply for a grant; if there were a particular branch of research it might be made available for it to have some grant for that. Again, if schools desired to purchase projectors and hire films they could become applicants whose claims might be considered. The Fund would be open. On the other hand, if the Fund was to be devoted entirely to an institute which may come up later on I should feel grave doubts about considering any Fund at all. But the noble and learned Viscount, in answer to a question of mine on the Second Reading, convinced me that the Privy Council would not have powers under the Bill to appoint a Board which would absorb all the Fund for objects which could not possibly be developed with the money that would be available. Research costs vast sums if properly conducted and it is being conducted in America and in this country by the industry itself.
The noble and learned Viscount has convinced me on that and still more he has convinced me by the answers he has given to the questions of the most rev. Primate. Those answers show that this Fund could not possibly be devoted to a film institute in the manner which has been foreshadowed in another place and elsewhere throughout the country. In those circumstances I suggest that the Privy Council be given the fullest oppor-
672
tunity of giving to all who come, according to their deserts and according to the decision which the Privy Council may arrive at, without any restriction saying that it shall be devoted specially to the use of the cinematograph for entertainment or instruction.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, leave out ("encouraging").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I really do not think there is any difference between us as to what we want to do in this clause, or the purpose for which this Fund is to be devoted. Really, I think, what we are discussing in this Amendment is a matter of language rather than of principle.
LORD ASKWITH: I entirely agree, and I thought the best way of attaining our object was by cutting out the words which I suggest should be omitted by this and my other Amendments.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Then it really is only a question as to which words are most apt to carry out the object which we both have in view? If the noble Lord's Amendments are carried Clause 2, subsection (2) would then read:
"The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of the development of the cinematograph,"
whereas at present the moneys are to be applied "for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." The reason why we suggest that it is wiser to keep the language as it is drafted in the Bill is that one wants to indicate the sort of direction in which this development is to take place. I think that it is not only as a source of amusement, but also as a source of education and improvement, that one of the main uses of the cinematograph lies, and we think that by keeping in the words "entertainment and instruction" we place no undue limitation on the Privy Council, because it is difficult to think of any use of the cinematograph which would not fall within one or other of those two words.
The fact that we mention instruction as one of the things which we have in mind does give an indication to those

673
who administer the Fund that they are to use it in the direction of raising the tone and increasing the usefulness of the cinematograph, and gives them a better lead and a better signpost as to the sort of way in which Parliament expects the money to be spent, than if we were merely to leave the language as "for the purpose of the development of the cinematograph." That might be taken to mean only the perfection of the instrument mechanically, which none of us intends. It is because we think that the subsection as it stands carries out what the noble Lord desires a little better than the words which he proposes, that we prefer to keep the subsection as it is.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The trouble is that the words in the Bill do not conform to the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount. If his speech governed the matter I should be quite satisfied, but his speech is quite different from the phraseology of the Bill. He says that it is merely a matter of words, and that Lord Askwith wants the money to be used for the development of the cinematograph. How can the Privy Council develop the cinematograph? That is being done by people who have millions in their pocket, and how is the Privy Council to do it with only a few thousands in their pockets and no knowledge of the matter whatever? Then, it is "to encourage the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." What business has the Privy Council got to encourage the cinematograph for entertainment? It is being done for us already. Lord Hailsham says that the object is to raise the tone, and earlier on he said that their object was to improve the character of the entertainment. There is nothing of that in the Bill. I look upon Hollywood as one of the most corrupting influences in the world, and if they would try to take up cinematograph censorship and try to stop what is a growing scandal I would support them, but to give them power to spend money "for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction" seems to me to be really farcical.
LORD ASKWITH: It seems to me to be really a matter of words, and I am prepared to bow to the legal opinion of the noble Viscount. On the understanding
674
that the clause carries out my object I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that a sum equal to the amount certified by the Treasury as the amount of the expenses incurred by the Privy Council in the administration of the said Fund shall be deducted annually from the Fund and applied in accordance with directions given by the Treasury as an appropriation-in-aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Privy Council."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment which I explained to your Lordships a little while ago, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Privy Council and his report thereon," and insert "kept in such form as may be directed by the Treasury, and an account showing the revenue and expenditure of the Fund shall be transmitted annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall certify and report upon the account, and the account and report." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment designed to ensure that there shall be effective control over the Fund, and that the audit shall be kept in such a way that it shall satisfy both the Treasury and, what is more important, Parliament itself through its servant and steward, the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("be") to ("shall") in line 14, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move that Clause 2 be deleted from the Bill. Clause 2 says:
"There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a Fund to be called the Cinematograph Fund."
Then, on page 4 of the Bill, it says:
"The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund

675
shall be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction."
If I may be allowed to say so, I agree with what Lord Crawford said—namely, that the Privy Council, great body as it is, is not the body, nor has it the means, to decide the best way of developing the cinematograph. It is a novel and dangerous principle to introduce, to give power to the Privy Council to use money which, as I understood, was originally intended to be given for charitable purposes, for assisting and developing an industry—for that is what it really comes to.
I am informed that in another place the proposal was introduced on the Report stage, and was carried only by a very small majority. The Government, as I am informed, took no part in the matter, but left it to a free vote of the House, and it seems to me that it is utterly outside the purpose and scope of the Bill. The Title of the Bill is this:
"An Act to permit and regulate the opening and use of places on Sundays for certain entertainments and for debates, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
There is nothing there which says that it is an Act for enabling the Privy Council or any other body to use funds for the development of the cinematograph, and it seems to me, therefore, that it is outside the Title, besides introducing a very dangerous precedent.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, replied to the criticisms of the most rev. Primate yesterday, and said that the most rev. Primate, in thinking that there was to be a Fund given to a certain body, was really anticipating something which could not occur at present, because before such a body could be created Parliament would have to be consulted. But that has nothing whatever to do with this clause. The clause gives to the Privy Council power to spend certain money. There is no need to go to Parliament for its consent. The clause would give to the Privy Council power to take money which was originally intended to be devoted to charitable purposes, and use it for the development of an industry. As Lord Crawford said, what knowledge have the Privy Council of the cinematograph industry? They know nothing about it. I think my noble
676
friend is a member of the Privy Council, but I do not know whether he knows anything about the development of the cinematograph. I am a member of the Privy Council, and I know nothing about it. If the clause is passed the result Will be that the Privy Council will have to set up a new body—more officials, more inspectors, more spending of money; and apparently all because a certain private Member in another place chose on the Report stage to introduce this clause. I shall certainly go to a Division if I can get anybody to tell with me against the insertion of this most iniquitous clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD LAMINGTON: I trust that this clause will disappear from the Bill. It was only introduced at quite a late stage in another place, and in a House of over 300 members there was a majority of only eighteen. I had hoped that after the very incisive remarks made by the most rev. Primate the noble and learned Viscount would have withdrawn the clause altogether. I think it would do nothing but mischief. Why should we have a new taxing authority created to get such an amount of revenue for the purpose of a film fund? My noble friend Lord Crawford asked what was going to happen to this money. How much is to be collected? What will be the real authority to deal with it, and to what purpose is the money going to be devoted? I know nothing about cinemas. My noble friend suggested the other day that I was a great frequenter of films. Any attraction they had for me disappeared when they became "talkies."
The only argument for a film institute is that every other country in Europe has got one. I should not mind a film institute, but let us know more about it. It may be a very good thing indeed, but, as this proposal comes before us, it is very nebulous, and I believe it will be a very great mistake to institute this Fund. If it is desirable to have a film fund, let the cinema companies develop it from within, do not let it be imposed by the Government from without. I trust the Government will withdraw this proposal. I do not believe it has any real support anywhere. Possibly theatres might be opened on Sundays: would you impose a special levy upon them in order

677
to have a better theatre atmosphere? Or, as Lord Marshall said the other day in The Times, you might have a special levy put on Sunday newspapers. Why not? Why should you have a special authority for this purpose? I will tell with my noble friend with great pleasure.
LORD IRWIN: Whenever I find myself disposed to differ from my noble friend Lord Banbury I always search my judgment with great anxiety, and indeed I have been in great doubt as to whether on this occasion he was not giving us the right lead. But on the whole I am not disposed, I think, to support him in the Division Lobby if he takes this Amendment to a Division. I think we are it some danger of being misled by the argument that was advanced with great force on the Amendment that preceded this by my noble friend Lord Crawford. It is certainly true, as both he and Lord Banbury have said, that neither I nor, I presume, many members of your Lordships' House are entitled to compete in the actual business of cinema production with those who are already engaged in that line of business. But that is not what I conceive that we are here concerned to do. The purpose of this Fund, if and when established under the Privy Council, is not, surely, to teach the cinema producers how to run their business for profit, but it is rather to use means, and exercise influence, for the creation of a public opinion that will demand a better type of film. If and when that public opinion is created, as those who know say that it can be created, then I think, and only then, are you on the track of getting better films than you in all cases get to-day.
That does not demand technical knowledge, but it does demand a form of propaganda, organisation, education and so on which will gradually give a commercial value to that which, for want of organisation, does not possess a commercial value to-day. On the whole I am inclined to think the case for such an effort as that has been made out. I am not greatly attracted—and in this I agree with my other noble friends—with the proposition for a national film institute. It may, or may not, be a good plan. I certainly do not know enough about it, and the whole project is too vague at the present stage. But that is not the proposal with which this Bill is concerned.
678
Your Lordships have heard what my noble friend the Leader of the House said at an earlier stage in reply to the questions of the most rev. Primate, that if and when it was proposed to set up any kind of statutory body analogous to that of the British Broadcasting Corporation the personnel and powers of such a body would properly be brought before Parliament for discussion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Might I ask my noble friend if he would read subsection (2)? He will see that the Privy Council can do whatever they like with the money as long as they use it for encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph. There is nothing about saying the films should be good, bad or indifferent. They can use the money in any kind of way they like to encourage the use and development of cinematographs.
LORD IRWIN: If my noble friend means they may in fact apply it badly for purposes other than those of improvement, I suppose the only answer is that the Privy Council on the whole may be trusted to improve rather than deteriorate cinematographs. If he means that under that subsection they can in fact ignore the undertaking that the Leader of the House gave to the most rev. Primate, there again I would venture to differ from him, because the question that my noble friend was answering was whether, if the proposal was to give power analogous to that possessed by the Broadcasting Corporation, that would require to be brought before Parliament. I think it would.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My point was that if this clause is passed we give to the Privy Council the power—Parliament has no control over the Privy Council—to spend a certain sum of money, not for good or bad films but for encouraging or developing the industry. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is a new procedure that the Privy Council should be given power to do this sort of thing. It seems to me to be all wrong.
LORD IRWIN: My noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, is entirely at liberty to entertain the opinion that it is not right to give this power to the Privy Council, but he and I hold different views as to that, and his are as tenable as my own. I am arguing that on the

679
whole for general reasons it is a good thing to give the Privy Council the power. I was further arguing, and I understand my noble friend would now agree, that if they chose to exercise their power by working through something analogous to the British Broadcasting Corporation then they would come back to Parliament.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think so. I think they could do anything they liked.
LORD IRWIN: I cannot carry the matter further with my noble friend. I am content to rely on the assurance given by the Leader of the House. I do not know whether your Lordships have seen the report that the most rev. Primate referred to in his speech yesterday. I have, and I fancy it must have been sent to a great many of your Lordships, and certainly for my own part, reading it as an outside layman, I am impressed both with the example in foreign countries of what has been done, with the potentialities of what might be done here, and generally with the case which is there established. From one point of view particularly I am not on the whole disposed to support this. We have heard a great deal about film censors and film censorship. That is only the negative side of our problem as I see it. Censors are designed to prevent anything too bad being put before the public. I want to see something a little more constructive. I want to see some positive effort made to improve the character of films, to counterbalance the negative effort that censors make to prevent films being too bad, and it is along that line, by development, by education and in other ways that I can see a good deal might be done by intelligent action on the part of the Privy Council.
I am impressed with it from another angle. A short time ago I had the privilege of paying a visit to Canada. There I found that a great deal of thinking opinion was greatly concerned by the degree to which Canadian film presentation was influenced and coloured by the film productions from the United States. I am very anxious indeed to try and get more film contact between the United Kingdom and the British Empire. It is difficult to do. I do not pretend to understand exactly how the machine works, but I cannot help
680
supposing that if you could get an intelligent directing central plan organised in this country, encouraging the production or the exchange of a better class of film, that would be an improvement.
There is one objection I might mention before I sit down in which I have considerable sympathy with noble Lords who are supporting the Amendment, and that is—I think Lord Lamington criticised it—that the method of financing this business is very illogical, and upon that ground open to attack. He said quite truly it would be possible on similar grounds to justify expenditure on films and to have a levy on Sunday newspapers and so on. I think that is true, and I think it is a fair logical argument, but I am not greatly affected by it, although I admit that I think the proposed action of the Bill of taking 5 per cent. of Sunday profits in order to improve the quality of films rather resembles the action of the village parson who, on the occasion of the death of a local notable, or the jubilee of a reigning monarch, or the termination of a War, calls a village meeting to collect subscriptions for the renewal of the church heating system. I admit there is no logical connection between the two but on the whole I am prepared to take things as they are. I definitely want to see the purpose achieved of improving the cinema level. I do not think that we can get the money for it at present in any other way. I would have preferred to see the Government, for example, put a duty on all foreign films, but I do not anticipate that is at the moment possible.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We have one.
LORD IRWIN: A further duty on foreign films, and, therefore, being a practical politician, I am disposed to get the money where I can in order to achieve the object I have at heart.
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord, Lord Irwin, said that whenever he found himself differing from the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, he felt distressed. I hope the House will not think me discourteous if I say that whenever I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I have the very greatest misgiving as to my decision. He is a very old colleague of mine in the House of Commons, and

681
he has always rendered me the service of keeping me up to my own convictions. I am ready to believe that the method proposed is not the best way of dealing with this very great problem. As a noble Lord said this afternoon, the Hollywood influence is one of the major disasters of the world. Whatever it is, it is there and that is the problem before us. It is not something that we have to create, but it is there before us. We have to make up our minds whether we will allow that to go on or will in some way attempt by educational means to create another standard for film development in our own land.
I have reason to believe from letters I have received recently from cinema proprietors in this country, that they themselves are greatly distressed at the kind of film they are compelled to show in the places they control. One of them, writing to me only two or three weeks ago, said:
"As a matter of fact British pictures, instead of seeming to get better, are in most instances much worse than they were a year ago."
In another phrase he says:
"In the last month I have trade viewed about.a dozen British pictures and there is not a single one of them fit, for showing in a decent hall."
If that is true, we cannot meet the problem merely by saying that Hollywood is not all that it ought to be. In reality the question of film improvement is one of the very greatest urgency and importance. It is not only Canada that feels this question of the American film but it is our far-flung Colonies less able to protect themselves than Canada happens to be. I am not sure that this is the best method of doing it, but I have not the least doubt that your Lordships' House would be wise to pass this as the beginning of a great new development.
The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, in criticising the Privy Council, seemed to imagine that the Privy Council would have control over a matter about which it had no experience. I have not the honour of being a member of the Privy Council but I believe it appoints and controls expert committees and research committees and that it is those committees that do the work. Yet, such is my faith in the Privy Council that I believe, in spite of all, the Privy Council would know a good film from a bad one if they
682
saw it. I beg the Committee to believe that this great new medium of the film, so potent for future good or evil, ought to receive the serious attention of your Lordships and that you ought not to reject this proposal without having something better to substitute in its place.
LORD JESSEL: I did not have the privilege of receiving this report which has been referred to. I see that it was referred to yesterday as the report of a Commission with the ambitious title of a Commission on Cultural Films. The noble Lord on my right has read it and he proposes that it should be sent to every member of your Lordships' House. No doubt the persons interested in this matter did not send it to the members of your Lordships' House and therefore we are at a great disadvantage in dealing with this matter. I agree with much that has been said as to the necessity of improving our films, and also of showing many things which interest people in the Empire and generally of taking a higher view than many of the films exhibited now. I cannot understand how that is to be done by the machinery which is to be set up. The Privy Council are to have a certain amount of money to develop the cinematograph film but it was calculated in another place that it would only come to about £8,000. If they are going to create a film, everybody knows what enormous expenditure films entail to make and to create. In some cases sums of no less than £100,000 have been spent in making a film. This money is not sufficient.
Another point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who said that he believed there were certain committees of the Privy Council set up for scientific purposes. There are these committees dealing with scientific and medical research and doing very useful work. Why cannot some other means be adopted in this case? It is very wrong too that this clause should have been inserted in this Bill, which was originally intended to regulate a proceeding which had gone on for twenty years in London but which was challenged under the Sunday Observance Act and taken to the Court of Appeal, who decided that the system in London was a breach of that Act. This Bill was brought forward to remedy that state of affairs and was drafted so that

683
other parts of the country should have the same opportunity if they wished. It is not right from the constitutional point of view that another project, which is quite foreign to this Bill, should be put in on the Report stage in another place, especially when it was only carried by eighteen votes in a biggish House.
An excellent speech was made by a member of the Labour Party, Mr. Jack Jones, who knows the working classes as well as anybody in this country, and who said:
"As far as we are concerned, we have improved pictures. The pictures of twenty years ago used to entertain the people of my division but those pictures would not be looked at to-day by the same people. They want better pictures. They have been educated by experience. What was good enough for our grandfathers is not good enough for us. We ought to have a little more trust in the common people. Trust in the common people is gradually being brought about by educational methods, not only inside a cinema, but outside."
Here is another argument for your Lordships' consideration from the speech of the hon. Member and it applies to putting a tax on certain newspapers so as to improve the general quality of the Press. He says:
"Public houses are open on Sunday. Some people do not like the idea. Why not make a fellow who uses the public house on Sunday pay an extra tax? If you have a levy, it should be on the principle that, whether you use a commodity on Sunday or not, it should be applied all round the map, and not laid down as a special principle confined to a particular industry.''
That is the whole of the argument in a nutshell. The whole idea is that this should be a contribution to the hospitals by the cinemas for the privilege of opening on Sundays. You are taking away this sum—it is true it may not be a large sum—from the hospitals. To sum up, I think that there may be a good argument for improving the films but I cannot see how it is going to be done under this clause. We have still got to learn what is done in Japan, which has been quoted, in Italy, where the right rev. Prelate told us the other day an institute exists, and also in Russia. I think it is very dangerous for us to pass in this Bill at this very late period of the Session a far-reaching provision of this kind. If necessity requires it the Government of the day can introduce another Bill, although I personally think it is not necessary. I hope for these
684
reasons your Lordships will support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Banbury. I think it is a pity the subject should have been introduced into a Bill which has nothing to do with it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree with much that has fallen from my noble friend Lord Jessel. This proposal is entirely foreign to the Bill. It was introduced at the last moment in another place. It is an extemporised Amendment. It was not proposed by the Government, it was not supported by the Government, and in point of fact they took no responsibility for it. The Whips of the Government were not put on in the House of Commons and I assume that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House will not put on the Government Whips this afternoon. As I say, it is an extemporised Amendment—a scheme obviously, on its surface, not thought out. My noble friend beside me, Lord Askwith, thinks the Amendment attains certain things and the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House claims that the clause attains other things. We have heard entirely contradictory speeches and entirely contradictory interpretations of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said that at any rate it is a beginning. I think it is better not to make a beginning at all if the beginning is going to be a bad beginning. We are going to prejudice what may be a very fruitful and what I think is a very necessary instrument if we start off badly, and we are in prospect, with this muddle-headed, ill-defined clause, of starting this thing on thoroughly bad lines.
My noble friend Lord Irwin said: "Trust the Privy Council." Well, I do not trust the Privy Council. In a matter of this kind the Privy Council are not merely amateurs but they are ignoramuses. This is not a matter of scientific research. There is a regular organisation existing, the Committee for Scientific Research, upon which serious responsibility is placed, through votes, I may say, which are voted in the estimates year by year and not in a block scheme such as this clause indicates. Through the Royal Society and other accredited societies they are carrying out specific bits of work. There is no analogy here with the work of the Committee for Scientific Research. My noble friend Lord Irwin says that no technical knowledge

685
is needed for propaganda and organisation. Really propaganda and organisation are the two most intricate and delicate mechanisms of industry and commerce which exist.
LORD IRWIN: I do not want to interrupt but the purport of my remarks was not that no scientific knowledge was required for propaganda but that no technical knowledge was required from the members of the Privy Council who would select persons who had it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not believe that for a minute. I do not believe that persons who have no interest in the matter and no knowledge can appoint proper experts. This is entirely different from the Committee for Scientific Research which is based upon very clear-cut methods. I should like this clause to be withdrawn and the matter given further consideration by the Cabinet—I do not want a Select Committee—so that the matter can be brought up in proper form at a later date.
LORD JESSEL: In another Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, a Bill would be required, a Bill ad hoc, a. Bill the title of which would cover it—the title of this Bill does not—a Bill which does not take funds from the hospitals of the country either. If my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham and his colleagues will not agree to that, I at least ask them to accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Irwin, and regard this as a positive effort to be made. The suggestion I advance as to the best positive effort would be to accept the words from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham's speech and insert them in the clause—that one object of this new committee shall be the improvement of the character of the films or raising the tone of the films. If he will do that, I will oppose my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam when he goes to a Division. Failing that I shall support him and vote against the clause.
LORD DANESFORT: I am in entire sympathy with the desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, and other members of your Lordships' House that there should be an improvement in the character of the films exhibited not only on Sundays, but on every day of the
686
week. There is room for improvement. I think we are all agreed on that. But I am satisfied that this clause will not advance us one inch in the direction which is desired. In the first place the language of the clause, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, pointed out, does not indicate the object which we desire—namely, the improvement of films. The clause speaks of "encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." If the real object is the improvement of films, why not say so in definite terms? That, however, is not my main objection because that could be got over by a change of words on Report. My second objection, and it is a very far-reaching one, is that the Privy Council is not a suitable body. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has already pointed that out and so have other members. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, paid what was no doubt intended to be a compliment to the members of the Privy Council when he said they could go round and judge the films themselves.
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord I am sure does not wish to misrepresent me. I said they might not be qualified to judge of the technique of a film, but I had faith enough to think that they would know a good film from a bad one.
LORD DANESFORT: I accept the explanation of the noble Lord, but I am not so sure about that. I am not sure they would know a good film from a bad one. I should be sorry to have a committee composed of my noble friends Lord Banbury, the Earl of Crawford and Lord Irwin deputed to go round the cinema houses of London and tell us what were good and bad films. To my mind the Privy Council are a totally unsuitable body. They have neither the staff nor the organisation for conducting such operations. There is a third objection, and that is that the amount of money they would get under this Bill is ridiculously inadequate. They would not be able to effect anything. Surely, it would be far better to postpone this matter of improving films until we can get a properly organised body supplied with funds—I hope not from the public Exchequer—to deal with this matter. If we start now with the totally inadequate machinery of the Privy Council we shall postpone the appointment of a really

687
effective body perhaps for years. We shall make a failure of the experiment and the experiment may not be made again.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies may I express the hope that, as in another place Government Whips were not put on, if he argues in favour of the retention of the clause he will leave the question to a free vote of the House?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The history of this clause which has been given by a number of your Lordships will have satisfied your Lordships that this was not an essential part of the Bill as originally introduced by the Government and nothing that has happened since makes it into an essential part of the Bill. The clause was introduced in pursuance of a suggestion made in Committee. It was left to a free vote of the House of Commons and the majority of the House of Commons were in favour of the insertion of the clause.
A NOBLE LORD: Eighteen.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The point is that there were eighteen less opposed to the clause than there were of those who wanted it in, and that was without pressure from the Government Whips. I think that the right method in approaching the consideration of this clause is not to see how large a majority was in a free vote in another place, but whether this is a desirable clause. If it is a desirable clause the fact that it is being passed at a late period of the Session or was inserted by the free wish of the House of Commons instead of by the dictation of the Government, seems in neither case a reason why your Lordships should reject it. If it is a bad clause out it ought to go. Therefore the question we have to consider is whether or not it is desirable that this clause or some clause substantially in this form should be part of the Bill.
It has been suggested that it is not within the Title of the Bill, but that is disposed of by the decision of the Speaker in another place. It is also suggested—and I am clearing away the things that do not matter in order to come to the ones that do—that this is a tax on the industry, but I am sure your Lordships appreciate that this money is a specified percentage with a moderate maximum of a fund raised before ever this Fund
688
comes to be created, and therefore it does not mean that the consumer, as Mr. Jack Jones seems to think, would pay more for seeing the cinema in the same way as he might be called upon to pay more for his beer.
The reasons why this clause was regarded as valuable were stated very fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, and were set out in the discussions in another place. There is no doubt, I think, that the cinema has become a part of the daily life of the nation. The great bulk of our people habitually go to the cinema. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is a fact. There is no doubt, I fear, that the cinema and the sort of entertainment which is given there does not always tend to raise the moral sense or to have a salutary effect on the character of those who go to those places. It has been suggested that there should be a rigid censorship of films. There is a Board of Censors which does exercise a certain and valuable control, but I do not believe that you are ever going to get the cinematograph and the picture theatre to become what we should like them to become as instruments of good and not of evil by merely negative methods of censorship. You want some positive and constructive means of improving the cinema and those who support this clause think that there is here given an opportunity of trying an experiment.
I do not deny that it is an experiment. Just before this Bill came to be discussed in another place there had been a report of a careful inquiry to which the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, referred, in which a great deal of the information about what happens in foreign countries had no doubt been considered. I have not had the opportunity of studying the report myself, but I understand that in most other countries there is some organisation which is directed towards the purpose of improving the standard of films displayed. It was thought that here was an opportunity of seeing whether we could not do something of the kind in this country. Admittedly it is on a moderate scale. I think it was said that the amount available would be about £8,000. It would be done, if this remains part of the Bill, in a way that involves no cost to the taxpayer, and in these days that is a valuable provision.

689
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who said the Government should introduce some other Bill setting up some other plan, which I was not very clear about, and finding money from a source he did not certify, but which should not come out of the pocket of the Exchequer, in order to do what we are trying to do here. But it is difficult to see what other source of money and what other scheme can be suggested. It is true that individual members of the Privy Council are not experts on the subject of films any more than upon medical or scientific research, but the Privy Council habitually acts through committees in matters of this kind and it was thought that it was not an unwise choice to select a body which was accustomed to handling matters which are outside the ordinary scope of strictly business considerations for the duty of trying to administer this Fund and to achieve the object which I think appeals to most of your Lordships—the object of improving the standard and raising the tone of the films.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Might that be put into the Bill? That is all I ask.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As I gather, the noble Earl would approve of a proposal to use a Fund of this character to improve the tone of the cinematograph. That is exactly what this clause is intended to provide, but one necessarily finds rather wide language because you are dealing with a subject about which it is difficult to be precise. When you are handing over this comparatively small sum of money for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph "as a means of entertainment and instruction"—those words are retained because we want to make it clear what Parliament has in mind—surely any committee set up by the Privy Council to administer the Fund must see that the purpose is that which I indicated in the speech I delivered a little earlier.
It is suggested they may use the money in some undesirable way. We have done our best to make sure that a full control is to be kept over the administration. In the clause as amended at the instance of the Government provisions were put in to make it even more clear than originally. We have to have the Treasury satisfied, and also the Comptroller and Auditor-General who, as your Lordships know, is the watchdog and steward of the House of Commons. We have to have
690
from him a report as to what happens each year, and it is to be laid before Parliament, in order that Parliament may be satisfied that the money is being used in the way and for the purpose it intended. Surely, that does safeguard the position. We have provided that there need be no money given in any year unless a useful purpose can be found to which it should be devoted within the meaning of the clause. We have provided that the way in which the money has been spent shall be laid before Parliament each year, after audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and we have therefore, I suggest, an ample assurance that Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that the money is being used in the way it and the Government intend, if this clause stands part of the Bill.
As I have said, this is not in its origin a Government proposal. In another place it was left to the free vote of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, whether we put on the Whips in this House or not it does not have quite that effect which those of us who have sat in another place so rejoice to recognise when we are in the Government, but which we are not quite so pleased to see when we are in Opposition. It is not a matter of confidence in the Government, and it is for your Lordships to make up your own minds, but I beg of you in making up your minds not to be led astray by considerations as to whether or not this clause was passed by a small majority, whether or not it was introduced at a late period of the Session, or whether or not there has been exhaustive inquiry by the Government. I ask you to bear in mind also that this is at any rate an attempt, which has commended itself to a great many people, after a great deal of thought and after considerable examination by the Committee to which reference has been made, to do something to raise the standard of films in this country, which sorely needs raising—an attempt which, if it fails, cannot cost the country anything, which can annually be reviewed, and which cannot in my submission do any harm and can be easily productive of a great deal of good. With those words I leave the matter to the decision of the House.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hailsham, V.

Heneage, L.

Mersey, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Irwin, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Latymer, L.

Wellington, D.

Alvingham, L.

Marks, L.

Askwith, L.

Marley, L.

Reading, M.

Barnard, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Salisbury, M.

Cawley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rhayader, L.

Bradford, E.

Rochester, L.

Buxton, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Cavan, E.

Desborough, L.

Snell, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Somerleyton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Ernle, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Morton, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Templemore, L.

Poulett, E.

Forester, L.

Teynham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Trent, L.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Vivian, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bathurst, E.

Armstrong, L.

Joicey, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Mount Temple, L.

Midleton, E.

Bayford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnock, L.

Remnant, L.

Allendale, V.

Clwyd, L.

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Cranworth, L.

Wharton, L.

Brentford, V.

Danesfort, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Prescribed percentage" means such percentage not exceeding 5 per cent., as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament;
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in the definition of "prescribed percentage," to leave out "may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State," and insert "a Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, prescribe by regulations made by him." The noble Viscount said: This is the consequential Amendment on the first Amendment I moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("as") to ("and") in line 25 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Extension of Powers to allow Cinematograph Entertainments.
Supplementary.
9. No order laid before Parliament under the provisions of this Schedule shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament, to be a Special Order, unless that House, by order made after the passing of this Act, directs that such orders shall be deemed to be Special Orders.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out paragraph 9. The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I move to give effect to the promise which I gave to my noble friend the Chairman of Committee, in order to enable it to remain clear that no attempt at all is being made to interfere in any way with the power of each House of Parliament to control its own procedure and I think the method which he suggested is the one which I am now moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out paragraph 9.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may supplement what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House by information of which noble Lords may not be aware, that I have put down for "No day named"—because of course we cannot say when the Bill will receive the Royal Assent—an Amendment to the Standing Order in fulfilment of the suggestions I made to your Lordships, which I gathered found favour with your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN): My Lords, it will be a relief to your Lordships to turn for a few moments from a controversial measure to one which is not a matter of controversy. The Isle of Man (Customs) Bill is an old friend and appears with unfailing regularity every year. But during this Session it has been necessary to introduce two Bills dealing with Isle of Man Customs. This Bill has been rendered necessary by the passing of the Import Duties Act, and the Bill in the main gives power to the Governor of the Isle of Man to adopt the draft orders which have been made by the Treasury and any regulations which have been made by the Board of Trade. In short the Bill proposes to make the Customs Duties and regulations in the Isle of Man the same as they are in the United Kingdom, which, of course, your Lordships will appreciate is a very necessary thing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, this is another familiar measure. It also appears with unfailing regularity every year and your Lordships are perfectly aware of its purpose. It is to enable the
694
Public Works Loans Commissioners to continue to make comparatively small grants to the poorer local authorities who are not able to raise loans in the market. The Bill is an annual Bill in order to protect the rights of Parliament to regulate the amount of the expenditure, or rather the amount of loans that can be sanctioned by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Sankey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 32, page 13, line 33, leave out ("no person shall,") and insert ("a person articled to a solicitor after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall not")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am going to ask the House to agree to the Commons Amendments under these circumstances. The first Amendment is in Clause 32. It is rather a technical one, but, as your Lordships know, this was a measure for consolidation, and in a consolidation measure you cannot alter the law. The old law read:
"A person articled to a solicitor after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall not "
and the draftsman, thinking it would make rather better sense—and I think he was right in thinking so—altered it to "No person shall." But unfortunately when we looked at it that made a great difference. It was thought that this change of wording did not alter the law. It has now been found that a barrister of more than five years standing, referred to in Clause 34, would be or might be affected by the change. It is clearly undesirable to run any risk of having altered the law, and, our attention being called to this, the Government pro-

695
posed that this Amendment should be put down in order that the law should not be changed. I beg therefore to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 14, line 27, leave out from ("term") to the end of subsection (1).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is really a consequential Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 53, page 25, line 13, leave out ("confined in prison") and insert ("a prisoner in any prison").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The third Amendment is rather a curious one. Clause 53 reads thus:
"No solicitor whilst confined in prison shall act as a solicitor."
A lynx-eyed member of the House of Commons, quite rightly, saw that the old Act instead of saying, "No solicitor whilst confined in prison" read: "No solicitor whilst a prisoner in any prison." We have no objection to sticking to the words of the old Act. I move that we agree with that Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I move that this House do now consider the Commons Amendments to the Children and Young Persons Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the subsection and insert ("sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held.")
The Commons propose to amend the above Amendment as follows:
Line 4, leave out ("or at different times")
Line 5, leave out ("or at").
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I think you will agree that the other place has dealt very kindly with the almost innumerable Amendments which were made to the Children and Young Persons Bill. They have disagreed totally only with one Amendment, and they are proposing not to disagree with the others, subject to comparatively slight Amendments or alterations. The first matter that arises is on Page 2 of the Bill, line 31. It deals with the building in which the juvenile courts are held. It was the purpose of the Bill as far as possible to dissociate the juvenile court from the ordinary court, and for that reason it was proposed in the Bill that the court should not be held without the permission of the Secretary of State in the ordinary police court room.
Your Lordships will note that the Commons do not disagree with the Amendment which was made by your Lordships, but suggest two rather small Amendments. They suggest that we shall leave out in line 4 "or at different times" and then in line 5 leave out "or at", so that your Lordships' Amendment will read:
"sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days from those on which sittings of such other courts are held."
The Amendment which is suggested by the House of Commons is in order to avoid what is considered to be very undesirable, that at the end of the ordinary police court's proceedings the court shall be turned into a juvenile court in the same room, still leaving it possible,

697
and indeed in most eases, I suppose, the common practice, to use the police courts but at different times. The Amendment which was made by your Lordships was urged mainly on the ground of economy, and the Amendment which is suggested by the House of Commons will not, of course, involve any additional expense. I beg to move that this House agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Amendments made by the Commons.—(Viscount Snowden.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I hope you will agree with the Amendments made by another place. It does not involve any extra expense. That is, I think, a great matter. It ought not to involve any extra trouble, because no fresh arrangements would be needed, and it does avoid the objectionable practice of having an ordinary court, closing that down, hanging a label on the door and saying, "Now we have started a juvenile court." Another place has met all our views in regard to this subsection, and I would submit most respectfully that we should agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 12, line 5, at end insert ("and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable, privately whipped with not more than six strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they deem it desirable that the birching of young boys by the police should be discontinued.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, we come now to the one matter on which the House of Commons has totally disagreed with the Amendment which was inserted in the Bill. It deals with the question of birching boys. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of whipping as a corrective of juvenile delinquencies. Your Lordships are perfectly familiar with all the arguments for and against. I propose, therefore, to devote the few words that I shall offer on this Amendment to the question whether it is desirable that your Lordships should insist upon your Amendment. I would point out that on the
698
various stages of the Bill in the House of Commons, although divergent opinions were expressed, neither when this matter was before the Standing Committee, nor on Report or Second Reading or Third Reading did a Division take place upon this matter.
When your Lordships' Amendment was under discussion in the House of Commons there was quite a long discussion. It occupied something like two hours, and, as I have said, at the end of that discussion your Lordships' Amendment was disagreed to without any dissentient voice. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I venture to say that I think from many points of view it would be undesirable that your Lordships should insist upon your Amendment, especially in the face of the unanimity of the House of Commons. It would, if I might be permitted to say so, put your Lordships in a rather unenviable position in the country if your Lordships figured as the body that wanted to maintain whipping. For those reasons I ask your Lordships not to insist upon your Amendment. I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment at page 12, line 5.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Snowden.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have read and re-read many times the OFFICIAL REPORT in another place on the objections to this Amendment which was passed by your Lordships by such an overwhelming majority. I am afraid that the more I study it the less am I convinced that your Lordships were wrong in passing it. If I may detain your Lordships at somewhat unusual length I will try to deal with some of the arguments put forward against the Amendments in the House of Commons. Mr. Stanley said:
"The Amendment is to restore in the Bill the provisions for the whipping of boys under fourteen which we took out of the original Bill."
He was addressing members of the House of Commons. It was not the House of Commons who took it out of the Bill. It was taken out as the Bill was introduced into another place. It was done by the Government without any reference to members of the House of Commons, and it was taken out in the

699
face of recommendations to the contrary by such a sacrosanct body as a Committee appointed by Government is generally supposed to be. One can imagine what the arguments would have been supposing the Committee had recommended anything against whipping. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, would have shaken the document in your Lordships' faces and said "This Report is sacrosanct." Of course he would.
Then Mr. Stanley said that, although the topic was discussed, the Bill received a Second Reading without a Division. This however, is not a one-clause Bill dealing only with the abolition of the rod and it is unthinkable that its rejection should be moved solely on that ground. Then we come to the arguments that it is not the parent or the schoolmaster who administers the punishment but the policeman and also that this form of punishment is on the decrease. I can tell your Lordships why it is on the decrease. The magistrates all over the country frequently say to the father: "We have the power to whip this boy. Are you going to deal with him? If not, we will." If the power is taken away from the magistrates to inflict this punishment, this power of compromise is lost and the boy may get off without any punishment. The hon. Member talked of the boy best adapted to corporal punishment being guilty of petty offences. Surely you cannot regard endangering life or cruelty to children or animals as petty offences. Then he said there was nothing romantic in being sent to an approved school. I agree, but it is extremely expensive to the community at large and, if he repeated the offence, that would be soon enough to send him to an approved school.
Another hon. Member argued that the boy may be ordered to be whipped in one town for a less serious offence than in a neighbouring town, but you have only to read the newspapers to see that magistrates all over the country mete out different punishments, especially under the Road Traffic Act. There is no better example than the Road Traffic Act of different punishments for the same offence. I would here apologise to that hon. Member for having stated that the Young Offenders Committee were unanimous in their recommendations for I find that they were not. It was stated in
700
another place that this is not a Party Bill. I agree but I would ask the noble Lord why the Party Whips were put on when this Amendment was carried in this House. I saw with great regret that the magistrates in one place had ordered the whipping of a small boy of eight and I shall later on have a proposal to make to your Lordships on that point, which I hope will not only appeal to your Lordships but to another place. Then it is said that the police do not like the task, but such evidence as I have been able to obtain is that they look upon it as part of their duty.
In another passage an hon. Member said of your Lordships:
"If they were dealing with their own sons …I would not care; but they are dealing with the sons and daughters of my class."
If any of your Lordships' children were guilty of endangering the lives of others, they would certainly come before the magistrates and would be convicted. There is not very much in that argument. Then the hon. Member seems to have argued against himself, because he said:
"There has never been so intolerant a House of Commons as the House to-day. This House is more intolerant than it was when I came here ten years ago; and here we have the evidence of it in this Amendment."
But the Amendment was rejected by the House of Commons! In another passage the hon. Member said:
"Think of a mother standing and looking at her own flesh and blood being whipped."
She is not obliged to. It is purely optional whether she goes there or not.
Finally I come to the proposal I have to make and it is that this Amendment should read in the following terms:
"and when the child is a male, who has attained the age of ten years, to adjudge the child to be"
And so on. The remainder of the Amendment will remain as before.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I much prefer listening to the noble Viscount who has just sat down when he is speaking on grammar than when he is speaking about whipping, and I hope very much that your Lordships will follow the advice of the noble Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal, and not insist on this Amendment being retained in the Bill. I think it will really put

701
your Lordships in a rather ridiculous light and add another page to the jokes always being made about your Lordships' House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Where?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: In the country, I am afraid. As to this question of whipping, I was whipped when I was ten years old and it did not do me any good whatsoever. I was whipped for organising a steeplechase in the dormitory of my private school. After I had been whipped I felt very bitter resentment against the master, who obviously enjoyed whipping me, and a firm determination to organise another steeplechase as soon as I possibly could. I do not believe that it is a corrective in any way. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, who, in support of this Amendment, went back to history in order to support the argument in favour of the rod. I do not want to go further back than the early Victorian father, with his smoking cap and slippers and a rod in his dressing room. He used to take his children by the scruff of the neck and beat them. We have given up those methods. They are the methods of the lazy man who thinks it is a short cut to use the rod when other forms—much more difficult I own—of correction are much more efficacious. I am convinced that this is a very retrograde step. It will be regarded as such in the country. There is this further point, which was mentioned by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that the fact that a constable is to administer the punishment, not a parent or a, schoolmaster but a constable who is a complete stranger to the child, adds to the undesirability of such a punishment being inflicted. I hope very much that the advice given by the Lord Privy Seal will be followed by your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I can hardly believe that your Lordships will have been much influenced by the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I rarely heard a more inconclusive speech than that of the noble Lord. He thinks that your Lordships will become ridiculous in the country if you insist on a particular form of punishment which has been used by schoolmasters in all times. I happen to have had some little experience of public schools as a governor and also of other schools
702
when I was officially connected with the Government. Schoolmasters almost without exception used to say up to a very few years ago that the one thing you wanted to do by corporal punishment was to avoid prolonged impositions, prolonged detentions and other punishments very deleterious to a boy's health. The noble Lord did not say how he would avoid this. He said that he himself was greatly embittered by being subjected to castigation for a school offence. I do not think that in that respect or in any other the peculiar mentality of the noble Lord impresses your Lordships' House.
I would mention another case which occurred to me when my noble friend below me was defending the measure on the last occasion. I remember a case exactly the opposite. My father was at a private tutor's where his father was also a pupil, and I have heard him relate that his father happened to be a very troublesome little boy. It was almost impossible to get him to do any lessons. Various impositions had been tried and then the unfortunate preceptor, who did not even possess a cane, went out into the garden and cut a green holly stick and applied it to him with such success that he became afterwards one of the best, most virtuous and most reliable boys you could wish for at a public school. I am sure my noble friend would not wish to keep from others that advantage to which your Lordships possibly owe the intellect which we have seen displayed in the debates on this Bill. I have here a cutting from one of the newspapers this morning reporting that at Ramsgate Police Court yesterday two Minster boys were fined one pound each for cruelty by mutilating swans. It is quite obvious that those boys ought to have had half a dozen strokes of the birch. What was good enough for generations of boys should not be done away with in order to save other punishments less effective and much more deleterious to the health of those concerned. I think your Lordships should not be afraid of insisting on this Amendment on which you have as much right to an opinion as any member of the House of Commons.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this subject and to express the hope that we shall not insist on this Amendment. I believe that the principal argument alleged as the reason for putting in the Amendment was the illustration of the

703
case of Solomon. Solomon had at least three hundred children. If any right rev. Prelate were here I might ask the exact number. In a family of that size it would be no uncommon thing if Solomon thoroughly lost his temper. Having to control these three hundred odd children he was quite right in acting just as modern parents act and in quoting or creating some axiom in support of what was plainly and palpably loss of temper. I can give you an instance which I think has a considerable bearing upon this matter. What you have to do with children who are difficult and who are perhaps prone to acts of cruelty is to preserve the instinct of self-respect in them. If you ruin it, if you destroy it, you have parted with your last hope of saving that child from deteriorating in character.
I myself suffered severely from the cane. I will tell you the occasion. I do not think my nervous system was especially acute. What happened was this. A master told me to come to him at noon. I was a very small boy and I had not the ghost of a notion when noon was. I thought it was nine o'clock, and I went to him at nine o'clock. He was very angry, told me to take off my coat and caned me. When he had finished I was burning with indignation and I said: "I wonder, Sir, whether this performance makes you feel as great a brute as it does me." His reply was: "Take off your coat again." That I had expected. I took it off and I stood before him again. Suddenly he changed his mind and said: "No, stay to tea with me." From that day forward I felt a certain degradation and I felt that the instinct of self-respect in me had been permanently wounded. I would ask your Lordships to consider what would be the effect upon children of these public whippings. I believe it would be to destroy the one hope you have of training these children to be useful citizens. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not insist upon this Amendment.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than three minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said he was beaten once at school. I was beaten many times at school and every time it was a deterrent, I have not heard anything from the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal except
704
vague talk about the abolition of whipping. I have heard nothing to make me change my opinion that it would be a very dangerous thing to abolish whipping for juveniles. Since the Second Reading of this Bill I have taken the opinion of many people who have to administer justice in this country and almost every one of them told me that it would be a serious thing if whipping was done away with. I think that they surely are qualified to judge in this matter. I should like to put one point to the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden. He said that great discredit had been brought upon whipping. I have not yet discovered who has brought the discredit, but I do know that two days after I had had the honour of speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill I received a communication from the secretary of one of the branches of the Anti-Blood Sports League. It consisted of a long cutting from a Bristol newspaper with a large headline saying, "All Peers have been whipped" and then there was the ordinary propaganda of the organisation. The only thing I could gather was that I was a monster and your Lordships who voted against the abolition of whipping were monsters and that whipping was a blood sport. I must say that I think, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that the old motto of "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is just as true to-day as it was in the days of your Lordships' grandfathers.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I should like to correct one point in Lord Ernle's speech. He seemed to suggest that we contend that the man who himself had cause of offence might in hot temper be the person to administer chastisement. That is exactly the opposite of what is proposed.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, the speech—I think the powerful speech—of the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, disposes of one of the main arguments which induced your Lordships, I think, to pass this Amendment when it was before you some time ago. He has given emphatic reasons why Solomon believed you might spoil the child by sparing the rod, but I think none of us to-day is faced by the problem which apparently drove Solomon to this conclusion. The noble Earl who has just sat down has surely given us a very strong reason from his own experience why whipping should not be imposed.

705
He told us that he was whipped upon a great many occasions and that it was always a deterrent. May I then ask him how it came to pass that these repeated whippings were necessary? It is evident that the first, second, third and fourth did not act as a deterrent, and if any inference is to be drawn from the remarks of the noble Lord it is that the whipping had the very opposite effect. The noble Earl wanted some evidence for the statement that whipping is discredited. It is discredited by the fact that it is falling into disuse as a punishment inflicted by the courts and for the very reason that it has been proved by practical experience not to be a deterrent.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, raised one or two minor points. He said we had been told that this was not a Party Bill. If that expression was used it was not used in the sense that this was a Bill on which loyal supporters of the Government could vote just as they wished. It can only be regarded as non-Party in the sense that the provisions of the Bill are generally accepted by all Parties. It is a Government Bill and the Government is, of course, responsible for its provisions. The noble Viscount corrected an inference we might have drawn from his first references to the Report of the Committee on Young Offenders and may I therefore also make a correction? I said I was under the impression that whipping could not be inflicted on a child between the ages of eight and ten. I find that whipping can be inflicted on a child between eight and ten years of age.
I think I have dealt with the points raised since I spoke last, but I would again repeat that this is a matter on which there is a great deal of difference of opinion and I would beg your Lordships not to put this House into conflict with another place upon a matter of this sort. I think it would be a great mis-
take and there is no likelihood that the other place would be prepared to agree to your Lordships' Amendment. It is very undesirable that upon this matter there should be a conflict between the two Houses, and a conflict which might involve the loss of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the Reason given for the Commons disagreement is that "they deem it desirable that the birching of young boys by the police should be discontinued." We have not heard very much about that particular side of the argument, but I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether this Reason means that the Commons are not opposed to birching by some other authorised person, but are opposed only when it is administered by the police. I think a good many of us would be satisfied if they would accept a modification in the sense that the birching should be given by some person authorised by the magistrates, the Home Secretary or some properly qualified person. The words seem clearly to indicate that the only objection is to birch-other person.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I do not think the disagreement with your Lordships' Amendment could be interpreted as confined to birching by the police. Those words are put in rather as being the phrase of the Bill and I am sure that all who followed the discussion in another place will agree that the objection was to whipping by order of the magistrates. I am sure there would be no difference in the attitude of the House of Commons as between whipping by the police and whipping by some other person.
On Question, Whether the Motion, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Poulett, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allendale, V.

Ernle, L.

Mersey, V.

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

Reading, M.

Ullswater, V.

Hanworth, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Cavan, E.

Alvingham, L.

Joicey, L.

De La Warr, E.

Arnold L.

Latymer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Askwith, L.

Marks, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Sanderson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rochester, L.

Stanmore, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Burnham, V.

Heneage, L.

Bradford, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Irwin, L.

Addington, L.

Jessel, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lamington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barnard, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Macclesfield, E.

Bayford, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan- William.)

Mount Temple, L.

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Morton, E.

Cranworth, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strachie, L.

Selborne, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Teynham, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Vivian, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Wharton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 30, line 26, after ("homes") insert
("Provided that, where a place or places of detention have been provided under the principal Act Which are suitable for use as remand homes, and so long as such place or places are adequately maintained, they shall be deemed to be remand homes and there shall be no obligation on any council to provide further or additional accommodation in pursuance of this section.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the standard required in, the case of remand homes will not differ from that required in the case of existing places of detention and because councils may be trusted, without any direction, to arrange for the continual use of such places wherever possible.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, in the Commons they disagreed with our Amendment, and I have to propose that we do not insist upon it, but that we insert the Amendment in lieu thereof which is printed on the Paper. That Amendment, with certain small verbal alterations—namely, substituting "area" for the words "county or borough" in two places, for the purpose of meeting the case of Scotland—is as follows:
"(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a council to provide additional remand homes for their area so long as any places of detention provided under the principal Act and available for use by the council as remand homes remain suitable for that purpose and sufficient for the needs of the area."
I understand that the Government are willing to accept this alternative proposal, and I therefore do not think it necessary to add any words to commend it.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I am prepared to accept the substituted Amendment, and I therefore have to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, but proposes an Amendment in lieu thereof.— (Viscount Snowden.)
Moved, That in lieu thereof the following Amendment be made:— Page 31, line 3, at end, insert: ("(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a council to provide additional remand homes for their area so long as any places of detention provided under the principal Act and available for use by the council as remand homes remain suitable for that purpose and sufficient for the needs of the area.")—(Lord Danesfort.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 37, line 42, leave out from the beginning of line 42 to the end of line 2 in page 38.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:
Page 38, line 2, at end, insert ("in light agricultural or horticultural work").
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This Amendment was moved by Lord Banbury, and is with regard to the employment of children under twelve. The House of Commons disagreed to that Amendment but have amended the words so restored by a slight addition, providing that in the case of children under twelve the prohibition shall not apply where the

709
employment is of a light and seasonable character. I think your Lordships will agree that it is a very reasonable exception. There are many circumstances in which it is very desirable, or not undesirable, that children of eleven or under twelve shall be permitted to engage in seasonable occupation, under care, and I hope that Lord Banbury will agree to this modification. I therefore have to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment, and agree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. The words which the Commons have inserted are "in light agricultural or horticultural work."
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and agrees with the Amendment made by the Commons in lieu thereof.— (Viscount Snowden.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I agree to that.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 39, line 13, at end insert the following new clause:
Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of juvenile persons.
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may make by-laws with respect to the employment of persons under the age of eighteen years, but not being children.
(2) By-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes, and different localities, trade, occupations and circumstances, and may contain provisions for prescribing—

(i) the number of hours in each day or in each week for which and the times of day at which they may be employed;

(ii) the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest;

(iii) the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them;

(iv) any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment.

(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to—

(a) employment in or about the delivery, collection, or transport of goods except in the capacity of van boy, errand boy or messenger;

(b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employment in any capacity as aforesaid;

(c) employment in the building or engineering trades, not being employment in any such capacity as aforesaid;

710

(d) employment in agriculture;

(e) employment in domestic service except as non-resident daily servant;

(f) employment in any ship, as defined in Section four of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920;

provided that this section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.")
The Commons propose to amend the above new clause as follows:
line 33, by leaving out from, ("ship,") to the end of paragraph, and inserting ("or boat registered in the United Kingdom, as a British ship, or in any British fishing boat entered in the fishing boot register") instead thereof;
line 36, by leaving out from, the beginning to the end of the Amendment, and inserting:
("(4) An order of the Secretary of State appointing a date for this section to come into operation shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall not make the order until the draft has been approved by Resolutions passed in the same Session of Parliament by both Houses of Parliament.")
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, these are Amendments made by the Commons to the clause that was inserted by Lord Astor. One Amendment is in regard to a ship. The Board of Trade, with their practical experience, think that it is not desirable that the word "ship" should be kept in. With regard to the Commons other Amendment, your Lordships will remember that the proviso that was attached to Lord Astor's clause said that the order should not come into operation until it had been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Amendment in regard to that proviso which the House of Commons has inserted is that it shall be on the order of the Secretary of State, but that the Secretary of State shall not make the order until the draft has been approved by Resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament. The only effect of the change is that it will be left to the Secretary of State to prepare the draft. I think that that is an Amendment with which your Lordships will agree. I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Amendments made by the Commons.—(Viscount Snowden.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 86, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:—
Page 86, line 40, at end insert ("and Section seventy-four of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860, shall, except in so far as it applies to cases tried on indictment, cease to have effect").
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, after the result of the Division which has just been taken upon the question of whipping, I do not think that this need be moved. It was to deal with whipping in Scotland. Now that your Lordships have insisted upon your Amendment I suppose you will insist on this. I formally move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment, but agrees with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and doth agree with the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Motion disagreed to: Lords Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 99, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is inconsistent with other provisions in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This last Amendment is consequential on the previous Amendment, but I formally move that this House cloth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment—(Viscount Snowden.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: But I think it is necessary. It is a drafting Amendment, and necessary.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I hesitate to express an opinion on Scottish law, but I am instructed that this is consequential upon the House of Commons disagreement with your Lordships' Amendment on whipping in the body of the Bill, and that therefore it would be inconsistent in regard to Scotland if the course were not followed by your Lordships' House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We insist.
On Question, Motion disagreed to: Lords Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments: the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee read and agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Amendments and Reasons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 8 [Approval, validity, coming into effect, variation and revocation of schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the first is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("and (ii)").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 10:
Interim development orders.
Provided that—
(b) an application for permission to use any building which is erected in substitution for an existing building, or other such previous building as aforesaid, and is commenced within two years after the destruction or demolition of the previous building, for any purpose of the same or similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition shall not be refused unless such a use would be seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood.
(5) An applicant who is aggrieved by the refusal of the authority to consent to his application, or by any conditions imposed by them, may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he received notice of the decision of the authority, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, after taking into consideration any offer by the authority to make a contribution under the last preceding subsection, may dismiss or allow the appeal, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks proper to impose, but the Minister, before deciding any such appeal, shall, if either the appellant or the authority so desire, afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
The decision of the Minister on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out the last five words of subsection (3) —"seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood"—and insert "of a noxious or otherwise offensive character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment to an Amendment accepted on Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood") and insert ("of a noxious or otherwise offensive character").—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("such an application") and insert ("an application under the last preceding subsection").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out all words in subsection (5) after the second "authority" and insert "appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the property to which the notice relates is situated or to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to insert the petty sessional division as the authority, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor told me he would consider whether or not he could insert on the Third Beading words which would carry out my meaning. I have altered the proposal slightly by putting in the words "a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme"; that is to say, I have taken the words which are in Clauses 12 and 13 of this Bill. I do not see why, if it is right that under Clauses 12 and 13 these words should be inserted, it is wrong to insert them in Clause 10. I understand that one of the reasons against the Amendment is that the officials of the Ministry are more competent to decide cases of this sort than the petty sessional division or a
714
tribunal to be set up ad hoc. I do not know whether that is so or not.
My chief reason in moving to put in these words is that I object very much to the tendency, which is increasing yearly, of officials of the Ministry taking into their hands judicial power. It may be that the officials of the Ministry are very capable persons; probably they are; I would be the last person to say they are not; but they are not a judicial body, and it has always been the rule in England that when Parliament has made the law interpretation of that law should be left to a Court, of Law and not to a Ministry, however capable it is. Of course the Minister does not take any trouble about this. He does not know anything about it. He will leave it to his officials. I object very strongly to the officials taking the place of a Court of Law. Those are the reasons for which I introduced the Amendment, and as the hour is now getting late I will not dilate upon them. I hope I have put them clearly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to the end of subsection (5), and insert the said new words. (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will be as brief as I possibly can in answering the noble Lord. The Government cannot accept this Amendment for a great variety of reasons. I know what the noble Lord said on the last occasion about the Minister being an appeal from himself. That is quite a misapprehension. All that the general interim order issued by the Minister does is to authorise the local authorities to grant permission for interim development. It in no way sets out what the local authority is to do in any particular case. That, in the first place, is wholly a matter for the local authority. The Minister therefore has, and can have, no knowledge of cases until they come before him by way of appeal, and to say this is an appeal to the Minister from the Minister is really a misapprehension of the whole of the clause.
With regard to the next point. This has been the law ever since the Town Planning Act came into existence in 1909. I am perfectly well aware that the noble Lord said to me on one occasion when we were in a difference that he had not

715
been impressed by that argument. What I want to point out is that not only has this been the law since the Town Planning Act came into existence in 1909, but it has worked extremely well and there has been no complaint against it. The next point the noble Lord made is that we have put this in in Clauses 12 and 13, so why not put it in Clause 10? The answer is a simple one. It is an entirely different matter from that dealt with in Clauses 12 and 13. Clauses 12 and 13 certainly give the right of appeal to a special tribunal, but when the scheme contains a provision enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings it also provides that any persons aggrieved by any decision of the responsible authority under the provisions of the clause may appeal to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose. That is a clause taken from an Act of Parliament and is known as the Bath Clause. It gave a special tribunal which, I think, is composed of the President of the Surveyors' Institute, the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and a lawyer—about the most expensive tribunal you could possibly have.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Nominated by them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is not an appropriate body to deal with appeals bearing on the decision of a local authority during the interim period. This is a mere question of administration. With regard to appeals to justices, I dealt with that point upon the last occasion that we discussed this matter, and the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment. Justices are not a proper tribunal to do this. I pointed out on the last occasion that a great deal of the work done by the justices of this country is most admirably done, and I am sure we are all very thankful to the gentlemen who do that work without fee and without reward. I do not want to say too much about this matter, because I am responsible for the appointment of justices, but I do not think the justices are a fit tribunal all over the country to do this kind of work. Many issues cannot be satisfactorily decided without professional advice which is not available to the justices. One of the things the justices would have to do if they had to deal with an appeal of this kind
716
would be to have expert evidence, and that would mean that there would be present at the appeal learned counsel and expert witnesses and that would entail considerable expense. All this could be done much more cheaply by the Minister in London. I do not think I need say any further upon the point of the justices not being the fit and proper persons to do this particular sort of work.
I am sorry to take up so much of your Lordships' time, but I must add one word upon the last point, the question of a special tribunal. We have all heard the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, time after time reminding us of the necessity for economy. I am sorry to find him on this occasion an advocate for expense. All I can say is, "Et tu, Brute!" There are far too many tribunals being set up in this country. Many Acts of Parliament have been passed in which the duty is put upon the Lord Chancellor to appoint somebody as a special tribunal, and your Lordships little know the expense to which the country is being put through the setting up of these special tribunals. Of course you can get a man—you can get hundreds of men—to sit on special tribunals for a guinea, but I would not care to trust them with a matter of this kind. There is the tribunal to which I have already referred. I do not want to say how much the sittings of that tribunal cost a day. If I were to tell your Lordships what sonic of the special tribunals do cost per day I think you would not want any more of them. My final point is that if the parties agree, they can, even under this, refer the matter to an arbitrator. That is an absolute protection for everybody. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, at the end of the Session is attempting to spoil a really valuable and admirable record as an advocate of economy.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out to the noble Lord that the clause says this? A Minister shall make a general order with respect to the interim development of land. Having made that general order the local people have to carry it out. If anybody is aggrieved by the action of the local people on the order of the Minister, then the only appeal is to the Minister. It is true I have put in my Amendment "a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose

717
under the scheme," and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has devoted a good deal of scorn to the idea that there should be an expensive tribunal, but I have only taken his own words. I am taking these words out of Clause 13 in the hope of conciliating the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I am following him. Is not that a good thing to do?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What, not to follow the noble and learned Viscount? I thought it was, and I did it for that reason. Another point is this. The noble and learned Viscount, as I understood him, has not replied to my chief argument, which is now, and which was, that when a person, a subject of His Majesty, is aggrieved by any action taken by any person under the authority of an Act of Parliament, the proper people to whom he should go to ask for redress of his grievance is not an official of the Ministry, but a Court of Law, and on that I believe I shall have the support of the great majority of the people of this country. It is now late and there are not many members of your Lordships' House here and unless my noble friend Lord Halsbury gets up and supports me, and I think he ought to on this question, I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a. Division.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot help my noble friend Lord Banbury. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount on the Woolsack that there are far too many tribunals to-day. I am certain that there are too many in this Bill and we certainly do not want any more. I would only point out this, the noble Viscount on the Woolsack did not say how much these things cost, but some of us can make a shrewd guess. You would not have fewer than three people on the tribunal and, after paying their fees, railway fares, a registrar and a secretary, you would be lucky if you got but of it for less than £120 or £150 a day. My noble friend Lord Banbury seems to forget that at present the clause provides that it shall be a tribunal appointed by the Minister.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That was put in to meet the wishes of the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, after ("was") insert ("confirmed or").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 17:
Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.
17.—(1) Where a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect, the council of any county borough or county district which, or any part of which, is situate within the area to winch the resolution applies or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district, may at any time make an order with respect to any building of special architectural or historic interest within that area and within the district of that council directing that without their consent the building shall not be demolished, and may at any time vary or revoke an order so made by them.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or" before "historic" and after "historic" to insert "or artistic." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I move this Amendment to bring this clause into conformity with Clause 1 in which the word "artistic" appears.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 12, leave out ("or") and after ("historic") insert ("or artistic").— (Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Government are not very enamoured of this Amendment. We admit, of course, that it may be an advantage to have uniformity in drafting, but that is not the only consideration that has to be taken into account. As the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, pointed out earlier in the Bill, the question of what is or what is not artistic varies with time and circumstances. In this particular clause, where we are giving a new power to a local authority for the first time, we ought to avoid as far as possible any ambiguity as to what they can or cannot do. It is comparatively easy to determine what is of architectural interest or what is of historic interest. Those are attributes which instructed opinion will probably agree upon, but, if the local authority is also given power to make an order in respect of what is artistic, they might be given a very wide discretion. "Artistic" might apply to the setting

719
as well as to the structural qualities of the building. A distinction can be drawn between the reference in this clause and in other clauses.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19:
Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases.
(2) The Minister shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding subsection or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—
(ii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (g) of the said subsection, unless the scheme contains also provisions satisfactory to him for securing that—

(a) existing buildings may be maintained and their existing use continued; and

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in subsection (2) (ii) (a), after "existing," to insert "or similar." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in paragraph (ii) (d) of this subsection your Lordships will read:
"A new building so substituted as aforesaid may be used for any purpose of the same or a similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition."
If a new building may be used for any purpose of the same or a similar character, then a fortiori any building which may exist to-day may be able to be used for a similar use.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, after ("existing") insert ("or similar").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this matter is already covered, because Clause 53 defines "existing use" as being a use "of the same or a similar character."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Then I do not quite understand why it occurs in the line I quoted. If the noble Viscount does not wish to accept it, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in value]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, all the Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, lines 23 and 24, after ("agreement") insert ("or determination")
line 25, leave out ("to the") and insert ("in writing to the responsible")
line 28, leave out ("repayment") and insert ("payment")
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("the").(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 46:
Powers as to the preservation of trees.
(2) Where an area is so specified, the scheme may impose an obligation on the owner, if any part of the woodland is felled or otherwise destroyed, to undertake such replanting as would be in accordance with the practice of good forestry, but save as aforesaid the scheme shall not impose any control over forestry operations in the area.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved in subsection (2), to leave out "or otherwise destroyed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment proposed by the Government to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, who urged on Report that the inclusion of these words might be unfair to owners in cases where the woodlands are destroyed by accident. By leaving out these words this point will be met.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 18, leave out ("or otherwise destroyed").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 54 [Repeals]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 26, leave out ("fifty-three"> and insert ("fifty-two").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 55 [Special provisions as to Surrey County Council Act, 1931]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 18, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, it is perhaps rather late in the Bill on one of the last Amendments to make some protest against the wholesale acceptance of suggested alterations in drafting. I must apologise but it has only been recently pointed out that there is a possibility that my noble friend's grammar is not always so superior to that of Government Departments.
VISCOUNT BERTLE OF THAME: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, it is not my grammar. I must make a confession. I think "a court" or "a committee" ought to be treated in the singular, but it would involve two or three hundred Amendments in this Bill and in the Children Bill and, being of an indolent disposition, I have taken the line of least resistance and Followed the grammar of the Government.
VISCOUNT GAGE: That was just the point I wished to develop since I have had an opportunity of consulting the learned draftsmen on this point. What they pointed gut was that, although uniformity is desirable, the main consideration ought to be clearness of intention. Take the case where a multitude is followed by a plural verb. I will give an example where, if that is permitted, it is not too clear:
"Where a court is constituted of the Lord Mayor sitting alone".
If that were to read:
"Where a court are constituted of the Lord Mayor sitting alone"
the noble Lord will agree that it is not a very harmonious phrase.
But that is not strictly germane to the point I have been discussing. On this question of "whom" and "which" we think the meaning of the Bill as drafted is quite clear and that the word in the Bill is better than the one suggested. The phrase is again I think more harmonious. "A joint committee of which the local authorities who have concurred" is better than "a joint committee, of whom the local authorities who have concurred." I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer on this point, but I do think that in view of the very powerful manner in which we were reproved for slovenly drafting it is due to the draftsmen to point out that the question of uniformity has never been
722
considered absolutely essential. The main consideration is clearness of meaning.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the Government do not desire to be consistently bad I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sixth Schedule [Adaptations and Modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 85, line 15, leave out ("For") and insert ("In subsection (5) for the words real or personal' there shall be substituted the words heritable or moveable'; in the proviso to subsection (8) for the words where a disposition is by way of lease or tenancy agreement' there shall be substituted the words 'a claim made on the granting of a lease or tack which is' and the words 'the claim' shall be omitted; and for").
Page 90, line 35, after ("16") insert ("for the words 'real or personal' there shall be substituted the words 'heritabie or moveable' and").—(Viscount Gaye.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word or two about the history of these Amendments. The Bill was originally passed in your Lordships' House for the purpose of effecting economies in the gas industry by enabling gas companies to co-operate with one another in the working up and

723
the marketing of by-products and also to enable gas companies to save expenses in Private Bill legislation and to make economies generally. It was hoped that in that way these by-products would be produced more cheaply and that gas companies would be helped in the keen foreign competition they had to face. The Bill passed this House without dissent and it went to the House of Commons where it was read a second time. Then a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, with Mr. Wrottesley, K.C., as Chairman, recommended the inclusion of municipal gas undertakings as well as gas companies. These Amendments, numbering about a dozen and covering three printed pages, were inserted in the House of Commons in order to include municipal undertakings in the provisions of the Bill. All these Amendments are directed to that end and are either drafting Amendments or Amendments consequential on the introduction of municipal authorities into the Bill. I should point out that there is a printing error on page 2. In paragraph (ii) the word "to" should appear at the end of the third line so that the paragraph should read "in its application to those undertakings." As these Amendments all have the same purpose and as I understand the Government approve of them and they carry out the recommendations of various Committees and Royal Commissions, perhaps we may take them altogether. If your Lordships will allow me I will therefore move them collectively and ask your Lordships to approve of them all.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Bridgemen.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, before this question is put I should like to say a very few words on behalf of the Government. The Amendments which we are now considering were made at the instigation of the Government in order to bring the Bill into line with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses set up to consider the matter. That Committee was presided over by my noble friend Lord Marks, and I think it sat on May 5 and 6 last. I think, and I think most of your Lordships will think, that certain Bills which come up to this House from the House of Commons are
724
better Bills when they have passed through this House. In the case of this Bill I think it is a better Bill now that it has passed through the House of Commons. The Amendments made in it are fully accepted by the interests concerned and are entirely acceptable to the Government.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRUELTY TO DOGS.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government's attention has been drawn to recent prosecutions for cruelty to dogs, and whether action can be taken to ensure that a dog licence shall not be issued to any person who has been convicted of cruelty to dogs or other animals and punished by fine or imprisonment. The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain you more than two or three minutes in raising this question, although I am sure that it is a subject which will appeal to many of your Lordships on all sides of the House, as many, indeed most, of your Lordships own dogs yourselves. No doubt your Lordships' attention has been called to a recent prosecution reported in the Press of an individual named Kay who was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment for cruelty to a dog. This man, who had professed all his life to be a good Christian, and having just come from church one Sunday morning, most foully beat to death his dog with a hatchet because he said the dog was dangerous.
The facts, I understand, were that the dog ran to greet his master and jumped up, causing the man to stumble—so his implication, I suppose, was that because the dog in the exuberance of life and pleasure at seeing his master jumped up and caused him to stumble, it had grown so dangerous that it merited the appalling death that was meted out to it. It was tied up so that it could not get away and beaten over the head with a hatchet. Its struggles were so violent that it did

725
succeed in breaking away. This man, this human devil, called the poor animal back and the animal, not understanding and trusting its master, came back and was again tied up and beaten until it died. Every bone in that dog's head was found to be smashed. This man, who in my opinion is nothing less than an inhuman monster, admitted treating seven other dogs in a similar way. When he is released from prison what is there to stop him from buying another dog, taking out a dog licence and then treating that dog in the same disgustingly brutal manner?
I want to ask His Majesty's Government if nothing can be done to prevent a man like this from obtaining another licence and owning another dog. I have other recent cases of cruelty about which I should like to speak, but as it is so late I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has introduced two Bills into your Lordships' House with the object of refusing dog licences to people convicted of cruelty to dogs. The noble Lord's first Bill reached the Third Reading stage in your Lordships' House before it was rejected. In 1929 the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, introduced a second Bill and the late Earl Russell, speaking for the Home Office, stated that their objection was that the Bill would be ineffective since any person so convicted could get his wife or daughter or maid or some other member of his household to hold the licence and thus would obtain custody of the dog. The late Lord Brentford stated that he took full responsibility for the attitude of the Home Office.when he was Home Secretary, as any regulations such as these would inflict too much of a burden on the police, and also that any person convicted of cruelty could quite easily go to another part of the country and take out a dog licence without any one being the wiser. If it is still the view of the Home Office that the difficulties would be too great for the police and that other members of the person's household would hold the licence, and thus any such regulation would be ineffective, then I would urge the Government to pass some legislation whereby no person convicted of cruelty, or any member of that person's family, could have control or custody of a dog. I hope the noble Earl who replies for the Government will give me
726
some assurance that something will be done. I think public opinion demands it.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move to resolve, That this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to support as strongly as I can the appeal mace by the noble Earl, and in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing their opinion in a definite form I have put down a Motion which your Lordships will find on the Paper expressing in substance the hope—
"that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty"—
I should be content to leave out the word "gross"—
"to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs."
The case to which the noble Earl referred was one of the most brutal instances of cruelty to a dog that ever came before the courts, but I am sorry to say there are many horrible cases of cruelty to dogs and the penalties for them are often totally inadequate.
It is horrible to think that a man who has tortured a dog to death—it may be a dog long in his household, almost a pet dog—can as soon as he gets out of prison, if he goes there, which he ought to do, immediately apply for and obtain as many licences as he desires and there is nothing to prevent him, if his nature is such, from torturing those dogs as well. This is a matter which has been widely reported in the Press and I think it has deeply stirred the feelings of humanity which exist in this country regarding cruelty to dogs and other animals. I hope most heartily and earnestly that die Government will accept my Motion, which merely expresses the hope on the part of your Lordships that the Government will initiate this legislation which is so earnestly needed. It is really a scandal that as the law stands a man who has behaved in this cruel way should be able to get licences.
When this matter was raised in another place by a Question, the Home Office

727
simply said in reply: "We do not propose to introduce legislation." When pressed for the reason why, they said there were insuperable difficulties, and on being pressed as to what the insuperable difficulties were they did not give an answer beyond stating that it was impossible to say more. I do not believe for one moment that there are any difficulties which cannot be fairly easily surmounted. When the police see a dog in town or country they often make it their business to find out whose dog it is and whether the man bas a licence, and it would throw no undue work on them to find out whether a man had been told he must not have a licence. If that man keeps a dog in violation of such an order any legislation passed would apply an appropriate penalty. I believe the Home Office contains many capable and ingenious persons, and I refuse to believe that they could not get over what relatively small initial difficulties there would be in the way of making such an order effective. I therefore appeal to my noble friend who will answer for the Home Office to allow this expression of opinion of the House to pass without a Division so that the Home Office will then be able to devise means of making it effective. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs.—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hope that His Majesty's Government will accede to the request made by the two noble Lords. The excuse—I do not wish to be rude—or reason that this proposal is impossible because a man might transfer a licence to his daughter, his mother, his grandmother or somebody else, does not seem to be very cogent. If a man brutally maltreats a dog and is fined, or I hope imprisoned, and is then refused a licence, that at any rate will bring home to him and everybody else the fact that he is a person who is not considered suitable to keep a dog, and if a dog is kept in his house by some relative and is maltreated it is surely a presumption that the person who has maltreated it is the one who has been refused the licence and
728
punished for maltreating another dog. I dare say it will be possible to introduce a dog into a house and maltreat it, but the fact that there will be no licence will, I think, be a deterrent. It is said that a man might go to another part of the country, buy another dog and get a licence; perhaps he might. It is said that it would be a trouble to the police to rind it out; perhaps it might. But the man who does that will be committing an offence and if found out he will be punished. Even at present it is not every offence that the police are able to find out. If they catch a man who misbehaves in this way it will be to the advantage of all and I cannot see that the proposal is one which is not feasible. I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer from the noble Earl.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My.Lords, as I was responsible for introducing the Bill two years ago, may I point out that, as has been said, it would be quite easy if the Government introduced another Bill on the same lines to insert in it that magistrates should have the power of ordering that a person convicted of cruelty to a dog should not be allowed to hold a licence, or any member of his family. If that is the insuperable objection it would be easy to overcome. It was also objected that this would cause trouble to the police, but all who are magistrates must know that the police are continually bringing up men or women for keeping dogs without a licence. The police know who are the people who have not got a licence, and it would be perfectly easy for them to find out whether a man who has been convicted and is living in a particular locality has or has not a dog and has or has not taken out a licence. True, the man might go to a distant part of the country, but that would give him a considerable amount of expense and trouble and it is not a good argument against bringing in a law which in many cases can be enforced to say that it is possible i n certain circumstances it may be evaded. You might as well say that because there are many cases where people breaking into houses are not caught it is putting trouble on the police to make house-breaking an offence, and that it would be better not to do so.
From my recollection of the whole thing it is really some fad of the Home

729
Office and from the very beginning it was some official in the Home Office who objected. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, saying it was for your Lordships' House to consider what ought or ought not to be done, not an official of the Home Office. In view of the great cruelty which has taken place in the last few years, in view of the fact that the general opinion of the country is in favour of some sort of regulation, and in view also of the fact that legislation could be passed through this House in a couple of days or less, I trust that the Government will exercise their great talents upon bringing in a workable measure.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I should like to emphasise the fact that this Motion is simply to move to resolve that this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel the licence. I hope the Government will recognise that the House is really united to a great extent in regard to this subject and will see their way to pass the Motion. I am certain that if you consider the view of the average man in this country you will realise that he does not wish that any man capable of cruelty of this kind should have the power of holding a licence.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can answer the two noble Lords at one time, and I will begin by assuring them that the Government are just as sympathetic towards the desire to prevent these cases of cruelty to dogs as either of my noble friends. It is not, therefore, any want of sympathy that compels me to state that the Government do not see their way to bring in the legislation which is asked for. First of all there are administrative difficulties, which it will be understood are considerable. You do not get a dog licence like you do a motor car licence. You simply go to the nearest Money Order Office, of which there are 12,000 in the United Kingdom, and into which any person can walk, pay 7s. 6d., and get a dog licence. There is no check upon that, and it would be impossible almost to trace these people—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I interrupt for one moment? It is quite true that that would happen, but then the Government would receive some
730
money, and they want money very much at the present moment. The applicant would get his licence, and then when the police found that the man ought not to have a licence the Government would get the 7s. 6d. and the man would get the penalties.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My noble friend is very ingenious, and I will submit what he says to the Home Office. It is true that it would be easy to evade this regulation. It has been suggested that that difficulty might be got over; but there is this difficulty with which the police would be faced, that any member of a man's family could get a licence. I understand that Lord Onslow is of opinion that that does not matter, because if it were found that a dog in the same household had been illtreated proceedings could be taken against the man. I should have said there was a very much better way of proceeding in cases of cruelty to dogs—a way which would probably be far more a deterrent than the stopping of licences, which it is not at all certain would be effective. I think the greatest deterrent would be the enforcement of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, under which a person guilty of cruelty is liable to a heavy fine or three months imprisonment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should suggest that also.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can only repeat that the Home Office see great difficulties in the proposal which is made, which would also necessitate the setting up of a very large staff. I know my noble friend would not lightly incur additional expense.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not against incurring expense for a good object.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid that my noble friend would not get the return that he wants, in the way of stopping cruelty to dogs. As I have stated, the proposal would entail enlarging the administration and would be very difficult to enforce. The Government also do not admit that there is any very great necessity for the change, because public notice has been called very extensively to the case of cruelty mentioned by Lord Kinnoull, and these cases are not very numerous, according to the Government's information. Another difficulty,

731
of course, is that certain dogs are exempt from licence, such as animals under six months old, sheep dogs, and dogs belonging to blind persons. I can only repeat that while they feel the greatest sympathy the Government are advised that the difficulties of administration would be very great, and they are not prepared to undertake the legislation which is proposed.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I cannot help being rather disappointed at the speech of the noble Earl, because, although there is difficulty, I cannot believe that it is insuperable, and, as the noble Earl has admitted, the matter really does not refer to a very large number of cases. I want to submit, as a suggestion, that the licence of anybody who behaved in this way should be endorsed; that nobody should get a dog licence without producing his former licence; that if a person moves to a new district, and comes forward as asking for a licence for the first time—I doubt if that would be a very frequent occurrence—his name should be known. There should be a black list. I do not suppose you would have more than a score of names on the black list, which could easily be issued to those who sell the licences up and down the country. I think it would be worth while doing this, because really the case quoted by my noble friend is something that ought not to be allowed to pass without public indignation taking a practical form. I wish the Government would take this matter into their consideration, and let us think it out among ourselves in order to see whether some means cannot be taken to put an end to these brutes acting as they do.
LORD DANESFORT: I think the noble Lord's suggestion as to endorsing licences is an admirable one, and would get over many of the difficulties suggested by the Home Office. The truth is that the difficulties can be got over, and ought to be got over, and I hope that my noble friend, when he hears the result of the Division that is going to take place, will inform the Home Office of our views. The fact that a guilty person may get off, and escape penalties that are imposed, is no reason why the law should not be put upon the Statute Book.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
"That the First Report by the Committee was made to the House on the 18th of December, 1928.
The bronze group by Mr. John Tweed and the panels on either side of the alcove, on which the names are inscribed, were completed in the early part of this year.
The Memorial was unveiled by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on the 10th of March, 1932.
It was decided at a meeting of the Committee held on the 28th of June, 1932, that the names of Scottish and Irish non-representative Peers and their sons who laid down their lives in the War should be added to the Memorial.
The Committee have considered the question of the disposal of the surplus balance of the fund. The total subscriptions, including accrued interest, amounted approximately to £12,000. The total expenditure to date has amounted approximately to £10,000. The surplus, subject to certain further small payments, will amount therefore approximately to £2,000.
The Committee decided that a replica should be made of each page of the Memorial Books and offered to the nearest relatives of those commemorated.
It was further decided that a bed, to be called "The House of Lords War Memorial Bed," be endowed at Westminster Hospital at a cost of £1,000, and that any final balance after all expenses have been met should be given to the Westminster Hospital as a donation.
It was also decided to take out an insurance policy for £1,000 so that in the event of destruction a sum would be available to replace the memorial in some form."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think I should say a few words about the Second Report, which I hope may be the final one, of the Peers' War Memorial Committee. Your Lordships will see that a decision was taken by the Committee to include the Scottish and Irish Peers and their sons—those Peers who are not Peers of Parliament. The original decision was that only Peers of Parliament and their sons should be included but that decision was arrived at, I think, early in the history of the Committee, and mainly in connection with the proposed erection of the War Memorial in the Princes' Chamber, and one of the reasons was that the space there was somewhat small, and it was necessary to keep down the numbers as much as possible. These reasons do not now seem to be cogent,

733
but I think there was a considerable desire expressed by noble Lords who are not Peers of Parliament that this inclusion should be made, and so the Committee have decided to add another panel to those already in the Royal Gallery, which will include the Scottish and Irish Peers, and also two names which were inadvertently omitted from the original panels.
Then we have decided to make an insurance of the Memorial for £1,000. Of course, it would not be possible to replace the Memorial altogether if the buildings were burnt down or some accident occurred by which the Memorial was destroyed, but it would be possible to put up something in its place in the future. Supposing the statue were destroyed or the panels or books were destroyed, it would be possible at any rate to replace them by something which might serve to commemorate those who laid down their lives during the War. Then there is a considerable sum over, and there was difficulty in deciding what should be done with it. In the first place, it was considered that it might be an acceptable gift to the relatives of those commemorated in the Memorial to have a copy of the page of the book on which their relatives' name is inscribed. It was decided therefore to spend some of the surplus money in carrying that out, and a letter will be sent to the nearest relative of everybody commemorated, asking whether they would like to have such a record, and, if so, whether they would communicate with me, stating the address
734
to which it should be sent. I venture to make that observation because I hope that we shall have answers from all those to whom we have written, as it rather complicates the matter if we do not know whether or not they wish to receive the gift. If the nearest relative does not wish to receive it, we shall approach the next nearest, and so on.
There remains another point, that is the residue of £1,000 or so. It was decided to endow a bed to be called the House of Lords War Memorial Bed, or by some such title, in the Westminster Hospital, and the Hospital has accepted the gift, and has agreed that if there are any persons attached to your Lordships' House who should need treatment they would make arrangements, and it would be given there. There probably will be a small sum over after that, and, if so, it is proposed to give it as a donation or subscription to the Hospital. I hope this will be the last time I have to trouble your Lordships with a Report. I do not know whether everything will be wound up by next Session, or whether it will be necessary to appoint the Committee again, but anyhow there will be very little to be done in the future. I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of July 7.]

OXFORD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1932.
SHEFFIELD GAS ORDER, 1932.
YEOVIL GAS ORDER, 1932.
NEWBURY GAS ORDER, 1932.
CAMBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

INVERGORDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Invergordon and District Electricity Special Order, 1923:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.