Sitting of 18 July 1933

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Somerset Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ely, Holland, and Norfolk) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wath, Swinton, and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Aberdeen Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill,
Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Grampian Electricity Supply,' presented by Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  MIGRANT LAND SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.
  Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it has yet been found possible to make arrangements with the Commonwealth of Australia and Victorian Governments for the settlement of the claims of the British settlers in Victoria; and whether he will inform the House what steps are being taken to give effect to the findings of the Royal Commission on migrant land settlement?
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the action to be taken by the Government in the United Kingdom on the Report of the Royal Commission on Migrant Land Settlement in Victoria, Australia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS(Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am informed that the Government of Victoria, after careful consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission, are convening a conference to consist of two representatives each of the Commonwealth and State Governments and the representative in the Commonwealth of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Under the agreements between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth, by which the settlement schemes dealt with in the report were brought into operation, His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth undertook full responsibility for seeing that all proper arrangements were made by the Victoria Government for the satisfactory settlement of the migrant settlers from this country, and it is for those Governments therefore now to take the necessary action to deal with the situation disclosed in the report. In order, however, to afford all possible assistance in the matter, I have authorised the United Kingdom representative to attend the proposed conference, which will meet to-morrow.
  Mr. MAXTON: Who is the United Kingdom representative?
  Mr. THOMAS: Mr. Crutchley.
  Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what has been the total amount expended by this country under the provisions of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922; how much of that has been paid in respect of settlers in the Commonwealth of Australia; and how much on settlement in the State of Victoria?
  Mr. THOMAS: The total amount expended by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, to 31st March, 1933, is £6,584,529. The amount paid in respect of settlers in the Commonwealth of Australia is £3,454,210, being 21,928,772 for assisted passages, £1,390,887 for land settlement and development, and £134,551 for training and aftercare. Of the sum of £1,390,887 expended on land settlement and development, £216,975 was paid in respect of settlement in the State of Victoria.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the British representative at the Conference which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced have power to demand the repayment of that money from the State of Victoria, since the contract has not been carried out?
  Mr. THOMAS: He will have power to act as the representative of the British Government, and to report accordingly.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (FINANCIAL POSITION).
  Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Amulree appointed to investigate the financial affairs of Newfoundland has yet made its Report; and if he is now able to state the Government's policy for meeting the difficulties in Newfoundland?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. Pending the issue of the Report, which I hope will be available in the autumn, it is not possible for me to make any statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the matter.
  Mr. MAXTON: I hope that the Government are not going to delay the appearance of this Report until the
  1652
  autumn. Why is this being done? Is Lord Amulree still wandering in the wilds of Newfoundland?
  Mr. THOMAS: No. In fairness not only to Lord Amulree but to all the members of the delegation, it should be said that they undertook a very delicate and difficult task, and showed considerable public spirit in doing so, and that the importance of the Report is such that it requires very careful consideration. I cannot issue the Commission's Report without due consideration.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five months have already elapsed, that this matter is urgent, that the House has already voted £500,000 and that no one knows how much more will have to be voted before the matter is finished?
  Mr. THOMAS: It is not nearly so urgent as the future of this Great Dominion.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: May we assume that this Report will be published and laid before Parliament in the ordinary way?
  Mr. THOMAS: I should hope so.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FURNITURE TRADE (RUSSIAN COMPETITION).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the trade agreement now under negotiation with the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, he will take steps to protect the standard of living of furniture makers in this country against attack by imported articles which are being sold at a price with which no British manufacturer could possibly compete?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The representations of my hon. and gallant Friend have been noted.
    Sir A. KNOX: Would the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that, out of 134,000 furniture makers in this country, there are no less than 20 per cent. out of work, and that Russian furniture is coming in here at prices with which we cannot possibly compete—17s. for an oak desk?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will note what my hon. Friend says. It is always open for the industry to make further representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the Minister not aware that the keenest competition comes from Finland and not from Russia?
    Mr. LYONS: Will the Minister say how many industries are waiting for replies from that committee?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that, as a result of the differences that existed between this country and Russia, thousands of engineers and shipbuilders are unemployed too?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You know that there are—and steel workers.

    FRANCE (EXCHANGE COMPENSATION SURTAX).
    Sir A. KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that while goods exported from Great Britain to France are still subject in that country to a 15 per cent. exchange surtax, French imports from America are not so penalised, in spite of the recent depreciation of the American dollar by over 25 per cent.; and if he will represent to the French Government the hardship to British manufacturers whose goods are in competition with American products in the French market?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE: The question of securing the removal of the French 15 per cent. exchange compensation surtax continues to engage the earnest attention of my right hon. Friend, and he has quite recently had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the French Minister of Finance and Minister of Commerce.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is there any chance of the French Minister of Finance putting a similar sur-tax on the American product imported into France?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot say, Sir.

    SETTS AND KERBS (IMPORTS).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether
    1654
    his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of setts and kerbs from Norway and Sweden have progressively increased during the first five months of this year; and whether anything can be done to protect the home industries and the men w ho are out of work or working short time, in view of the fact that the trade agreements entered into with Norway and Sweden preclude any variation of the duties proposed by the Imports Advisory Committee for three years?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am aware that imports from Norway and Sweden of setts and kerbs have shown a small progressive increase each month of this year, but imports from these countries in the first five months of 1933 were less than in the corresponding period of 1932 and at a rate of less than half the average monthly imports from Norway and Sweden in 1931. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on behalf of the Minister of Transport to the hon. Member for Torquay on 22nd June, regarding the steps which are being taken to promote the use of British material of this kind.
    Sir C. RAWSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he realises that if this small progressive increase goes on until the end of the year, probably the imports will then be much bigger than they were in 1932 and in 1931?
    Mr. BURNETT: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me whether, if the imports of setts, kerbs and monuments continue to increase, the trade agreements will prevent any quantitative regulation being put into force?
    Dr. BURGIN: In reply to the first supplementary: There is ground for thinking that such a temporary increase is due entirely Co seasonal causes in regard to road-building programmes. With regard to the second supplementary: The Norwegian and Swedish agreements conventionalised the duty at 15 per cent. I understand that there are restrictions on quantitative regulation.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman confer with the Minister of Transport with a view to reducing the grants to local authorities who use foreign kerbs and setts?
    Sir C. RAWSON—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot spend such a long time on each question.

    JAPAN.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the progress of the preliminary Anglo-Japanese commercial negotiations?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am afraid I cannot at present add anything to the statement made in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller) on 4th July.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Do the Government contemplate carrying out the Report of the Betting Commission Is it not absurd to set up commissions and committees if their recommendations are not carried out?
    Captain MACDONALD: May I point out that my question refers to Anglo-Japanese trade, and has nothing to do with the Betting Commission? Are the negotiations still going on?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I hope it will be possible to make a further statement before the House rises. Close contact is being maintained with the industries concerned. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question later, I hope to be able to say something.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation which will enable more drastic action to be taken against manufacturers and traders who promote the sale of their goods in this country by applying to them the title British when that title is not fully justified?
    Dr. BURGIN: The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, makes it unlawful to apply to goods a trade description which is false as regards the place of manufacture. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know in what respect he thinks that the Act needs strengthening.
    Captain MACDONALD: Has the attention of the Department been called to public exhibitions in which exhibits shown as British goods have been found on examination to be foreign?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think that some such cases have been brought to our notice.
    Captain MACDONALD: Has any-action been taken?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think so.

    IMPORTED TYPEWRITERS.
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent increase of imported foreign typewriters; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware that there has been an increase in the numbers of typewriters imported from foreign countries in recent months. As regards the second part of the question, it is open to the trade to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase in the rate of duty.
    Mr. LYONS: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether it is not the fact that the great difference which has occurred in the rate of exchange between this country and America was not taken into account by the Committee in fixing the duty; and whether the devaluation of the American exchange does not wipe out the main material benefit which the typewriter trade had at its inception?
    Dr. BURGIN: Of course, it is not possible for me to say what was in the mind of the Committee in fixing the rate of duty, but it is an interesting fact that the imports from Canada are very much smaller, the imports from Germany have remained exactly the same, and the imports from the United States show a very considerable increase.
    Mr. LYONS: Is not the fall in Canadian imports due to the fact that an end has been put to what was an obvious ramp?

    RUSSIAN TIMBER.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of timber from Russia have been landed during the past three weeks; what amounts are involved in contracts for the coming 12 months; whether he is aware that the bulk of British railway-sleeper requirements are being supplied this year by Russia; and what, respectively, are the prices per standard and per sleeper quoted by Russia and Canada?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As regards the first part of the question, the Trade and Navigation Accounts relate to monthly periods only. As regards the remaining parts of the question, I regret that the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend is asking is not available from official sources.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will my hon. and gallant Friend endeavour to obtain it from unofficial sources?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes; if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes it, I will make inquiries from trade sources in regard to these matters.

    TOTALISATOR MACHINERY.
    Mr. GROVESasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of factories in which totalisator machinery is manufactured; and what effect there has been on employment in those factories through the cessation of totalisator operations on greyhound courses?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand there are some 10 firms who are engaged wholly or partly in the manufacture of totalisator machinery, but I have no information as to the effect on employment, in those firms, of the cessation of totalisator operations on greyhound courses.
    Mr. GROVES: Can the hon. and gallant Member do something to obtain this information?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am afraid that it would be impossible to get accurate information.

  COMPANIES ACT.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the President or the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Companies Act so that, in any case where a director is appointed to the board of a company by a bank which has given financial advances to the company, only a person who possesses technical knowledge and practical experience of the industry concerned shall be appointed to such a, position?
  Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Having noted it, will the hon. Gentleman put it into operation?
  Dr. BURGIN: It is the practice to take note of suggestions for alteration of the Companies Act, and, from time to time, to review them all with a view to the consideration of a new Bill. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion has been included among the number for the purpose of being looked at when the occasion arises.
  Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that some companies in the present crisis have received money from the banks in order to be able to carry on, how soon does the hon. Gentleman suppose that this particular suggestion is likely to he acted upon?
  Dr. BURGIN: In none of the cases called to the attention of the board has objection been taken to the actions of directors nominated by banks except on financial grounds.

  GRAIN CARGOES (SHIFTING BOARDS).
  Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the case of the Greek steamer "Nicolas Angelos"arriving in this country with a grain cargo in bulk without shifting-boards; and whether he proposes to take action to make foreign owners keep the law?
  Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir; proceedings were taken in this case against the master for failure to provide proper feeders to the lower holds and for carrying heavy grain in the 'tween decks. A conviction was obtained. Proceedings are taken in all similar cases of offences against the law, whether by British or foreign ships.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it costs less to break the law than it does to keep it?
  Dr. BURGIN: The master was fined £75, and £21 costs.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: How many prosecutions have there been in this matter during the last 12 months?
  Dr. BURGIN: Forty-one foreign and two British masters have been convicted since October, 1931.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BANDS (OVERSEAS VISITS).
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any charge was borne by the Treasury in respect of the visit of the Guards' band to Cannes at Easter and to Paris last week; and whether it is contemplated sending Guards' bands to any of the Dominions, in view of the success of the visit to South Africa two or three years ago?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Arrangements have been made for the band and pipers of the Scots Guards to visit the Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto during the autumn. The possibility of a visit of the band of the Coldstream Guards to Australia is at present under consideration.

    OFFICERS' INVENTIONS (PATENT RIGHTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of paragraph 3 of Appendix XIX King's Regulations, appertaining to inventions by officers, etc., employed by the War Department, he will accept responsibility for infringement of the inventor's patent rights by the United States War Department in the case of the Liddell Patent Hut, No. 113,376 of 1917, the subject matter of which was communicated to the United States War Department in Paris by the personnel of His Majesty's War Department?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend can accept no responsibility in the matter, nor does he accept the implication contained in the last part of the question.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is it to be understood that serving soldiers cannot look to the Government for protection under King's Regulations in respect of their inventions made and used by other nations?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: My information is that this is paid not only by the American Government but by the British Government, and that is an indication that the British Government do look after their own nationals.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I have documentary evidence to the effect that in this case nothing has been paid. If I give the correspondence to my hon. Friend will he have the matter looked into?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to receive the correspondence and to discuss the matter with my hen. and gallant Friend at any time that suits him.

  SCOTLAND.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
    Sir IAN MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the position with regard to the operation of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) on the 20th ultimo, but I may say that I hope to see a representative of the corporation next Monday, when I shall see what can be done to expedite procedure.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give the names of the towns in Scotland which have returned, in reply to official inquiry, the notification that they have no slums?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a list of burghs in which the town council, after the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, indicated that no new houses were required to replace unfit houses which ought to be demolished or closed. I may add that local authorities are required under the Act to submit further statements as to housing requirements in their areas at the end of 1933.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would it be possible to give some form of bonus of recognition to those local authorities who are able to make nil returns in regard to slums, so as to stimulate the disappearance of slums?

    DISTRESSED AREAS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if Dumbarton and Clydebank are scheduled as distressed areas for the purpose of grant; how much of the £60,000 allocated to Scotland for the relief of distressed areas will be given to each burgh; and will he state the number of unemployed in both towns and the amount expended by each on able-bodied relief during the financial year ended May, 1933?
    Mr. SKELTON: Until returns of expenditure and other relevant information have been received and examined, it is not possible to give definite particulars of the apportionment of the grant among the local authorities concerned, but on the estimated figures at present available it would seem that the town council of Dumbarton will receive Fibout £600, and the town council of Clydebank about £2,600. It should be understood that these figures are at present merely approximations, and must not be taken as final figures. As regards the last part of the question, at 15th June, 1933, there were in Dumbarton 620 persons with 621 dependants, and in Clydebank 1,833 persons with 5,952 dependants, in receipt of able-bodied relief. The approximate amount expended on able-bodied relief during the year ended 15th May, 1933, was £11,400 in Dumbarton and £33,400 in Clydebank.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, think that the amount of £60,000 which has been allocated to Scotland is a scandal, coming from the same Government that have given £14,000,000 to the brewers and £2,000,000 to the Arabs?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Neil Maclean.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the expenditure by the Glasgow Public Assistance Committee on able-bodied poor relief is estimated to amount to approximately £1,000,000 during this municipal financial year; whether he can state the amount of relief that is to be allocated to Glasgow from the £60,000 allocated to Scotland; and whether in view of the inadequacy of this sum to assist the areas in Scotland where unemployment is most severe, a special
    1662
    grant will be made to Scotland in addition to the total grant?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, until returns of expenditure and other particulars have been received from the various local authorities concerned it is not possible to give definite details of the apportionment of the grant, but, on the estimated figures at present available, it would seem that the Corporation of Glasgow will receive the maximum grant allowable, namely, £40,000. As regards the last part of the question, the total of £60,000 has been voted for distribution to the distressed areas of Scotland and it is not proposed to make a special grant in addition to that total.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Since the Glasgow Corporation have admittedly spent £1,000,000 for the purpose of meeting what is a national problem, while the portion of this grant which they will receive is only about £40,000, does not the hon. Gentleman consider it absolutely necessary that both he and the Secretary of State should approach the Cabinet and insist upon a larger grant than is presently being made?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir. It must be kept in view that this grant is in addition to the block grant for the new period, out of which an actual total of at least £68,000 extra goes to Glasgow.
    Mr. THORNE: Could the hon. Gentleman persuade the Government to give a few millions for this purpose from the Exchange Equalisation Fund?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the Secretary of State for Scotland, representing Scotland in the Cabinet, is standing up for Scotland as he ought to do?

    OUTER HEBRIDES (FOOTPATHS AND ROADS).
    M. THOMAS RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the mileage of footpaths in the various crofting townships of the Outer Hebrides; and when, and how, the Government propose to widen these footpaths into roads suitable for vehicular traffic, so that the people existing in these distressed areas may be able to convey their sick, their dead, their food, and the necessities of home and croft according to their needs?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that information is not available as to the mileage of the footpaths referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the conversion of footpaths into roads suitable for vehicular traffic is a matter for the county councils concerned.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that deaths from appendicitis and peritonitis have occurred in these areas where vehicles could not go; that the people living in these areas have to carry all their household and crofting requirements on their backs like beasts of burden; and will he not do something to broaden these roads to relieve the people from this sort of life and introduce humane conditions? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the county councils of Ross and Cromarty and Inverness have taken up the question of these footpaths without success, and will he try to get into touch with the county councils, the Ministry of Transport, and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, in order to solve the problem?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am not aware of the particular facts to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, in view of what he has told me to-day, and of the grave issue which he has raised, I will inquire into the matter with him.
    Mr. RAMSAY: When the right hon. Gentleman goes on a tour with the "Minna,"will he go and see some of these footpath townships for himself and ascertain the kind of life which these people have to submit to?

    EX-SERVICE FISHERMEN, OUTER HEBRIDES.
    Mr. T. RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government have any policy to assist by way of grants or loans those fishermen of the Outer Hebrides who served in the Navy and as mine-sweepers during the great War, and returned home to find that their boats in the interval had either been lost or rendered useless?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It would not be possible at this date to formulate a scheme such as my hon. Friend suggests; but I may remind him that since the War various schemes of assistance to Scottish ex-service fishermen have been in operation, in which the fishermen of
    1664
    the Outer Hebrides participated. My hon. Friend is perhaps not aware that out of 1,400 grants made to fishermen shortly after the War under the civil liabilities scheme, no fewer than 500 related to the Outer Hebrides.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not refer to naval gratuities to which the men were entitled by reason of service like all other naval men, and the housing schemes for fishermen in certain areas, rather than to the sacrifices which the men had actually made in the loss of their boats?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The information supplied to me is that these sums are chargeable by way of loan or advance to fishermen who have lost their boats and who have done service to the nation during the Great War.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will state the names of the officials, public bodies, associations, and private persons consulted by his Department upon the last occasion on which the retention or disposal by the Government of the licensed premises in the Dornoch and Gretna areas was under consideration;
    (2) how many times the question of the retention or disposal of the licensed premises in the Dornoch and Gretna areas has been considered by his Department since 1921, together with the date of the last consideration.
    Sir G. COLLINS: The occasion to consider the question of legislation which would be necessary for the purpose mentioned has arisen only once since 1921, namely, in 1932. On that occasion it was not considered necessary to have consultations with outside bodies.
    Lord SCONE: On whose advice was it decided to retain these areas under Government control?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I could not answer that question but, as I have already indicated on a previous occasion, I do not propose to ask the House to pass fresh legislation on this subject.

    ALLOTMENTS, LANARKSHIRE.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of

    1665
    applications for allotments and small holdings that have been made in Lanarkshire in each year during the past five years; how many have been granted; and whether any financial assistance has been given by his Department; and, if so, how much has been given?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the answer is somewhat long and involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I have no information as to the numbers of applications made to Local Authorities for Allotments or the number of applications that were successful. During the past five years approximately £120 was expended in Lanarkshire by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in the provision of allotments. The numbers of applications and enquiries received by the Department for small holdings in Lanarkshire during the past five years are:—1928, 13; 1929, 36 1930, 78; 1931, 437; 1932, 118. Thirty-one applicants have during that period been settled by the Department in the county. The capital expenditure by the Department in providing and equipping small holdings in Lanarkshire during the past five years amounted to approximately £36,500. In addition the Department have provided 31 plots for unemployed persons at a cost of approximately £210.
    Mr. GRAHAMasked the Secretary of state for Scotland if he will state the number of miners who have been provided with allotments or small holdings in the county of Lanark in each of the past five years?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that I have no information, as to the number of miners included amongst the persons who have been provided with allotments by local authorities or by allotment associations. On schemes promoted by the Department of Agriculture two miners have obtained small holdings during the past five years, one in 1930 and one in 1931. This year 16 miners and shale workers were given plots of a quarter to one acre on the Department's experimental schemes for unemployed in the county.

    PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Committee
    1666
    of Inquiry into Public Health Services has commenced its investigations?
    Mr. SKELTON: The first meeting of the Committee on Scottish Health Services has been convened for 28th July.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give an estimate of the number of houses in Scotland at present controlled, decontrolled, and new, corresponding to the figures referring to September, 1932, given in Cm d. 4208?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the reply to the hon. Member involves a statement in tabular form I will, with permission, circulate the information asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    From such information as is available I estimate the present position to be approximately as follows:

    "A"Class Houses.

    Controlled

    42,000

    Not controlled—

    De-controlled

    24,000

    New

    6,000

    30,000

    Total

    72,000

    "B"Class Houses.

    Controlled

    180,000

    Not controlled—

    De-controlled

    40,000

    New

    52,000

    92,000

    Total

    272,000

    "C"Class Houses.

    Controlled

    560,000

    Not controlled—

    De-controlled

    140,000

    New

    116,500

    256,500

    Total

    816,500

    CUSTOMS' EXAMINATION (TRANSFER).
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the proposed transference of the customs' testing house for dutiable goods from Leith to Glasgow, if he will state what administrative saving is expected to be made by this change; and what loss or expense is it calculated to cause to

    1667
    traders in the east of Scotland in general and to the Leith Dock Commissioners in particular?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The transference from Leith to Glasgow of the examination of samples of certain classes of dutiable goods at Eastern Scottish and Northumbrian ports is part of a general scheme of reorganisation and centralisation of the work of the Department of the Government Chemist; and it is not possible to state definitely the saving in administrative costs represented by this particular transference of work. It is not anticipated that the examination of samples at Glasgow instead of at Leith will involve any loss or expense to traders in the east of Scotland or to the Leith Dock Commissioners.
    Sir P. FORD: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues keep their eye on this matter, so that, if it turns out that there is a loss disproportionate to the saving of administrative expenses, he will give some undertaking that we may return to the present condition of affairs in this respect.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, Sir. I and my colleagues have more than one eye, and we will keep all of them fixed upon it.

    KINTYRE SALMON FISHING.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider relieving the salmon fishers of Kintyre of the duty of taking off the leaders of their nets on the Sabbath Day on the occasions when it has been too stormy to take them off on the previous evening; and whether he will direct that some relaxation of this regulation be given to the salmon fishers in Kintyre?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It has been decided by the courts that it is the legal duty of those concerned to remove the leaders of bag nets at the earliest possible moment after 6 p.m. on Saturday when it is not practicable to take them out at or before that hour; and I have no power to direct or authorise a relaxation of the statutory requirements.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Kintyre is a very storm-tossed peninsula, and that very
    1668
    often it is impossible to remove the leaders of the nets the previous evening, and that they have not been compelled to do so until quite recently, when some commercial body got this regulation put in force. Is he aware also that it is regarded as a very great hardship in the Highlands to work on these nets on the Lord's Day?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have no doubt that the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend are correct, but I have no power, in view of the decision of the courts, to alter the present rule.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    STEEL SUPPORTS.
    Sir MURDOCH MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the tonnage of steel pit-props used in the years 1927 and 1932, respectively; and the quantity of wood pit-props used in the same years?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The general development of the use in mines of steel supports, including props, is dealt with by the Divisional Inspectors in their annual reports. The reports for 1932, which have been published within the last few weeks, show that large numbers of steel props are now in use with encouraging results. I regret that I have no general statistical information oh the subject.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything to encourage the use of these steel props in order to help the mining industry?
    Mr. BROWN: Everything that can be done is being done.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to the Government how money is being wasted on afforestation in consequence?

    EXPORTS (ARGENTINA).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Argentine Government with a view to expanding the market for British coal?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply regarding these negotiations which was given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the opposition in Argentina to the trade agreement? Is it proposed to withdraw our offer of a trade agreement unless acceptance is now come to?
    Mr. BROWN: The position is that, under Article 3 of the Convention, either contracting party can terminate it at one month's notice if a supplementary agreement is not made by 1st August. It is understood that there is no present intention on our part of doing so if the date is passed provided that the negotiations continue satisfactorily.

    OVERTIME, BANFURLONG.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines what action he proposes to take on the case of overtime being worked on 17th May, 1933, at the Mains Colliery, Banfurlong, near Wigan?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have given very careful consideration to this case, but in all the circumstances I am satisfied that it is not one in which legal proceedings are called for.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that refusal to take action in this case of overtime may result in a still further increase of overtime in Lancashire?
    Mr. BROWN: I could not discuss the details by way of question and answer, but I shall be very pleased to talk it over with the hon. Member.

    Number of Wage-Earners on Colliery Books, 1924 to 1932.

    Counties.

    1924.*

    1925.

    1926.†

    1927.

    1928.

    1929.

    1930.

    1931.

    1932.

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    11,850

    11,013

    10,942

    10,002

    9,779

    9,977

    10,432

    10,062

    9,749

    Haddington

    …

    …

    3,920

    4,023

    4,328

    3,522

    2,279

    3,187

    3,128

    2,543

    2,739

    Fife

    …

    …

    29,636

    26,083

    26,613

    22,281

    20,416

    22,015

    21,796

    19,752

    18,650

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    1,508

    1,160

    1,495

    1,137

    917

    1,115

    1,034

    883

    803

    Dumbarton

    …

    …

    2,223

    2,141

    2,295

    2,115

    2,046

    2,071

    1,974

    1,836

    1,777

    Lanark

    …

    …

    56,252

    45,736

    49,315

    29,707

    32,850

    33,409

    32,838

    29,556

    24,251

    Linlithgow

    …

    …

    6,906

    6,486

    7,012

    5,819

    5,154

    5,314

    5,281

    5,209

    5,303

    Stirling

    …

    …

    11,526

    9,037

    8,902

    7,809

    6,452

    6,762

    6,856

    6,070

    6,267

    *These figures relate to the year as a whole.

    Particulars for June are not available.

    † March figures—June figures are not available.

    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Was the decision taken on the point of weakness in law, and, if so, does not the hon. Gentleman think, in view of the many flagrant violations of the law, as it is understood, that some amendment of the Mines Act is called for?
    Mr. BROWN: There are a number of considerations.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, the mincowners are treating the Seven Hours Act with impunity and that the action of the Department is helping them in that direction?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot accept the last part of the question. I have given the most careful consideration to this, and my decision is made in view of all the facts of the case.
    Mr. MACDONALD: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the number of wage-earners on the colliery books in the counties of Mid and East Lothian, Fife, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Lanark, Linlithgow, and Stirling, each county separately, for the month of June in each year since 1924?
    Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply will involve a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    TRADE AGREEMENTS (NORWAY AND SWEDEN).
    Mr. TOM SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give an estimate of the additional number of coal miners who will be employed as a result of the Trade Agreements with Norway and Sweden, respectively?
    Mr. E. BROWN: It is estimated that the increased tonnages provided for by the Trade Agreements with Norway and Sweden over the quantities exported in 1931 represent the annual output of 2,120 and 4,180 coal miners, respectively.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the more trade agreements we make the more pits are stopped working?
    Mr. BROWN: I do not accept that at all. If the hon. Gentleman will study the Scandinavian figures, he will find that trade is going up.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: How many miners have been put out of work owing to the damage done to the papermaking industry by these agreements?

  CRIME (USE OF MOTOR CARS).
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will consider the introduction of legislation to permit a higher penalty in the case of those who use stolen motor cars to facilitate their crimes?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): So far as I am aware, the penalties which may be imposed for crimes in which a motor car is likely to be used are already adequate, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular offence in mind perhaps he will communicate with me.

  SHOPS (SANITARY CONDITIONS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the present unsatisfactory position in relation to the provision of proper sanitary accommodation in shops; and what steps he proposes to take to amend the existing law?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) on this subject on 12th April last. I am not in a position at present to add anything to that reply.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Has any inquiry taken place into the sanitary conditions in shops and, if so, what conclusions have been arrived at?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is anything being done to ascertain whether the representations made to the Home Office are accurate?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down, I will answer it.
  Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the recent inquiry by the Ministry of Health into the question of temperature in shops; whether he will publish the findings of the inquiry; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take as a result of the inquiry made?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the first and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton on this matter on 12th April. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present. As regards the second part, the question of the publication of the report is one for the decision of the Minister of Health. I have consulted my right Lon. Friend, who does not consider as at present advised that the report is of sufficient general interest to justify publication. In the meantime, he proposes to place a copy of it in the Library of the House of Commons.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that, although three months have expired since the right hon. Gentleman last replied to the question, the Home Office have taken no decision yet?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only way to get public opinion started is by publishing the report?

  WORKING HOURS (YOUNG PERSONS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he has any statement to make upon the recent negotiations between his Department and various organisations with reference to the excessive hours of labour imposed upon certain classes of young perons; and if he can state the names of the associations, societies, or trade unions which have taken part in these negotiations?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Good progress has been made with these negotiations, but they are still not complete. The number of organisations consulted is considerable, and I hardly think any useful purpose would be served by giving a list. With regard to the trade unions concerned, the views of employés in the distributive trades were stated at a deputation from the National Union of Shop Assistants and the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers which was received by my predecessor in March, 1932. It was suggested, however, at that time, that they might be consulted again at a later stage, and I propose to give them a further opportunity, if they so desire, of conferring with the Department. I may add that I received a deputation on the subject recently from the National Committee on Wage-earning Children, introduced by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman).
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May we take it from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he will not reach any conclusion until he has finally interviewed the official trade union representative of the employés?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that his predecessor gave a definite promise to the House, that the Government would take steps to protect these many thousands of children in unregulated trades who are working a larger number of hours than their parents are allowed to work?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the question of the Noble Lady is that we are raking very careful investigation into the matter, and, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, as I have said, I shall be glad to give the trade union representatives the opportunity of coming to the Department.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the general importance of the question, he will endeavour to expedite the decision?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that there is no reason for making investigations, as we have had three committees to look into the matter, and the stuff is all there if they only had the vitality and the energy to act upon it?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Until my negotiations are complete, there is no use in discussing the matter further.

  GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS (TOTALISATORS).
  Mr. HANLEYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the improbability of legislation at an early date, any instructions have been issued to the police with regard to taking action against greyhound race-tracks that employ totalisators in the meantime?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Following upon the statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in this House on 7th February, 1933, chief officers of police in England and Wales were informed of the view taken of the state of the law as affecting betting transactions through a totalisator and of their duty to enforce it. So far as I am aware, the totalisator has not been in operation on any greyhound racing track in England and Wales since the middle of last March.
  Mr. HANLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the present unsatisfactory position will be remedied by legislation before Christmas?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government, having set up a. committee to look into this very difficult question and having received a unanimous report, are wasting time by not acting upon it?

  VAGRANCY.
  Colonel BALDWIN-WEBBasked the Home Secretary whether, with respect to his promise to inquire into the practice of police forces throughout the country in charging persons with sleeping out, he will obtain evidence in addition to that of chief constables; and whether he will satisfy himself that dis-

  1675
  ciplinary action will not be taken against constables who use discretion in the performance of their duties for failing to report trivial incidents or to arrest every person who may be sleeping out?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The chief constable is necessarily in the best position to supply information as to the practice of his own force, but I should of course be glad to consider suggestions from any responsible quarter on this question. As regards the second part of the question, I have no reason to think that constables who exercise a reasonable discretion in this matter incur any risk of disciplinary proceedings being taken against them.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT AND TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour how much less has been paid in insurance benefit and transitional payments during the current financial year than would have been paid if the unemployment register had remained at the same figure as at the end of the last financial year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Hudson): The amount paid by way of insurance benefit and transitional payments during the 14 weeks ended 8th July, 1933, has been £1,650,000 less than would have been paid had the unemployed register remained at 2,776,184—the figure for 20th March, 1933.
    Mr. MAXTON: In view of the very much improved position, are the Government considering restoring the cuts in unemployment benefit?

    AYR BURGHS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons unemployed in the Ayr district of burghs at the latest convenient date?
    Mr. HUDSON: At 26th June, 1933, there were 13,982 unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Parliamentary Division of Ayr Burghs.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a reduction of 3,000 since the National Government took office?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend say whether the figures for this district are contained in the index in the Library?

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Minister of Labour how many Employment Exchanges have been set up to deal only with the workers in one industry, on the lines of that in Denmark Street, W.C.; whether experience has proved the provision of Employment Exchanges upon the basis of industries rather than districts to be satisfactory; and, if so, if it is intended to extend this system?
    Mr. HUDSON: Two such Exchanges are in existence; the one mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend and the other in Tavistock Street for the building trades in the Central London area. My right hon. Friend does not contemplate the establishment of further specialised Exchanges at present, but he, is keeping the matter under review having regard to the notable success achieved by the experiment referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

  MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the case of the Honour-able Violet Douglas-Pennant?
  Mr. GUYasked the Prime Minister if he will authorise the publication of a statement with reference to Miss Douglas-Pennant, which was prepared in 1931 by the late Attorney-General and which was submitted to and approved by Miss Douglas-Pennant?
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Prime Minister whether, with regard to the pronouncement prepared in 1931 by Sir William Jowitt on the Douglas-Pennant case, he is now prepared to publish it?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): This case has been exhaustively considered both by my right hon. Friend and by his predecessors in office. I am sending my hon. Friends a copy of a letter which was addressed on the Prime Minister's instructions to the Chairman of the Douglas-Pennant Com-

  1677
  mittee on the 3rd June last. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to carry the question any further.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a further search of the files of the Ministry of National Services can be made with a view to discovering whether the copy of the letter written by Sir Auckland Geddes to Lord Weir in August, 1918, in respect of the Women's Royal Air Force camps is still in existence?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A further search has been made, but the document in question cannot now be traced.

  CURRENCY.
  Mr. LYONSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any and what proposals have been made for the introduction of an Empire currency or for the stabilisation of currencies in the Empire, respectively?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No fresh proposals are at present under consideration but my hon. Friend will recollect that at the Ottawa Conference the importance of maintaining the stability of exchange rates by the countries within the Commonwealth whose currencies are linked to sterling was fully recognised.
  Mr. LYONS: While thanking my hon. Friend for the reply, can he give the House an assurance that, while the Empire Statesmen are here in conference, this matter of the stabilisation of Empire currency, or the maintenance of a, whole Empire currency in its place, will receive serious consideration, in view of the present large fluctuations of exchanges generally?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that the best answer I can give to my hon. Friend is that since Ottawa South Africa has come on to a sterling standard, leaving Canada as the only important part of the Empire not on sterling.
  Mr. LYONS: Can my non. Friend say whether Canada in the future intends to follow the dollar or to follow sterling?
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Is it not a fact that since Ottawa, New Zealand has depreciated her currency by 25 per cent., and
  1678
  does he regard that fact in keeping with the spirit of the Ottawa Agreements

  EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can, without prejudice to its operations, state whether the Exchange Equalisation Fund has been used in recent months for purchasing gold to be stored in the Bank of England?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I fear that I can only repeat what has already been stated in the House on a number of occasions, that it would be contrary to public policy to reveal the manner in which the Exchange Equalisation Account has been used.
  Mr. LAMBERT: May we have an assurance that the taxpayers' money is not being used for the purchase of gold which is quite unreliable au a standard of value?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Government were given certain powers by the House of Commons, and they will exercise them with discretion and responsibility.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES.
  Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the report issued by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies upon the affairs of the United Women's Homes Association; and whether he will take steps to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act so as to protect small investors in societies formed under that Act from similar exploitation in the future?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the circumstances will be borne in mind should an occasion for legislation arise.
  Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Attorney-General whether the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been called to the losses suffered by thousands of investors in the United Women's Homes Association, the Second United Women's Homes Association,

  1679
  United Citizens' Investment Trust, Limited, United Publishing Society, and United Citizens' Homes Associations, all being interlockng societies formed under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act; and whether he proposes to take action against the common directors in these interlocking societies, having regard to the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies on the affairs of the United Women's Homes Association?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The affairs of these societies and of the United Women's Homes Association in particular have been considered most carefully on more than one occasion by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Registrar's report contained no allegation that the directors had committed any criminal offence, and there is no ground for any suggestion that the directors have personally misappropriated or misused the moneys of the various societies. In these circumstances notwithstanding the losses suffered by investors, and the failure of the directors to carry out the schemes which were held out as inducements to the investing public, I am satisfied that the facts would not support a criminal prosecution for obtaining money by false pretences or for any other offence.

  HIGH SHERIFFS (EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWANCES).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what expenditure is required from high sheriffs of counties and shires in respect of the provision of judges' lodgings, in connection with executions, etc.; if he will give the highest and lowest figure of expenditure by high sheriffs in the last convenient year; and if he will introduce legislation to remove from individuals while holding the office of high sheriff the necessity of bearing any part of the cost of the necessary machinery of justice?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: High sheriffs are not required to expend any specified sums in connection with the provision of judges' lodgings, executions, etc., but allowances are made to them from the Exchequer in respect of the expenses incurred in the performance of their various statutory duties. I am sending the hon.
  1680
  and gallant Member particulars of the allowances customarily made, which I have no reason to regard as inadequate to meet the costs necessarily incurred. As regards the second part of the question, my information does not extend to the total amount expended by any sheriff during his term of office, but only to the amount which he claims to be allowed by the Treasury. In this connection I may say that, taking the year 1931–32, the highest amount claimed was £1,705, of which £1,701 was allowed, and the lowest amount £71, which was allowed in full. As regards the last part of the question, I see no need for legislation on this subject.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    His MAJESTY'S SHIP "VALIANT"(CLYDE VISIT).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty at whose instance His Majesty's Ship "Valiant"is visiting certain holiday resorts on the Clyde; what is the additional cost of maintaining this ship on this tour; and what was its total cost of construction?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): His Majesty's Ship "Valiant"has been visiting certain places on the Clyde in accordance with the programme arranged by the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, for the Fleet generally during its summer cruise, and approved by the Admiralty. These visits are greatly appreciated, and it is impossible fully to meet all the requests for them which are received. No additional cost is involved in the maintenance of ships during the summer cruise. The total cost of His Majesty's Ship "Valiant"was £2,700,037.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon Gentleman tell me what holiday resort on the Clyde requested a visit from one of His Majesty's ships?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: If the hon. Member will put the question down, I shall be very glad to give him the information. I can hardly keep pace with the present demands.
    Mr. MAXTON: I did put it down. The question that I put down was to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state at whose instance His Majesty's Ship "Valiant"is visiting certain holiday

    1681
    resorts on the Clyde. The reply of the First Lord was that it was on the instructions of the Admiralty. Now he says that there are many requests. I ask him which places on the Clyde made a request for the visit of the "Valiant"?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I will tell the hon. Member. We do not have to wait for a request before the Admiralty sends a ship to any port in this country. Such a visit is certainly appreciated by tile huge majority of the people.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that I have asked the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly to send ships to Campbeltown, Oban and elsewhere, and also to Tobermory?

    GREENWICH PAGEANT.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent performance of the pageant at Greenwich was given with his permission and, if so, whether the scheme of the pageant was previously submitted for his approval; and whether the performance involved any expenditure of public money?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The Greenwich Night Pageant, which was given in aid of naval and local charities, was performed with my permission. It was not necessary for the scheme of the pageant to be submitted for my approval, but I was fully aware of its general nature. The performance involved no expenditure of public money.
    Mr. FOOT: Can we have an assurance that the sanction of the Ministry will not be given in future to a pageant which, while purporting to show how the heritage of the sea had been built up, contemptuously dismissed all reference to the Protectorate and the Commonwealth and to the supreme service to the British Navy rendered by the great Protector, by Vane, and by Colonel Robert Blake, who, in our own parish church, is described as the chief founder of England's naval supremacy?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I hope the hon. Member will agree that the pageant as a whole was a beautiful representation of British history. If we hold it again, as I hope we may, I will make representations about what the hon. Member says. I consider that Blake was one of the greatest of our British Admirals.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring out the fact that Cromwell was a brewer?

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES ACT.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Agriculture how many farms were visited by wage inspectors during 1932 and for the first six months of 1933; and in how many cases proceedings were entered into court for each period?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The inspectors appointed under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, visited 2,630 farms during 1932 and 1,290 farms during the first six months of the present year. The number of cases in which legal proceedings were taken by the Ministry under Section 7 (1.) of the Act was 67 in the first period and 33 in the second period.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the figures now given are different from the figures given in Debate I
    Major ELLIOT: Yes. I have to apologise to my hon. Friend and the House for inadvertently giving a higher figure.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the same publicity to the correct figures as was given to the figures used in the Debate
    Major ELLIOT: I have always found that any Figures given during Question time naturally attract 'more attention than figures which are buried in a somewhat long statement in Debate.

    WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any adjourned sessions of the World Economic Conference will necessarily take place in London; and, if not, if he will use his influence with those with whom the decision rests to urge the suitability of London as a venue?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The Conference is held under the auspices of the League of Nations, and it is for the Conference to decide the time and place of its meetings.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I suggest that the Highlands would be an appropriate place?

    PUBLIC HEALTH (FOOD IMPORTS).
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Wiltshire county analyst that germs have been discovered in Russian food imports, namely, streptococci in tins of Russian herrings and staphylococci in the case of condensed milk; and whether, in the interests of public health in this country, further imports of these products from Russia can be prohibited?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the report to which publicity was given in February last. From the inquiries then made it appeared that the bacteria found were not of any pathogenic significance and that the condensed milk did not come from Russia. There are, therefore, no sufficient grounds for taking the action suggested in the interests of the public health of this country.
    Sir C. RAWSON: Is the hon. Member aware that my inquiry relates to a later case than the one he has mentioned, a case that occurred last week, and that both the milk and the herrings came from Russia?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will inquire into that case.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health the number of insured persons under the National Health Insurance Acts who will lose their medical benefit at the end of the present year, and the total number who will be affected by the medical benefit provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1932?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is impossible to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member, as the figures will depend upon the number of persons now unemployed who succeed in securing employment before the end of the present year and the number who exercise their right to become voluntary contributors. My right hon. Friend may, however, refer the hon. Member to the Report of the
    1684
    Government Actuary on the Bill of 1932, of which he is sending him a copy.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the Minister aware that there will be terrible hardship felt among thousands of people in connection with this matter, and cannot the Government reconsider it?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can we have an assurance before the House breaks up that the Government have some plan to deal with the enormous number of juvenile unemployed, which is bound to rise in the next few years? This is one of the most vital questions before the country to-day.

    LONDON BUILDING ACT.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many large houses in London become in time slum dwellings due to the inability of the owners to subdivide or modernise the dwellings without first obtaining the consent of the local authority and to the necessity of conforming with by-laws, many of which are not necessary, with the result that re-letting takes place without alteration and improvement; and whether, to encourage the improvement and reconditioning of residential property, he will consider legislation to reduce and modify such by-laws?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has not had brought to his notice specific complaints such as are mentioned, but will be interested to receive any information received by my hon. Friend. As he is probably aware, building in London is almost entirely controlled by Act of Parliament and not by by-laws, and it would rest with the London County Council to initiate proposals for bringing the London Building Act up to date.
    Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is the hon. Member aware that in the suburbs outside the control of the London County Council a large amount of employment is held up by by-laws which are not only unnecessary and irritating but which serve no useful purpose, and is he aware that the drainage system of this House would he condemned by many urban local authorities in London?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think many of us would welcome a revision of the London building code. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make we shall he glad to receive them.

    MALAYA (GAME PRESERVATION)
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what practical steps have been taken by the Governments of Singapore and the Federated States of Malaya to protect game, in accordance with the recommendations of the Wild Life Commission, which reported in 1931?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The recommendations in the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers have had to be considered by the High Commissioner in relation to the reduced financial resources of the Federated Malay States Government, and it has not been found possible to maintain the full European staff which the report contemplated as necessary. The establishment of a national park in the three States of Pahang, Kelantan, and Trengganu, which is one of the chief proposals in the report, is a matter still under negotiation between the Governments concerned, and my right hon. Friend is awaiting the High Commissioner's report on the issue.
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Member do something to speed up this matter in view of the fact that game is being rapidly destroyed in Malaya? Funds can be easily raised by licences for shooting.
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The answer I have given contains the statement that action is being taken to that effect.

    INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (RECORDS).
    Mr. J. P. MORRIS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether any record of the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform has been to-day laid upon the Table of the House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My right hon. Friend made a statement before the Joint Select Committee with reference to the evidence he had already given before the Committee. The statement, together with the observations of Members of the Committee and delegates, will be published as Record No. 2 of the proceedings of the Committee and will he available to hon. Members about seven o'clock this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 31.

Division No. 272.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Browne, Captain A. C.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Buchan, John

Duggan, Hubert John

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

Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.

Eden, Robert Anthony

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Burghley, Lord

Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

Burnett, John George

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Butler, Richard Austen

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Apsley, Lord

Caporn, Arthur Call

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Carver, Major William H.

Entwistle, Cyril Pollard

Atholl, Duchess of

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

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Balllle, Sir Adrian W. M.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Christie, James Archibald

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Balniel, Lord

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Everard, W. Lindsay

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Cook, Thomas A.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Cooke, Douglas

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Bernays, Robert

Cowan, D. M.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Cranborne, Viscount

Fox, Sir Gifford

Blindell, James

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Borodale, Viscount

Cross, R. H.

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tattoo

Crossley, A. C.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Curry, A. C.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Boyce, H, Leslie

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somersel, Yeovill)

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

Braes, Captain Sir William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Gledhill, Gilbert

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Gluckstefn, Louis Halle

Broadbent, Colonel John

Donner, P. W.

Goldie, Noel B.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Doran, Edward

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Drewe, Cedric

Gower, Sir Robert

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mc Ewen, Captain J. H. F.

Rothschild, James A. de

Graves, Marjorie

McKie, John Hamilton

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Grigg, Sir Edward

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Griniston, R, V.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

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

Magnay, Thomas

Salt, Edward W.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Maitland, Adam

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Makins Brigadier-General Ernest

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Hales, Harold K.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

Martin, Thomas B.

Scone, Lord

Hanbury, Cecil

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Harbord, Arthur

Meller, Sir Richard James

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Hartland, George A.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

M ills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)

Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Milne, Charles

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

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmst'd)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Morgan, Robert H.

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

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Stevenson, James

Holdsworth, Herbert

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

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Morrison, William Shephard

Strauss, Edward A.

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Moss, Captain H. J.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hornby, Frank

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

Horsbrugh, Florence

Munro, Patrick

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

Summersby, Charles H.

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

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

Sutcliffe, Harold

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Tate, Mavis Constance

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

North, Edward T.

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

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Ormiston, Thomas

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hurd, Sir Percy

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Patrick, Colin M.

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

Iveagh, Countess of

Pearson, William G.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Peat, Charles U.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Jamleson, Douglas

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Petherick, M.

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

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'prn, Bliston)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Wardlaw-M line, Sir John S.

Ker, J. Campbell

Potter, John

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Knight, Holtord

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Weymouth, Viscount

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pybus, Percy John

White, Henry Graham

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Lees-Jones, John

Rankin, Robert

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Levy, Thomas

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Rea, Walter Russell

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Llewellin, Major John J.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Wise, Alfred R.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Womersley, Walter James

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Lycns, Abraham Montagu

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Mebane, William

Robinson, John Roland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

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

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

George Penny.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Attlee, Clement Richard

John, William

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Banfield, John William

Kirkwood, David

Thorne, William James

Buchanan, George

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Edwards, Charles

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maxton, James.

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.
Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Superannuation (Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty) Act, 1914."
I should not occupy even five minutes in explaining this Bill, which when printed will be found to present no difficulties to the understanding, but for the fact that this is the only opportunity of making an appeal to the House to deal with this Bill with the rapidity that it has sometimes shown towards Bills which redress minor grievances and put right admitted wrongs. The object of the Bill is mainly to bring the superannuation provisions of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commission into line with those of the Civil Service. So far as the Ecclesiastical Commission is concerned, for staff purposes we are almost a branch of the Civil Service. Our staff is recruited by the same examinations; its salaries are those of the Civil Service; and the pension provisions, both of Queen A one's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commission, have always marched side by side with those of the Civil Service.
In September, 1914, however, the State got slightly ahead of the Church. In that year an Amendment was made in the Civil Service scheme whereby, in the case of gratuities granted in respect of a man who had died during service, an improvement was made. The old rule had been that a year's salary should be the amount of the gratuity. The new rule was that the amount of the gratuity should be either that figure, or another figure, if larger, equal to the sum he would have been entitled to draw had he retired on the grounds of ill health at the moment of his death. The practical difference between these two figures is that in certain cases the amount payable to a widow or dependant might be up to 50 per cent. larger on the Civil Service scale. When Mr. Middleton went to the Ecclesiastical Commission and discovered that his staff was suffering from this grievance, he forthwith negotiated with the Treasury, and he asked the hon. Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and myself to introduce this Bill in order to remedy that hardship.
The Bill proposes to do two other small things. First, on transference of a mem-
1690
ber of the staff from Queen Anne's Bounty to the Ecclesiastical Commission, or vice versa, a man will not lose his pension rights, but carry them with him. Secondly, the Third Clause abolishes for future entrants an obsolete provision of 1865, by which men taken on in middle life could have years added to their service in the computation of their pensions. That is a provision no longer required under modern conditions of recruitment, and to bring our scheme into perfect harmony with that of the Civil Service the Treasury have asked us to abolish it. That is the whole intention and effect of the Bill. It has the approval of the Treasury, and from such conversations as I have had I believe it has the approval of the Labour party and of the Liberal Members also. I do not see Clydeside Members present, but I believe that even distant Clydeside would lend its disinterested aid to the widows and dependants of the workers on Mill-bank. In those circumstances I honestly think it is a Bill that no one in the House can find to contain a fragment of contention, and I ask the House not only to allow it to be introduced, but to allow it to pass through all its stages before we adjourn for the Recess.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denman, Sir John Birchall, Colonel Sir-George Courthope, and Mr. Isaac Foot,

SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL,
"to amend the Superannuation (Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty) Act, 1914,"presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill, without Amendment.
Mablethorpe and Sutton Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Essex County Council Bill [Lords],
London Overground Wires, &c., Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London and North Eastern Railway."[London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY
  ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
BILLS REPORTED.
  MIDDLESBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  ADELPHI ESTATE BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.
  4.2 p.m.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I beg to move:
  "That the Lords reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments, Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment, and Lords Amendments in lieu of one other Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, and Lords consequential Amendments to the Bill, be now considered."
  I think we shall not take long over these Amendments, because they are, in fact, simply carrying out the understanding which I informed the House would be reached, and that we should come to an agreement between the two Houses.
  Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment to the Bill, in page 11, after line 10, insert new Clause (Validity and commencement of orders under Part II), in lieu of Lords Amendments disagreed to by the Commons: In Sub-section (4) of the proposed new Clause, leave out from the word "Act"("Act and") to the end of the Clause, and insert:
  "unless the final decision in proceedings duly begun during the said period is that the order is invalid, the order shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with in relation to the making of the order, and that the order and any scheme approved thereby have been duly made and approved respectively and are within the powers conferred by this Act."
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"put, and agreed to.—[Major Elliot.]
  Lords Amendment to the Bill in lieu of Commons Amendment to the Bill in page 13, line 34, in lieu of Lords Amendment in page 13, line 39, disagreed to by the Lords, to leave out Clause 12, and insert:

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE 12.—(Composition of Marketing Boards.)
    (1) The board to administer a scheme under the principal Act, not being a scheme approved before the commencement of this Act, shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme as to the filling of casual vacancies in the board, be composed of—

    (a) persons elected in accordance with the scheme either by registered producers
    1696
    or by a body or bodies elected by such producers in accordance with the scheme; and

    (b) two persons co-opted to the board, in accordance with the scheme, by the elected members of the hoard after consultation with the Market Supply Committee:

    Provided that—

    (i) during such period, not being longer than twelve months from the day on which the scheme comes into force, as may be specified in the scheme, the board shall, subject as aforesaid, be composed of persons named in the scheme and two persons nominated by the Minister after consultation with the persons by whom the scheme was submitted; and

    (ii) the co-option of any particular person to the hoard during the period of twelve months from the end of the period specified in the scheme for the purpose of paragraph (i) of this proviso shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.

    (2) In the case of any scheme under the principal Act which was approved before the commencement of this Act, the Minister, after consultation with the board, may by order make such amendments in the scheme as appear to him to he necessary for securing that the composition of the board accords with the requirements of the foregoing subsection.
    (3) Every person co-opted to a board for the purposes of this section shall be a person who, in the opinion of the persons co-opting him, is specially qualified for membership of the board by reason of his commercial or financial ability.
    (4) The provisions of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act which relate to the composition of boards shall cease to have effect.
    Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The compromise between the two Houses is that after the first year the person appointed to the board shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.
    4.5 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Having voted against the Government on Thursday of last week because of the refusal on the part of the Minister to recognise that at least one individual representing the consumers should be on the board, we see no reason to waste the time of the House this afternoon by a further Division. I ought also to have said that we asked for a representative of the workers in the industry. We do feel that we ought to leave

    1697
    on record that we are not too certain that men with financial ability are the right persons to be co-opted or nominated to these hoards. We have had some experience of financial experts. The world is almost shattered beyond repair as the result of the action of financial experts, and we would very much prefer to see some other definition embodied in this Clause than that every person co-opted is specially qualified "by reason of his commercial or financial ability."We agree, of course, that a board ought to have one, two or more persons with the requisite commercial knowledge to guide these boards through the very difficult channels that lie ahead, but in view of the possibility of a financial expert utilising his power and presence there, not for the purpose of the consumer, or perhaps not for the purpose of the producer, but for the purpose of financial interests in this country, I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he comes to approve the nominated members who have been approved by the Market Supply Committee, will bear in mind that good business should be good business to the consumer.
    4.7 p.m.
    Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I think that the House is to be congratulated on the compromise now before us, and which we are asked to adopt. The procedure has been a little difficult to follow, because there have been no fewer than four stages, of which this is the fourth, but I think it is essentially a good compromise, an need not ask too much whether the view originally taken by the Minister and this House and that taken in another place should actually prevail. It could be argued both ways. I think the method of co-option which is now introduced will, in effect, be all that really was desired in another place, because one feels that persons originally nominated by the Minister will be of very great value to the deliberations of the board, and they are almost certain to be co-opted by the board after the preliminary period. Therefore, the view taken in another place that there should be persons of that kind on the board will actually be adopted not so much by statutory compulsion as by the good sense of the board concerned, who will see that their operations are very much facilitated, as I am sure they will be, by having as their members, in the
    1698
    early stages particularly, persons with the ability and experience which is here contemplated. The negotiation has been a little difficult to carry out, and at first one was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, not heeding his master's voice, moved to disagree with a new Clause proposed by the Minister in this House. But one realises that that had to be the procedure taken, and I think that the arrangement come to is not only a good compromise, but will work well in practice, which is more important.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think there ought to be placed on record one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and that is as to the extraordinary contradictory nature of that speech. One minute he complained that in the Amendment we are discussing there are not trade union representatives and people of that kind on the boards, and the next minute he complained because there are to be representatives of financial interests. I would point out to hire, that although there have been failures among financial people, from what we have to suffer from miners' representatives in this House, we know that most trade unions return very bad miners' representatives.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is aware that there are more financial experts in gaol than outside.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It does not necessarily mean that they are not better. It may be that they have had less skill and time to get away with it. I was pointing out that, on the whole, it would be wise if the Socialist party could realise that when you are setting up these new boards, you should do everything you can to get people upon them who have had wide experience in dealing with financial questions of great magnitude. A reason why we should accept the Lords Amendment is that in some of the most successful financial undertakings, such as co-operative societies, you do everything you possibly can to encourage good business men to come into them, and I fail to see why, when you have a scheme of this sort, you should not do everything in your power, as the Minister is trying to do, to encourage good business men to come into it. In that way you are more likely

    1699
    to make this scheme permanent. It would be a horrible thing if we had a repetition of the Corn Production Act, and in the next two years have to repeal this Measure. Therefore, I accept this Amendment, and I think it is a very excellent method of bringing about a compromise more or less all round.
    4.12 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to compliment the Minister on accepting this Amendment. I do think the statement of the hon. Member for Don Valley Mr. T. Williams) needs repudiation. These men are not put on these boards to represent financial interests at all. They are men who have financial and commercial knowledge, and I do not think it is fair to make a purely propagandist statement such as that made by the hon. Member. These men are to be put on because of their special knowledge. There is no reason to believe that they will not consider the interests of producers and consumers. It is a marketing board, and they must look after the producers' interests, and it is no specific duty of theirs, or any duty implied in the Bill, that they shall look after any financial interests. We ought to welcome on any agricultural marketing board the addition of two members who have got real business ability.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Discharye of functions of marketing boards by executive committees.)
    Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments in page 14, line 7, and page 14, line 11, read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the said Amendments,"put, and agreed to.—[Major Elliot.]
    Lords consequential Amendments to the Bill:
    In page 14, line 11, after "Minister"insert "or co-opted in accordance with the last foregoing section".

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.— [Enactments Repealed.]
  In page 31, line 24, in the third column, after "In"insert "section two the words from which shall 'to the end of subsection (1); in".
  Agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Mr. SPEAKER: The first proposed new Clause on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne)—(Power of Court of Session)—is not in order, because it is outside the scope of the Bill. The same applies to the next proposed new Clause—(Savings)—which is consequential.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal from arbiters on, questions of law.)
(1) Any party to an arbitration may at any step in the arbitration request the arbiter to state a case for the opinion of the court on any question of law relevant to the matters in dispute in the arbitration, and the arbiter may state a case accordingly and shall include in such case a statement of the facts which are admitted, or if evidence has been adduced are in his opinion proved and which are relevant to the question of law included in the case.
(2) In the event of an arbiter refusing to state a case, or refusing to include in the case stated by him any matter which a party considers to be material, a party may petition the court to direct the arbiter to state a case, or to include such matter in the case, and the court may give such directions to the arbiter as may seem to them proper.
(3) The parties to any agreement to refer any question or matter to arbitration may agree that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any arbitration under that agreement.
(4) In this section "arbiter"shall include arbiters and oversmen, and "the court"shall mean either division of the court, and there shall be no appeal to the House of Lords from any decision of the court unless such decision is not unanimous.
(5) This section shall not apply to any statutory arbitration in respect of which there already exists in terms of the statutory provisions applicable thereto a right to obtain a case stated by the arbitrator for the opinion of the court on any question of law.—[Mr. J. Reid.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
4.14 p.m.
Mr. JAMES REID: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to apply to the very numerous class of cases where, particularly in commercial contracts, there is a clause sending a dispute to

1701
arbitration, and at the beginning of a contract of that kind it is quite impossible to foresee the nature of the disputes which may arise. In nine cases out of 10 those disputes will be of a technical character suitable for reference to a person acquainted with that kind of business; but in a test case a question of law is apt to crop up, a question never foreseen by the parties, and I venture to think that in many of those cases, speaking from my own experience, if parties had realised from the beginning what the ultimate question for decision was going to be, they would never have made a general reference to a non-legal man for decision.
In England for a generation there has been a provision under which, in the event of a legal question cropping up in a technical arbitration, the opinion of the court can be taken and I have never heard that this has led to any difficulty. On the contrary my impression is that it has been of great public service. In this proposed new Clause I am safeguarding the sanctity of arbitration which, perhaps, has been regarded in Scotland with a rather more favourable eye than in England, because I have included a provision that parties who do not want this form of stated case to the court may contract out of the Clause. The people of whom I am thinking are commercial people who do not foresee at the beginning what the upshot of a contract is going to be. I think it right, in a case of that sort, that the courts should be open for the solution of legal questions which arise un-expectedly.
I realise that there may be one or two objections to a procedure of this kind. It may be said that it would lead to additional expense. I think that the proposal would not lead to any substantial additional expense. The parties would save the expense of arguing a legal question before a non-legal man and an argument of that kind often proceeds at greater length than an argument on the same point in court The expense of going to court would be o negligible because the form of a stated case is a short form and the argument in general would be a short argument. It would go direct to the Inner House—to the Court of Appeal—and there would not be an appeal to the House of Lords except in the event of dissent in the bench which heard the stated case in the first instance.
1702
In the present state of business any case going up to the Court of Session could be heard within a very few weeks and, as I say, this procedure would cut out any appeal to the House of Lords except in a difficult case where there was a difference of opinion. As this new Clause gives the parties to arbitration a cheap and satisfactory method of deciding questions of law and does not impose anything on anybody, because it is possible to contract out of it, I ask the Government to allow this type of litigation to be started in the way proposed by the new Clause. This Bill provides for what is, in effect, an arbitration before a judge of the Outer House. It is undoubtedly extending the scope of the arbitration type of procedure and I ask the Lord Advocate whether he will not round off the scheme of the Bill by permitting an arbitration which has been started before an ordinary arbiter to be taken to the court on a question of law.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: I beg to second the Motion.
It is obvious that the underlying motive of this Bill is to make more efficient the machinery of justice in Scotland, to make that machinery more ready and more easy to use in doing justice between parties to disputes. It is notorious that in commercial circles disputes arising out of agreements and contracts are very often referred to the arbitration of non-legal men. As a rule no harm is done because no question of law arises, but one has heard of cases in which justice has been denied because a non-legal arbiter has been faced with a question of law which he was not competent to decide. The proposed New Clause aims at removing what is now a defect in one of the common forms by which citizens settle their disputes. It removes that defect by enabling a question of law, if and when it emerges in the course of a commercial or other arbitration, to be taken to the court and decided by a trained lawyer, and thereafter the matter goes back to the arbiter for final decision. The proposal of the New Clause is reasonable. Such a provision has been in operation in England for over 40 years. In the Arbitration Act of 1889 a similar provision to this was passed by the Legislature and it has been made use of in England to the

1703
great advantage of the parties concerned. It seems to me that the provision is so reasonable that the Government ought not to insist upon excluding it from a Bill the object of which is to render more efficient the machinery by which disputants in Scotland can settle their disputes.
4.22 p.m.
Mr. MILNE: I think that this proposed New Clause should not be added to the Bill. For more than 200 years in Scotland it has been well-settled law that, when parties refer a dispute to an arbiter, that excludes the jurisdiction of the court. That is sound law and sound sense. Suppose that two parties are in disagreement. The sum in dispute is small and they are reluctant to take their dispute to the court. They foresee the possibility of an endless vista of appeals and a bill of costs mounting up rapidly. The one thing for which they are anxious is a speedy decision with the minimum of expense. Like sensible men they say "let us arbitrate"and they refer their dispute to some person in whose integrity they have confidence. That is the principle of arbitration as we know it in Scotland.
In 1695 an Act was passed called the Act of Regulations providing that no award of an arbiter could be reduced except on the ground of corruption, bribery, or falsehood. That does not mean that an arbiter has carte blanche. Assuredly not. Supposing he were, in his award, to make a pronouncement on a question which had not been submitted to him. Supposing, as we say, he travelled ultra fines compromissi—in that case his award could be reduced. Or, if he were, in the course of the proceedings, to violate what is termed the principle of natural justice, if he were, for example, having heard one of the parties to refuse a hearing to the other, there again he could be interdicted. But the mere fact that an arbiter has made a mistake or is said to be about to commit an error whether on a question of fact or of law, matters not at all. This proposed New Clause would undermine the whole structure of arbitration as we know it in Scotland. What have we here? The side note to the proposed New Clause is:
1704
"Appeal from arbiters on questions of law."
I think I should put it fairly if I put it thus. It means that in future there shall be read into every submission, whether it is there or not, an implied agreement to permit appeals. That, as I say, would undermine the whole structure of arbitration as we understand it. The hon. and learned Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) will say, "But the parties can contract out."No doubt they could insert in their submission a clause prohibiting the right of appeal, but see how it would operate. In Scotland a submission does not require to be embodied in a formal deed. A deed is not necessary. A course of correspondence has been held sufficient to constitute a valid reference. Suppose that two traders in a country town in Scotland have a small dispute. They are not well off and they are anxious to avoid litigation. They do not want to go near the lawyers, so they do as their forefathers did. They submit the question in dispute to a mutual friend—a home-made submission if you will, but good enough. But it will not be good enough if this new Clause is passed. Their home-made submission does not contain a clause expressly excluding the right of appeal. They ought to have gone to a lawyer and the lawyer would have explained how the law has been altered in that respect, and I suppose he would have offered to draft for them an appropriate clause excluding the right of appeal.
Why should the law be altered? The reason given by the hon. and learned Member for Stirling and Falkirk and the hon. and learned Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Albert Russell) is that it would bring our law into line with the law of England. I have a great regard for the law and customs of my fellow countrymen south of the Border. I do not want to say anything which would seem in the least disrespectful to a great and friendly nation. I content myself with reading a passage from a judgment of one of the greatest of English judges, Lord Campbell, afterwards Lord High Chancellor, which I think throws some light on the difference between the attitude of the law of England and the attitude of the law of Scotland towards arbitration. Lord Campbell in the case of Scott versus Avery, 1856 (25 L.J. Ex. 308, at 313) said:

1705
"There was no disguising the fact than as formerly the emoluments of the judges depended mainly or almost entirely upon fees, and as they had no fixed salary there was great competition to get as much as possible of litigation into Westminster Hall and a great scramble in Westminster Hall for the division of the spoil."
That was in Westminster Hall. That is the inducement which is offered to us to bring our law into line with the law of England. I am gravely concerned for the integrity of the Scottish law of arbitration. I am even more concerned for the rights of the common people. The lieges in Scotland have two inalienable rights. One is the right to litigate. That is our protection against the aggressor and the wrongdoer. The other is a right which we esteem as highly, the right to arbitrate. That is our protection against the lawyers. I earnestly counsel the House to have nothing to do with the proposed new Clause.
4.29 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) who has expressed the view that if this House were to assent to the proposed Clause the result would be to innovate on our Scottish law of arbitration which is of long standing. The fact that it is 200 years old does not of course mean that you are not to change it, but I would point out to the House what would be the effect of this new Clause. You would be facilitating appeals in arbitration, and if you do that, you run a very great risk of destroying the whole character and value of arbitration. This matter was very carefully considered by the Royal Commission upon whose report the present Bill is based. The Commission unanimously reported against the proposal to apply in Scotland the provisions of the English Arbitration Act of 1889, and what I think will carry very great weight with Scottish Members of this House is that in that inquiry Lord Dunedin gave evidence and spoke against this proposal with a, wealth of experience in these matters to which no hon. Member can lay claim. He was clear that it would be a mistake to attempt to graft on to the Scottish system of arbitration any system of appeals derived from the system prevailing in England. Therefore, I regret that the Government cannot see their way to accept the proposed Clause.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. JAMIESON: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Clause. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) said that for 200 years the law of Scotland had not made a provision of this sort, but if you went back over 200 years, you would not find that there was a single commercial arbitration in Scotland. It is to meet a much felt want that my colleagues and I have put this Clause on the Paper. We have to-day in Scotland many commercial arbitrations. Many business men prefer, when there is a dispute, that the matter should be decided by a man in business rather than by a court. Frequently these arbitrations, when they are entered into, appear to he disputes on questions of fact, but in the course of the arbitration serious and difficult questions of law arise. In England in such cases there is a right to the parties to the arbitration to have the question of law settled by the courts, and it seems to me that that is an admirable procedure and one which would tend to do justice in Scotland. The point that in every little arbitration resort would be had to the courts is fully met by the provision in the Clause that the parties may contract out of the provision, and I feel that this Clause would add very beneficially to the present law of Scotland.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As one who listened to very nearly the whole of these discussions in Committee upstairs, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I strongly appreciate the fact that three hon. Members opposite who have supported the Clause imagine that, by blindly copying everything English, they will get something good. That is a kind of inferiority complex which I do not like to see spreading to the great nation North of the Tweed, and although nine times out of 10 they would be right, this is one of the occasions when, if I may say so as a layman who has tried to understand the question—and we had a very good explanation of the matter upstairs from the Solicitor-General for Scotland—it would be a directly retrogressive step to go back on the principle of arbitration. Arbitration is being established more and more in every walk of life, and to try to make loopholes for people, when once

1707
they have agreed to accept arbitration, is not a helpful policy.
I think the hon. Members opposite who represent the legal profession in Scotland should have some tender mercies for their Scottish fellow citizens who are not lawyers, because, after all, the legal profession has a very good opening in these days, and in the case of many of the great businesses of this country, and more particularly of the small businesses, it saves enormous expense if they can arbitrate. I feel that these points ought to be made. There has been no official opposition to this Bill on any occasion, because there is no Socialist Scottish Member apparently who understands these Scottish affairs, and therefore I am glad to point out what seems to an outsider the common sense point of view, and that is the point of view of the Government. I hope the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown will pass a hint to the English Law Officers to try to get the blemish withdrawn from the English method rather than add the blemish to the Scottish method.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time,"put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Abolition of Bill Chamber.)
4.37 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the words, "law agent,"and to insert instead thereof the word, "solicitor.'
This is one of a number of Amendments in similar terms that stand on the Paper, and the explanation of them is simple. Parliament has recently passed into law the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill, which comes into operation on the 1st March, 1934, and accordingly we have thought the better course is to use the word "solicitor"instead of the words "law agent"throughout this Bill. In Clause 40 of the Bill we shall propose an Amendment which will cover the period between now and March, 1934, during which the term "law agent"may be used.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Sessions of the Court.)
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out the words "so far as is practicable,"and to insert instead thereof the words:
1708
"where it is necessary in order to avoid interference with the regular sittings of any judge of the Outer House."
This Amendment effects a reconstruction of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5) of this Clause 4. It is little more than a formal matter, and the same remark applies to the following Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 37, leave out from the word "hearing,"to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words:
"in the Inner House at which the presence of such judge is required."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Right of party to choose Lord Ordinary and Division abolished.)
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the word "of."
This is purely verbal.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Which "of"?
The LORD ADVOCATE: It is the first "of."I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his vigilance.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Form of proceedings in the Court of Session.)
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out 'the second word "to,"and to insert instead thereof the word "in."
This is purely formal, as are the following three Amendments on the Paper.
Amendment agreed to.
Three consequential Amendments made.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
"(8) Any application to the Court for a decree conform on a decree pronounced in the Court of the Lord Lyon King of Arms shall be in the form of a petition which shall be presented to a Lord Ordinary in the Outer House."
The object of this Amendment is not to make any alteration in the law or the procedure of the Court of Session, but to make it clear what is the appropriate procedure for enforcing a decree of the Lyon Court. Perhaps it might not be amiss if I said a word or two about the Court of the Lord Lyon. It is the Scottish equivalent of the English

1709
College of Heralds, but there are two important distinctions as regards the Court of the Lord Lyon. First, it is based upon statutory authority, and in the second place the fees and the penalties from this Court go to the Treasury, which does not apply to the English College of Heralds. The functions of the Lord Lyon are diverse; they are partly ministerial or executive and partly judicial. The main duty of the Lord Lyon is to keep the public register of all arms and armorial bearings for Scotland. In carrying out that duty, which is imposed upon the Lord Lyon by an early Act of 1672, the Lord Lyon has the power to charge fees and to impose penalties, and it may be of some interest to note that the old statutory penalty still remains for a breach of the register or for using arms or armorial bearings which are not registered, of £100 Scots, which only amounts to £8 6s. 8d. sterling.
The point about the fees going to the Treasury rests in this, that the Court of the Lord Lyon is not only self-supporting, but each year makes a profit, which goes to the benefit of the taxpayer, and therefore the taxpayer has an interest, not only in seeing that the dignity of the court is maintained, but that the decrees of the court are properly enforced. Here is where the difficulty comes in because there has been some doubt as to the appropriate method of enforcing a decree of the Court of the Lord Lyon, which is, of course, an inferior court to the Court of Session. The matter was considered a few years ago in the case in the Court of Session of Macrae's Trustees against the Lord Lyon, and I should like to quote a word or two which was said by the late Lord Constable in his judgment, when he stated:
"I think it is clear that the authority of the Court of Session is required before execution."
Later he said:
"The only method of enforcement would appear to be by application for a decree conform."
In the earlier days the machinery for the enforcement of the decree of the Lyon Court was an application for Letters of Horning, but that procedure is now almost entirely obsolete, and a petition for a decree conform would be not only simpler but less expensive—a not unimportant point. Another point is that as
1710
far back as 1822 in the tenth report of the Commission on the Courts of Justice in Scotland, there was a recommendation that the Lyon Court should be provided with some machinery for enforcing decrees. Unfortunately, this was overlooked when the Personal Diligence Act was passed in 1838, and was overlooked again in 1867 when the Lyon Court Act was passed. If the late Lord Constable was right that the appropriate machinery is by an application to the Court of Session for a decree conform, then this Amendment, if the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept it, will clarify the law and will remove any doubt as to what is the appropriate step to take to enforce such a decree.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. BURNETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so with a certain amount of diffidence as one who has not been called to the Scottish Bar and whose legal training has been entirely in England, but fortunately my hon. Friend has made the task very easy as he has covered the ground so fully. As he has stated, it is a very reasonable proposition that the court which has the pronouncing of decrees should also have the power of executing diligence when enforcing decrees. This was clearly pointed out by the commissioners in 1822, and it is perhaps unfortunate that in the Personal Diligence Act of 1838 the Lyon Court was not included, as should have naturally been the case. This might have been remedied when the Lyon Court became a source of profit to the revenue in the Lyon Office Act of 1867, but this was not done, and the procedure has gone on on the old lines from letters of Horning to the present day. Letters of Horning and the Bill Chamber are to be abolished in this Bill, and consequently the decree of the Lyon Court will be more or less left in the air. I think that it will be very unfortunate if something is not done to regularise the proceedings in this matter. There is no question that as long as doubt remains in this matter there is bound to be legal expense in having it set at rest. For that reason I hope that the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept the Amendment, which will bring the Lyon Court into line with other courts issuing decrees.
4.50 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: Under the provisions of this Bill the forms of process in our courts are to be the subject of inquiry by a Rules Council to be set up under the Bill. It would be unfortunate if we were to insert any provision dealing with this particular matter. It is much better that the appropriate forms of process in this case, whether the decree of the Lyon Court is to be enforced by a decree conform or by means of petition, should be considered together. I do not say that we are out of sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment, but in order that the Rules Council may have an entirely free hand in dealing with all the forms of process, I regret that I do not see my way to accept it.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. J. REID: I am glad that the Lord Advocate has taken up that point of view. The Lord Lyon has not attempted to enforce decrees in matters that do not concern him intimately, and the only necessity for the Amendment that I can see is that there is a certain amount of trouble over flying the Scottish flag. No doubt if he attempts to enforce his views on that question there will be difficulties, but if he does not do that no difficulty can be anticipated. In my view, he ought not to be encouraged to take up the attitude that he is taking up; therefore I am against the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Proceedings in revenue cases.)
Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, leave out the word "to,"and insert instead thereof the word "in."—[The Lord Advocate.]
CLAUSE 10.—(Provision for summary trial of certain cases.)
Amendment made: In page 7, line 2, leave out the word "to,"and insert instead thereof the word "in."—[The Lord Advocate.]
CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to jury trial.)
Amendment made: In page 8, line 27, leave out the word "immediately."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions as to reclaiming.)
Amendment made: In page 9, line 13, leave out the words "such note,"and
1712
insert instead thereof the words submission to review in such form."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Power to regulate procedure, etc., by Act of Sederunt.)
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, to leave out the words "or remit,"and to insert instead thereof the words:
"removal, remit, stated case, or other like process."
This is a purely verbal Amendment.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This seems to me to be more than a verbal Amendment, for "removal"is different from "remit"and then "stated case, or other like process"is added. If this is purely verbal, "verbal"must have a new interpretation in the Lord Advocate's mind. May we have an explanation for the addition of these words?
The LORD ADVOCATE: This Amendment is really verbal. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 16 he will find that it provides:
"The court shall have power by Act of Sederunt to regulate and prescribe the procedure and practice to be followed in various categories of causes in the court or in execution or diligence following on such causes, whether initiated in the said court or brought there by way of appeal or remit."
The words "appeal or remit"were probably wide enough to cover all that was desired, but when you look at some of the Statutes you find that in some of them, instead of the word "remit,"the word "removal"is used. In order that there may be no difficulty in making the new rules as to cases to be brought to the superior court wide enough whether by way of appeal or removal or remit or by any other process known to law, we thought it better to state these matters explicitly.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 1, leave out the word "agents,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Rules council.)
Amendment made: in page 12, line 33, leave out the words "enrolled law agents,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors."—[The Lord Advocate.]
4.56 p.m
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, to leave out from the word "appointed"to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
"on the first occasion by the Lord President and thereafter by the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland.
(2) The members of the Rules Council, other than the Lord President, shall, so long as they retain the respective qualifications hereinbefore prescribed, hold office for three years and be eligible for reappointment.
(3) Any vacancy in the membership of the Rules Council occurring by death, resignation, or other cause prior to the expiry of three years from the date of appointment of the member whose office is so vacated shall be filled by the appointment by the person or body by whom that member was appointed of another person possessing the same qualification:
Provided that—

(i) where the vacancy occurs after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and the member whose office is vacated was a solicitor appointed by the Lord President, such vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland; and

(ii) any person appointed in pursuance of this sub-section to fill a vacancy shall remain a member of the council only until the expiry of three years from the date of the appointment of the member whose office is so vacated."

The effect of the Amendment is to leave out the latter part of the first Sub-section of Clause 18 which sets up the Rules Council. The effect of the proposed alteration is two-fold. First, it puts the power of appointment in the first instance in the hands of the Lord President. In the second place, it makes provision for the filling of casual vacancies.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As there does not appear to be any Scottish Socialist Opposition, may I ask why this question of filling up casual vacancies was left out from the original Bill? We are practically recasting this Clause, and it is usual in such a case to be told why this provision was left out in the first place. We have to watch carefully when these big drafting Amendments are made, for something may be done by the Law Officers, and six months afterwards a curious case may arise and great difficulties occur.
The LORD ADVOCATE: When the Bill was drafted it was not noticed that no provision had been made for filling casual vacancies. It was not even noticed by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not the official Opposition. I cannot carry my own burden and that of the Opposition also.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I was pointing out that the hon. Member did not raise this matter in Committee or we would have put it right in Committee. We are now putting it right by providing for the case of a casual vacancy and certain other cases.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 8, at the end, insert the words:
"(5) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Admissions by parties in trials on indictment.)
Amendment made: In page 14, line 2, leave out the words "law agent"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitor."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Appointment of Clerks in the Court of Justiciary.)
5.2 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, to leave out the words:
"the Principal Clerk of Justiciary and"
The House will see that this Clause deals with the appointment of clerks to the Court of Justiciary, including the Principal Clerk and any depute, assistant or other clerk, and states that the right of appointment shall be vested in the Secretary of State. So far as these appointments are concerned, the effect of this Clause will be that the patronage of the Lord Advocate will cease. On consideration it has been thought right, so far as the Principal Clerk of Justiciary, who is really a legal officer, is concerned, that the patronage should remain in the hands of the Lord Advocate, and accordingly we are taking the words "the Principal Clerk of Justiciary"out of this Clause and propose to insert them in Clause 25, which will be the appropriate Clause to define the appointment of the Principal Clerk of Justiciary as coming

1715
within the patronage of the Lord Advocate.
Amendment agreed to.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
"and shall be exercised after consultation with the Lord Justice General."
This Amendment is moved in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the. Lord Advocate be good enough to tell us why a pledge was given in Committee that this alteration should be made, and why it is to be made?
The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will see that this Clause deals with the appointment of clerks in the Court of Justiciary, and an undertaking was given in Committee that the Lord Justice General should be consulted, because it was thought right that the head of the Court of Justiciary should be consulted in a matter affecting the staffing of his court. It seems to me that it was a reasonable undertaking to give. It is to obviously desirable that the Secretary of State should have first hand advice from the court on these matters.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. BUCHANAN: As I understand it there is consultation now without the necessity for an alteration of the law. I presume that before the Secretary of State changes the staff in a Department he does what everybody would say was a reasonable thing by consulting the appropriate people running the Department from day to day. I take it that that would be an elementary duty on the part of the Secretary of State, without the necessity for us to lay it down by Act of Parliament that he should do so. My criticism of this change is twofold. In the first place, there may be other people who should be consulted, but what we are doing here is to limit the power of consultation on the part of the Secretary of State to consultation with one particular man. In the second place, I think that by this change we are to some extent lessening the power of the Secretary of State. Where the Secretary of State makes an appointment he is entirely responsible to this House for that appointment, and he can be censured for it or
1716
cross-examined about it. Here we are saying that before he makes an appointment he must consult this other person—I have no objection to him consulting another person—and in future, if any criticism is raised in this House about such an appointment, the question may come in of the other person's advice having run in a counter direction. In other words we are, in effect, giving a person who is not responsible to Parliament a say in this appointment.
My main criticism is that this is an unnecessary change. It says that the Secretary of State, whether it be the present holder of the office or another, does not know whom to consult and that we cannot trust him to consult the right person. I say that in any appointment which he has to make it is the duty of the Secretary of State to consult everybody concerned. I am certain that the Secretary of State, if he were making an appointment in the Department of Agriculture, would consult various people. An Act of Parliament is not necessary to tell him to do so; he does it. If he appoints a sheriff or certain people in connection with a sheriff court he would consult the Sheriff Principal or the Procurator Fiscal. He does it now from day to day, and the Lord Advocate does it, and the Solicitor-General does it, without an Act of Parliament saying that they must consult particular people. What we are doing here is playing up to the vanity of a particular group. The official mentioned here may be an important person but he has no more right to be mentioned in the Act of Parliament than any other person. Take Mr. Jeffrey, who is head of the Board of Health. The Secretary of State must consult him in many matters in the course of the year and rightly consults him. In educational matters he would consult his advisers in that Department. Yet we do not name those people in Acts of Parliament, and why should we put in the name of this official?
Already the Secretary of State has the power to consult these officials, and for us to insert this Amendment is to cast a reflection on him, saying that he will not consult other people or cannot be trusted to do so. We are playing up to this official by giving to him what is given to nobody else, and that is a statutory guarantee that he has to be consulted. The Lord Advocate may reply to me that the power still remains with the

1717
Secretary of State, but I say that once we have passed this Amendment we have even the official named in it, by statute, some right in saying who shall he appointed. I put forward this point very strongly, because I am not going to hand over the right of appointment to any persons other than those who are responsible to Parliament. The change is a bad and an unnecessary change, and only lawyers would ask for it, and it is a gross reflection on the Secretary of State if he must be told by Act of Parliament whom he is to consult—not only the present holder of the office of Secretary of State, but any future holder of the office.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on two points. This is the first time any Socialist Member has opened his mouth on this Bill, as far as I know, either in Committee or on the Report stage.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Not quite accurate but very nearly.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Well, there was a murmur just now. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having put a most important point. Only a short time ago the other part of the Socialist Opposition were asking to have a special trade union representative put on a certain body which was being set up under another Bill, and I would commend to the notice of the Government—I see one or two Whips about on the Treasury Bench, and I hope they will spread this wide through Government Departments—that the best case for not putting trade union representatives as special representatives on any body has been made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. He made a complete case against this kind of specialist, representation, and I congratulate hint on having knocked a very good nail into the coffin of the Socialist party.
M. BUCHANAN: Nonsense!
Mr. WILLIAMS: It may seem a little extraordinary that the Government should seek to insert this Amendment, but, on the other hand, when I look at the Bill and realise what we are doing, and remembering one or two of the Secretaries of State we have had in the last few years, and thinking of the type of person we may get, I feel it is
1718
important that in a question of making legal appointments there should be the very closest consultation between the Scottish Office and the great lawyers of the day. I say that without in any way controverting the general position laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals; but recalling some of the dangerous people we had at the Scottish Office not very long ago I think it is absolutely essential that this Amendment should be inserted. Although as a general rule it is not well to lay down these commands, but, rather, to leave the Minister fairly free to act, I hope that on this occasion the House will accept the proposal of the Government.
5.14 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I think there is some misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). At the present time the right of appointment to the offices referred to in this Clause is not vested in the Secretary of State but in His Majesty the King. His Majesty has been pleased to concede his right of patronage in this matter, and a formal intimation to that effect will be made when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Gorbals is quite right in saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland may consult anyone whom he likes without statutory permission or statutory right, but the view that was taken was that the Lord Justice General is responsible for the whole procedure of the Court and is responsible for the setting up and smooth running of the office, and that it is not unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be directed to take the head of the Court into consultation in making his appointment.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Could he not be trusted to do that without being directed?
The LORD ADVOCATE: He can be trusted absolutely.
Mr. BUCHANAN: You do it with every other Department.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I am sure that we could trust the Secretary of State for Scotland, either now or at any other time, past or future. This matter arises not only in Clause 23 but in Clause 24, which deals with the appointment of officers to the Court of Session, and I think that it occurs in other parts of the Bill. It would be an anomaly if we had

1719
it in Clause 24 and not in Clause 23. I think that there is very little substance in the objection, and I will ask hon. Members not to press it. The hon. Member for Gorbals should keep clearly in view that the Secretary of State for Scotland is under no obligation whatever to take the advice tendered. He remains master of the situation, subject, of course, to his responsibility to this House for any decision that he may make. He is enjoined by the Statute to take the views of the head of the Court, as the person who is responsible for the running of the Court, as to who are the proper people to be put into the responsible offices, and, in order to meet that situation we propose to insert these words in Clause 23, to bring it into line with Clause 24.
5.18 p.m.
Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I think that there is a little more substance in the objection raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) than the learned Lord Advocate gives him credit for. We are putting a duty upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible to this House for the way in which he carries out the duty put upon him. Under the Amendment moved by the Lord Advocate, it is proposed to make him share that responsibility with a judicial officer, the head of the Court of Session, whom we cannot criticise in this House. Suppose there is an officer appointed to the Court of Session whose appointment turns out to be a bad one, or whose appointment the House of Commons may desire to criticise, whom are we to criticise? The Secretary of State for Scotland? The Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to say that he was not entirely a free agent in the appointment of that officer, because he was directed by Statute to consult the head of the Court of Session, a judge of the Court of Session, who is beyond the reach of criticism of this House. To make the Secretary of State for Scotland jointly responsible for something with a judge who is beyond reach of this House, is bad. It would have been much better if this had been left out entirely, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will reconsider the matter. If he does, I think he will see that there is a real point in the objection which has been made.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Appointment of Officers of the Court of Session.)
Amendments made:
In page 15, line 18, leave out the words "initiated in inferior courts and."
In line 19, after "removal,"insert the words "remit, stated case."
In line 20, at the end, insert the words "(d) Exchequer causes."—[The Lord Advocate.]
5.23 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in line 23, to leave out the word "direction,"and to insert instead thereof the word "supervision."
This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the Amendment which follows, and which inserts the words "subject to the directions of the Lord President."With these Amendments made, the Sub-section will read:
"(3) The Petition Department and the General Department shall be respectively responsible under the supervision of the Principal Clerk and subject to the directions of the Lord President for the allocation among the Divisions of the Inner House or the Lords Ordinary, as the case may be, of the causes assigned to the said departments in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, and the General Department shall be responsible for the division of the causes initiated by summons among—".
The effect of these Amendments will be that the two Departments in question will be under the supervision of the Principal Clerk and subject to the directions of the Lord President.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 23, after the word "Clerk,"insert the words "and subject to the directions of the Lord President."—[The Lord Advocate.]
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 22, after the word "State,"to insert the words:
"and shall be exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate."
This is an Amendment which relates to Clause 24, the last Sub-section of which deals with the appointment to the office of macer in the Court of Session. At the present time, the appointment rests with His Majesty, and the macer receives his appointment from the hands of the King. His Majesty has been pleased to accept the proposal that the appointment should in future be vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland. At the present time,

1721
the right of nomination lies with the Lord Advocate, and although there is to be an alteration in vesting the Secretary of State with the appointment to the office, it should be made clear that it is not intended to interfere with the existing rights of nomination which are vested in the Lord Advocate. In order to get that matter expressed in case any difficulty should arise in the future, it is proposed that the words on the Paper be inserted.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does this apply to all macers? It came out in the Committee that there might be other persons who have the power to appoint maters. If there are any other cases in Scotland—for instance, that of the Marquess of Bute—why does the Government not proceed to take them over? It is rather curious, now that these offices of patronage are being dealt with, that the Scottish Office should not have made a complete job of the whole thing, but should leave one or two cases outside. I think that I am right in saying that there are such cases. In the circumstances, I think that we ought to be given a real reason—if any are left outside—as to why that is being done, and I would ask for that explanation.
5.27 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: This does not apply to all macers. The hon. Member is well-founded when he suggests that a right of appointment is vested in the Marquess of Bute. Perhaps there is something to be said for sweeping that into the ambit of the Clause, but it was not done on this occasion because it might involve some difficulty. The hon. Member will see that we are only dealing, as Sub-section (7) states, with
"The right of appointing to the office of Macer, which in accordance with the law and practice existing immediately prior to the passing of this Act was vested in His Majesty."
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Appointment of Accountant, Auditor and Extractor.)
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 26, after the second word "of,"to insert the words "Principal Clerk of Justiciary."
I can explain the purpose of this Amendment. We have taken words out of Clause 23, in regard to the right of
1722
appointing the Principal Clerk of Justiciary, and the purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the Lord Advocate's existing rights of nomination.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 29, at the end, insert the words "and shall be exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Commencement of this part of this Act.)
Amendment made: In page 18, line 20, after the word "Act,"insert the words "(except Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section twenty-four)."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Number of Sheriffs and Sheriffdoms.)
Amendments made: In page 18, line 24, at the beginning, insert the words:
"(1) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of the Sheriff of Chancery that office shall be united with the office of the sheriff in whose sheriffdom the city of Edinburgh is included."
Leave out lines 31 to 33.
In line 39, leave out the words "law agents,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors."
In line 43, leave out from the word "has,"to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words "been approved by a resolution of each House."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 35.—(Sheriff Court Rules Council.)
Amendments made: In page 21, line 2, leave out the words "enrolled law agents,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors."
Leave out from the word "appointed,"to the end of line 3.—[The Lord Advocate.]
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 4, to leave out the word "and,"and to insert instead thereof the words:
"provided that in the event of the said Rules Council being established before the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the first appointment of solicitors to be members thereof shall be made by the Lord President."
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not think that this Amendment is quite consequential; in fact, I am sure it is not. May

1723
I ask why it is that the date is put off until March, 1934? Would it not be better to accelerate it. to the end of the year or something of that kind? Clearly, the Amendment is not merely consequential, and I think the House might know why the date is being postponed for so long.
5.33 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE: A Council of Solicitors was set up by the Solicitors Bill which has just become law, and that Measure does not come into force until the 1st March, 1934. Accordingly, we have to provide for the appointment of solicitors to the Rules Council until such time as the Rules Council begins to function under the Solicitors Act. We have to provide for the intervening period, and we propose to vest the power of appointing solicitors to the Rules Council in the Lord President until the Solicitors Council comes into being.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 5, after the word "of,"insert the words "sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of."
In line 6, leave out the words "and the members and quorum thereof."
In line 8, leave out the words "and the members and quorum thereof."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 37.—(Agreements between law agents as to sharing fees.)
Amendments made: In page 21, line 24, leave out the words "law agents,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors."
In line 29, leave out the word "agent,'' and insert instead thereof the word "solicitor."
In line 31, leave out the word "agent,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitor."
In line 34, leave out the word "of,"and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[The Lord Advocate.]
5.35 p.m.
Mr. J. REID: I beg to move, in page 21, line 35, to leave out from the word "agent"to the end of the Sub-section.
It has been represented to me and to other Members of the House, by certain solicitors practising in the country in Scotland and dealing, as they must in
1724
connection with court work, with solicitors in Edinburgh, that the present arrangements are being upset unnecessarily. When the Solicitors Bill, which has just became law, was in Committee, the matter was left quite open, and solicitors in the country and in Edinburgh could make such bargains about sharing fees as they felt inclined to make. It is now provided that there shall be four limitations. As regards the first two, I do not think anyone takes any exception. They are, first, that the share which may be paid shall not exceed one-third; and, secondly, that the client shall be informed of the arrangement; but the third and fouth, which I desire to leave out, limit the power of agents to deal with each other in a manner for which, I must say, I do not quite see the reason, and I would like to know whether the Government could not consider making only the first two conditions, particularly in view of the fact that the matter was not raised at all on the Solicitors Bill, where it would have been much more germane. One cannot quite see how far these other two limitations may go. They seem to impinge very much on the present arrangements, under which, in many cases, I am informed, the proportion of one-third includes the matters which are struck out in paragraphs (iii) and (iv), so that the present arrangement, to which no serious objection has been taken in the past, will be somewhat considerably modified.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
Amendment not seconded.
Amendments made: In page 21, line 35, leave out the word "agent,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitor."
In line 37, leave out the word "agent,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitor."
In page 22, line 1, leave out from the word "Section,"to the word "in,"in line 2, and insert instead thereof the words "forty-one of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933."
In line 3, leave out the words "law agents,"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 38.—(Amendment of 58 & 59 Vict. c. 36, s. 5 (4).)
Amendment made: In page 22, line 12, leave out from the word "on,"to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words:
"application made to him not later than one month after the close of the inquiry by any person appearing or entitled to appear at the inquiry."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 40.—(Interpretation.)
Amendments made: In page 23, line 1, leave out from the word "expression,"to the word "the,"in line 2, and insert instead thereof the words:
"solicitor 'has the like meaning as in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, provided that for the purpose of the construction of any provision of this Act with reference to any time prior to the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, any reference to a solicitor shall be construed as a reference to a law agent as defined in."
In line 3, at the end, insert the words:
"The expression 'General Council of Solicitors in Scotland' means the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland constituted under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933."—[The Lord Advocate.]

SCHEDULE.
Amendments made: In page 26, column 3, line 5, after the word "Sections,"insert the word "thirty-three."
Leave out lines 19 to 21.—[The Lord Advocate.]
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:

23 and 24 Geo. V., c.

The Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933

Section forty-one, from the beginning, to the words "lawful and."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have not been able to follow the exact meaning of this Amendment. May we be told precisely what it actually does? The matter is very complicated and technical, and I think the House has a right to have an explanation recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that people outside may really know what is being done.
The LORD ADVOCATE: My hon. Friend will recollect that recently there was passed into law the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill, which is now known as the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933. Accordingly, in the Schedule to the present Bill, it has been necessary to make certain alterations, and this Amendment makes one of the alterations which will
1726
be required in consequence of the passing of the new Act, which supersedes the provisions of certain of the older Measures dealing with the position of solicitors.
Amendment agreed to.

TITLE.
Amendment made: In page 1, leave out the words "law agents',"and insert instead thereof the word "solicitors'."—[The Lord Advocate.]
The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I have to acquaint the House that I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit. I have already explained that, under the existing practice, His Majesty has certain rights of patronage which are affected by this Bill, and the intimation which I now make to the House is m accordance with precedent.
King's consent signified.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 9.—(Rights of superiors and others.)
  5.40 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, after the word "part,"to insert the words:
  "and by whose predecessor in title such ground or part was originally granted or disponed without valuable consideration for the erection of the church or manse."
  Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which was inserted in Committee, is too wide in its terms. It gives to any adjoining heritor the right of pre-emption of any land which the Church no longer requires. In that respect it follows the proviso to Section 37 of the principal Act with regard to teinds. In the case of churches or manses, the more reasonable course would

  1727
  seem to be that the right should be confined to the adjoining heritor whose predecessor in title gave the site for the erection of a, church or manse without consideration received. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. J. Reid) has on the Paper an Amendment the effect of which would be to confer a right of pre-emption even in cases where the predecessor in title of the adjoining land has given the site for valuable consideration—it might be for full consideration. We have carefully considered this matter, and we think that, if the right of pre-emption is to be conferred, it should be limited to cases in which the predecessor in title of the adjoining land has given the site for nothing. Accordingly, I move the insertion proposed in my Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend may see his way not to press his Amendment.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. J. REID: While I recognise that the Government have gone a long way to meet the objection which I took on this Clause, I would venture to ask whether it is not possible to accept the rather wider Amendment which I have put on the Paper—In page 9, line 6, after the word "part,"to insert the words:
  "and from whom, or whose predecessor in title, such ground or part was originally acquired."
  It is not as though the heritor who is acquiring the site is getting any favourable consideration. He is not getting it for nothing, or for an inadequate price. The reason for the Amendment, in my view, is not so much that he may be recompensed in respect of his ancestors' generosity, as to make that an estate shall not be damaged by reason of persons being entitled to come in and acquire sites without any restriction on their use, thereby, it may be, seriously interfering with the amenities of the neighbourhood. After all, a heritor is very willing either to give or sell land for a purpose such as church or a manse, to which no possible exception can be taken, but it is a very different thing to say that, after the purpose has become obsolete, the land shall still be used and the heritor shall have no right of pre-emption. Will not that consideration weigh with the right hon. Gentleman in order that the somewhat wider proposal may be adopted?
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. JAMIESON: The Amendment really does not meet the point raised Committee, or it only goes a short way towards meeting it. It is limited to the case where the grant in question has originally been disponed by the heritor without valuable consideration. I have not the slightest doubt that there are many cases where some consideration has been given and accordingly, it falls under the category of valuable consideration. But the heritor giving the land for Church purposes has given it for a consideration which was totally inadequate and, for this reason, I feel that the wider Amendment of my hon. Friend ought to be accepted. It is not as if the land was going to be taken away from the Church without the Church getting full payment for it because, if the heritor is not willing to give such a sum as the Church thinks it ought to get, the matter will be referred to arbitration.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Vesting of glebe feu duties, etc.)
  5.48 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out from the word "until,"to the end of line 18, and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "a vacancy in the benefice occurring after that date shall have been filled."
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid) raised the question whether the Bill as it stood conserved the rights of the widow of the incumbent of a benefice in the case where under the existing law the widow has a right to Ann. We have considered the matter and we have taken the view that it is desirable that the rights of widows of existing incumbents ought to be saved and I move this Amendment in order to give effect to that purpose.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. J. REID: I welcome the decision of the Government to safeguard the rights of widows and children, but I have some doubt whether the Amendment is really effective for the purpose. Let me put a concrete instance of what I mean. Supposing a minister dies on 15th May and the new minister is inducted, let us say, in July. As I understand it, the period during which the deceasing minister's

  1729
  widow and children will receive Ann is from 15th May to the date when the new minister comes in. That is the meaning of the Government Amendment, as I understand it. What I proposed was that the existing situation should continue. If I can be assured that I have misunderstood the Amendment I shall be satisfied, but I should have thought it did not preserve the rights in all cases.
  5.51 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: We Lave very carefully considered the matter in consultation with the church authorities. The position is this as we see it. Once the widow's right to Ann has vested, of course it vests for the whole term. The right will go only when the vacancy is filled, and then only as regards the widow of the new incumbent. I thank the hon. Member for having raised the matter, but we looked at it very carefully and I can give him the assurance that the purpose he has in mind has been met.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 12.—(General assembly may specify parish church.)
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. McKIE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  I should like to say, while we have been discussing Scottish affairs, legal and ecclesiastical, how much I appreciate and welcome the Bill as one necessary in the new life which is now being infused into the Church of Scotland as a result of the Union of 1929. This Bill is very necessary to smooth out the working of the new machinery, but it seems to me and to many of those with whom I have been in conversation that this Clause may create certain difficulties and not promote the harmony that we all would wish to see. The objections to it are twofold, firstly on sentimental or traditional grounds. I am the last person in the world to appeal to sentiment in any sloppy sense, but in Scottish ecclesiastial affairs sentiment has always played a very large part indeed. Under the Clause as at present constituted, it seems to me that there is a danger that the General Assembly might conceivably make use of the powers vested in it in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. The Clause is devised to meet the needs of parishes where there
  1730
  may be two or more ecclesiastical buildings, and the General Assembly is here given the power to say, in the event of a dispute arising, which building is to become the permanent place of worship and no mention is made of the congregation, the Kirk Session, the Presbytery or the Synod concerned. It is merely left, if need be, in the hands of an all-powerful General Assembly, which may or may not take into consideration the factors, sentimental or otherwise, which may govern the case. In Scotland we have very few gems of architecture such as are to be met with up and down the parishes of England, but our buildings, plain though they are in the great majority of cases, are held none the less dear than the parish church in England. I cannot help recalling the rhyme of the old metrical version of the Psalms:
  "Thy saints take pleasure in her stones,
  Their very dust to them is clear."
  The interest taken by Church of Scotland congregations in their ecclesiastical affairs is a very real and live one, and I wish to see it fostered in every right and proper way.
  The other objection that suggests itself to my mind is that the Clause seems to me to be rather against the genius of the Presbyterian system of Church government. It is a republican system. There is a regular gradation of Church courts, beginning with the Kirk Session and passing up to the Presbytery and the Synod to the General Assembly, and it seems here that we are going to sweep away the minor courts and pass right on to the General Assembly, which may or may not take into consideration the special circumstances of the case. After all, when I think of all the bloodshed and controversy that has taken place in the past about the best system of Church government to employ in Scotland, it seems that now, when we have this wonderful coming together of the two great Presbyterian Churches, we ought to resist by every means within our power any encroachment of a prelatical nature. I am not for a moment suggesting that this is likely to become a formidable possibility by the passage of this Bill into law, but in this Clause you have just the germ of such a thing becoming possible. Of course, we have to take into consideration the question of authority, and also that of the liberty of the individual. We have to hold the balance be-

  1731
  tween these two in matters ecclesiastical as well as in matters political. Here we are dealing certainly with the powers of the priesthood. The Church of Scotland, while recognising the power of the keys, has also insisted upon the essential priesthood of all believers. That is how I see the danger that might conceivably arise under this Clause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the General Assembly will not seek to use the powers here conferred upon it in any arbitrary way. The people of Scotland have always jealously guarded their inalienable rights. We do not wish to stifle, we wish to develop the interest that has always been taken by them in ecclesiastical history and in theological speculation, and it would truly be an ill day for our national life if we were to depart from our historic attitude in this direction.
  "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget her cunning."
  5.59 p.m.
  Lord SCONE: I beg to second the Amendment, partly on the grounds put forward by my hon. Friend, that the Clause is contrary both to the history and to the spirit of the Church of Scotland, and also because it seems to us illogical that an appeal should go direct to the General Assembly without consultation with the minor church courts. It seems to me to be just as though in an ordinary action at law the case is to be heard straight away by the House of Lords, completely ignoring the Sheriff substitute, the Sheriff principal and the Court of Session. I do not think the Clause is likely to promote peace within the Church. I know that the argument may be advanced that if you consult merely the congregation of kirk in session you will be running the risk of the real issue being lost sight of. At the same time, I do not think that that is altogether correct, because even though the congregation in kirk session may tend to take a parochial view, they have the wider body of the Presbytery and the still wider body of the Synod. Accordingly, it seems to us that it would be very much better that the minor courts of the Church of Scotland should have some say on a very important and, it may be, very controversial subject affecting a parish church. It is for that reason that we move to omit the Clause. We hope
  1732
  that the Lord Advocate may be able to give an assurance upon this point. If not, we shall be compelled to express the opinion that so far from the Clause being of benefit to the Church of Scotland, it is likely to prove, not possibly a curse, but at least a very serious disadvantage.
  6.2 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The very last thing we desire to do is to discriminate in any way whatever between parish ministers within a parish or parish churches within a parish, but the hon. Member must face the situation. Suppose, for example, you take a concrete case and that you have a trust deed which sets up an endowment of a parish to be administered by the minister, and as a result of the Scottish Church Union, instead of having one minister of the parish, you have three or four ministers of the parish, who is to administer that trust? The very last thing we want is litigation or local controversies starting in kirk sessions, and going on to presbyteries, and to synods, and then on to the General Assembly. Some power to determine a question of that kind must be vested somewhere, and it is proposed by the Bill to give a plenary power in that matter to the supreme court of the Church. I do not think that die hon. Member need be at all afraid of the General Assembly having what he called prelatic tendencies. The General Assembly will consider the pros and cons of each case as it arises—there will not be very many—and I have no doubt that they will come to a decision satisfactory, not only to the parishioners concerned, but to the whole community. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will see his way not to press the Amendment.
  Mr. McKIE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with some rare cases—questions of endowment and the like. I was dealing with the right of congregations to decide on the maintenance of a particular church building, but in view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [Lords.]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [Lords.]

  SERVICE OF PROCESS (JUSTICES) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  CLAUSE 2.—(Proof of service of documents in proceedings before, and on appeals from, justices.)
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after the word "posting,"to insert the words:
  "and the registration of the letter, if it was registered."
  This is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
6.6 p.m.
Sir S. CRIPPS: We really must ask someone to explain so important a matter as the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill. When one looks through the Bill one finds a whole lot of duties which are being imposed upon the importation of goods into the Isle of Man, special duties with regard to the Free State, and a number of other matters, to which it is impossible for the House to agree unless an explanation is given of the reasons for the imposition of these duties and the policy which lies behind the various matters which are more particularly set out in the six Schedules to the Bill. We really protest against a Bill which is to affect, apparently, the whole of the inhabitants of the Isle of Man, although it is not a very big place, being put before the House without the slightest explanation of any sort or kind. Perhaps that now the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has
1734
come into the Chamber, he will be good enough to give the House an explanation of the Schedules and the policy behind them.
6.7 p.m.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I must apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman has had cause to make a complaint. This Bill is the annual Bill which is presented to the House of Commons to confirm Resolutions of the Manx Legislature with regard to Customs. As the House knows, the Isle of Man enjoys autonomy with regard to Customs, subject to the approval of this House. The Bill accordingly represents Resolutions which have been passed in the Isle of Man during the course of the year—Resolutions passed by the Isle of Man Legislature approximating to the provisions embodied in our own Finance Bill. I do not think that I need offer a further detailed explanation to the House. There are some slight differences upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to remark. The Beer Duty differs in the Isle of Man. It is slightly higher for the lower grade beer than it is in this country. The Heavy Oil Duty does not apply to the Isle of Man. I think that those are the two principal differences between what is in force in the Isle of Man and what is in force here.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: On a previous occasion I raised one or two points with the Treasury concerning the presentation of this Bill. I have gone through the Bill as far as possible, and I wish to put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman which I put on previous occasions. Has the House of Keys in the Isle of Man any authority at all to impose these duties on goods coming into the Island? I find on page 3 that:
'The Governor may, from time to time, by order direct that, on the removal or importation into the Isle of Man of goods of such classes and descriptions as are specified in any order."
I understand from the Bill that the Governor of the Isle of Man is entitled to make orders and, unless I am mistaken, also to vary such orders in connection with Customs duties on goods entering the Isle of Man. It is therefore proper to ask the hon. Gentleman

1735
what is in fact the relationship between this Parliament, the House of Keys and the Governor of the Isle of Man? Are we to understand that the Governor is bound to carry out any Act of Parliament passed by this House, although in fact the House of Keys may have no say at all as to the provisions of the Measure? There is no Member for the Isle of Man in the House of Commons, and I am not entitled to speak for the people of the Isle of Man, but I think that we ought to ask that question.
There is an explanation in Clause 1 which is rather humorously put, and I should like to know whether the same explanation is included in our own Act of Parliament dealing with the same problem. These are the words:
"For the purpose of the duties under this Section, a match which has more than one point of ignition shall be reckoned as so many matches as there are points of ignition."
That is a very humorous provision to put in an Act of Parliament, and I should like to know whether the definition of matches in this Bill corresponds with the definition of matches in the Bill we have already passed in this House. I wish to ask another question. Here is a Bill which runs into many pages. Clauses and Sub-sections-in fact, into 24 pages—

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
The House went;—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to.—

1. Blind Voters Act, 1933.

2. Municipal Corporations (Audit) Act, 1933.

3. Education (Necessity of Schools) Act, 1933.

4. Cotton Industry Act, 1933.

5. Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933.

6. Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933.

7. Metropolitan Police Act, 1933.

8. Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1933.

1736

9. Leeds Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1933.

10. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Company (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1933.

11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bath and Bury and District Joint Water Board) Act, 1933.

12. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1933.

13. Frimley and Farnborough District Water Act, 1933.

14. Colne Corporation Act, 1933.

15. Cancer Hospital (Free) Act, 1933.

16. Calvinistic Methodist, etc., Presbyterian Church of Wales Act, 1933.

17. Torquay and Paignton Tramways (Abandonment) Act, 1933.

18. Mersey Tunnel Act, 1933.

19. Sidmouth Urban District Council Act, 1933.

20. Rugby Corporation Act, 1933.

21. Worksop Corporation Act, 1933.

22. Commercial Gas Act, 1933.

23. London Overground Wires, etc., Act, 1933.

24. Essex County Council Act, 1933.

25. Dearne District Traction Act, 1933.

26. Southern Railway Act, 1933.

27. London County Council (Money) Act, 1933.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
6.26 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have put a few questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, of which he has taken note. I will now proceed to put further questions to him. On Clause 19 (Duties on certain Irish Free State goods), I should like a little explanation. Everyone who knows anything about geography will know that the Isle of Man is nearer to Ireland than to England. Is there any differentiation between the duties on Irish goods entering the Isle of Man and the duties imposed against Irish goods coming into England, Scotland and Wales? On Clause 20 (Repeal of emergency duties on horticultural products), can the Financial Secretary give any

1737
explanation as to the repeal of these emergency duties, and what the effect of these duties has been on the position of the people in the Isle of Man?
So far as I understand the constitutional situation, the Isle of Man is controlled by the Home Office. Although it comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, the Treasury deals with the finances of the island. We are, therefore, entitled to ask on this Bill what is the proportion of the total revenue 'of the Isle of Man that comes to the Treasury after deducting the expenses of collecting the duties? This Bill is a repetition of the policy of the Government in imposing duties against all manner of goods going into the Isle of Man, in the same fashion that duties are imposed against the same classes of goods coming into this country. There has been a great division of opinion in this House on the policy of the Government in imposing these duties. The duties have been put on against foreign goods with the avowed object of raising the price of primary products. We have been told that the agricultural and horticultural producer would by these duties be helped to increase his profits. Is it true that the effect of the imposition of these duties in the Isle of Man is the same as the effect upon our own people?
I have come to the conclusion that the more these restrictions, quotas and tariffs are imposed upon goods coming into this country the worse the condition of the people has become, and I should like to know whether the condition of the people in the Isle of Man has improved in comparison with the position of the common people in this country. We are entitled to know whether the opinion of the Members of the House of Keys has been taken on this important issue. It would be a very terrible thing, when we have a National Government, made up of Tories in the main, imposing these duties against foreign goods coming into this country, if the House of Keys, elected by the people of the Isle of Man, were by a majority—being more intelligent than hon. Members opposite—opposed to these duties. Would it be far to impose these duties on an island where the majority of the people may be against the tariff policy of this Government?
Let me pass to my final word. We get the trade and navigation returns showing
1738
how many ships have been put out of action by the tariff policy of this Government, and how the export of coal goes down. In fact, there is a decrease in connection with all our imports and exports owing to the policy of this Government. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) laughs, but he helped the other day to pass the Fishing Industry Bill, and was bold enough to tell the House that it was deliberately designed to prevent the people of this country getting cheap fish and in order also to raise the prices of fish coming into this country. If that is the policy of the Government, if it is their intention to raise prices without raising the wages of the working people, we are entitled to ask whether it is fair for this lop-sided Government, a Government which got its majority by very doubtful means, to thrust upon the people of the Isle of Man their own policy when in politics they are so much more intelligent than hon. Members opposite? Again, l these imposts have been put on in order to help the industries of this country, the great industries of gramophones and horticulture. How is the gramophone industry of the Isle of Man going to fare? Are there any manufactures at all which will be helped by the policy of the Government? I have put these straightforward questions to the hon. Member, and I feel sure he will give us an intelligent reply.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: By leave of the House I will try to answer the points put by the hon. Member. Most of his speech was delivered under a misconception; the misconception being that by the exercise of some tyrannical authority we were imposing our policy on the Isle of Man, and dictating to them what Customs Duties they should levy. Let me correct that misconception. No such pressure has been exercised. The Isle of Man enjoys a separate and independent financial existence. It has its own Parliament and although Customs Duties have to be approved by this House of Commons it would be quite without precedent for this House of Commons to interfere with the internal arrangements of the Isle of Man as regards Customs Duties.
Mr. DAVIES: Surely it is without precedent that this Government have imposed these duties?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the misunderstanding which I am trying to remove. We have not imposed these duties. These duties have been imposed by the Legislature of the Isle of Man, by its own Government, and we are asked, in accordance with historical practice, to confirm what that Parliament has done. That is our sole responsibility in the matter. That gives an answer to most of the questions put by the hon. Member. What considerations impelled them to adopt a similar method of procedure, to impose similar duties, is a matter within their own cognisance and competence. It would be superfluous for me to try to examine what motives lay behind any action they may have taken, although, naturally, they are guided by what we do in this country. They have adopted our definition of matches. The hon. Member was very much struck by the words used:
"for the purposes of duties under this Section a match which has more than one point of ignition shall be reckoned as so many matches as there are points of ignition."
That was the language employed in our own original Act of Parliament. It has been copied by the Manx legislature, and whatever it may mean here it means there. What it means I cannot say beyond repeating the words I have used. I have no doubt that it is a useful guide to the Customs authorities in exacting their duties. With regard to the imposition of certain duties by order of the Governor, the procedure is on all fours with our own. The Manx authorities have power, by order, to impose duties which are subsequently ratified by the Tynwald, in the same way as our own are ratified. The procedure there is on exactly the same footing. In regard to the Irish duties, of course that has no reference whatever to the Isle of Man. We impose duties on Irish goods in order to exact, as best we can, sums of money which are owing to us. The Isle of Man is not in that position, she is not owed any money, but, nevertheless, she was afraid that her own markets might be glutted with imports from Ireland, and accordingly adopted by resolution certain of the duties which correspond to our duties here.
The last question put related to finance. I find on inquiry that it is almost impossible to answer that question. Some of the Customs duties are collected in the
1740
Isle of Man and are credited to the insular Exchequer direct. I imagine that the duty on most imported goods is paid in this country and that they go into the Isle of Man with a certificate that the duty has been paid here. I am sorry to inform the hon. Member that I have no precise analysis as to how the finances stand because of the difficulties I have mentioned.
Sir S. CRIPPS: Can the hon. Member say how that money is accounted for?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is a common purse, and we credit to the Isle of Man, and pay to the Isle of Man, a sum of money upon a formula. We say that the proportion of the population is so much, and the consumption of the dutiable article is so much, and, in accordance with that formula, we calculate what is due to them. As the question is of some interest I will undertake to obtain the best analysis of the figures I can and supply them to the hon. Member. I am sorry that I cannot do more at the moment.
Mr. R. DAVIES: The hon. Member has told us that a decision was reached in the House of Keys that these Customs duties were to be imposed consequent upon our action. Has he any information to show the majority in favour of these duties?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. I much regret that I have not, and it would be just the same if the question was put in relation to the Dominions. I have no knowledge of the procedure in the Tynwald; all I know is that this has been the result.
Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1931.
Resolutions reported:
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus

1741
of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £590,247 15s. 2d., namely:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

1,537,329

2

7

Total Deficits

…

947,081

7

5

Net Surplus

…

£590,247

15

2

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote.

Navy Services, 1931, Votes.

Deficits.

Surpluses.

Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, etc., of Officers, Sea men, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services.

—

1,775

19

9

254,998

10

8

—

2

Victualling and Clothing

—

42,152

18

4

297,622

6

7

—

3

Medical Establishments and Services.

—

—

17,023

13

1

4,237

7

3

4

Fleet Air Arm

—

—

—

—

5

Educational Services

—

—

10,630

8

0

2,003

6

11

6

Scientific Services

—

—

23,889

9

6

7,113

0

10

7

Royal Naval Reserves

4,216

8

3

90

15

9

—

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

Sec. 1. Personnel

—

—

95,598

6

10

60

10

0

Sec. 2. Matériel

—

456,056

11

5

622,872

15

4

—

Sec. 3. Contract Work

232,935

13

2

28,615

13

3

—

—

9

Naval Armaments

—

—

88,775

11

10

18,450

6

3

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs.

20,218

15

9

90,851

9

5

—

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services.

57,870

0

6

—

—

35,326

3

4

12

Admiralty Office

—

—

25,846

4

4

1,087

11

3

13

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

—

647

17

2

4,835

11

1

—

14

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

—

2,391

4

11

26,957

19

6

—

15

Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.

8,143

11

0

462

12

4

—

—

—

Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

651

16

5

—

—

—

324,036

5

1

623,045

2

4

1,469,050

16

9

68,278

5

10

Total Deficits £947,081 7 5

Total Surpluses £1,537,329 2 7

Net Surplus … £590 247 15 2

II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £1,484,504 1s. 3d., namely;—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

1,917,976

14

4

Total Deficits

…

433,472

13

1

Net Surplus

…

£1,484,504

1

3

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote.

Army Services, 1931, Votes.

Deficits.

Surpluses.

Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of the Army

—

179,148

0

0

348,101

14

0

—

2

Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.

—

—

129,867

5

5

4,353

9

2

3

Medical Services

—

—

61,121

12

10

1,005

16

10

4

Educational Establishments

—

—

16,800

1

1

2,021

12

1

5

Quartering and Movements

—

—

70,299

19

5

38,580

9

6

6

Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.

—

43,334

14

10

476,059

14

4

—

7

Clothing

—

—

49,475

13

1

4,097

4

9

8

General Stores

—

20,972

13

7

121,085

8

6

—

9

Warlike Stores

—

98,131

13

10

74,159

16

2

—

10

Works, Buildings, and Lands

—

52,365

7

2

169,394

14

7

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services.

36,124

18

9

—

—

22,866

17

0

12

War Office

—

—

14,740

14

6

1,677

14

10

13

Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.

—

—

172,355

17

11

4,835

15

4

14

Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non commissioned Officers, Men, and others.

—

—

28,446

2

4

98,744

0

10

15

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.

—

—

7,806

10

10

78

9

0

—

Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

3,395

4

11

—

—

—

39,520

3

8

393,952

9

5

1,739,715

5

0

178,261

9

4

Total Deficits £433,472 13 1

Total Surpluses £1,917,976 14 4

Net Surplus … £1,484,504 1 3

III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £231,052 9s. 6d, namely:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

532,746

4

7

Total Deficits

…

301,693

15

1

Net Surplus

…

£231,052

9

6

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.
3. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote.

Air Services, 1931, Votes.

Deficits.

Surpluses.

Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of the Air Force

—

17,626

18

0

87,886

0

6

—

2

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

—

13,978

19

4

209,433

9

9

—

3

Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).

53,889

16

8

120,445

15

9

—

—

4

Works, Buildings, and Lands

—

17,499

11

7

82,571

4

1

—

5

Medical Services

—

4,248

15

4

12,095

15

4

—

6

Educational Services

—

—

7,631

11

9

1,772

16

10

7

Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

—

—

7,827

8

9

161

17

4

8

Civil Aviation

—

72,040

19

0

76,273

17

3

—

9

Meteorological Services

—

813

12

7

11,575

14

6

—

Miscellaneous Effective Services.

—

—

2,812

13

4

1,516

7

9

10

Air Ministry

—

—

16,824

16

0

854

11

2

11

Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.

—

—

13,159

1

11

348

18

4

—

Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

1,149

6

10

—

—

—

55,039

3

6

246,654

11

7

528,091

13

2

4,654

11

5

Total Deficits £301,693 15 1

Total Surpluses £532,746 4 7

Net Surplus … £231,052 9 6

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Neath, which was presented on the 15th day of June and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Herne Bay Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 15th day of June and pullished, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered,"put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Tartan.]
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 1, and insert:

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) BILL.

  New CLAUSE A.—(Amendment of 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 31.)
  The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall have effect as if for Section thirty-one of that Act (which relates to procedure on appeal to general or quarter sessions) there were substituted the following section:
  31.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a person is authorised by or under any Act, including any local Act, to appeal to a court of general or quarter sessions against a conviction, sentence, order, determination or other decision of a court of summary jurisdiction, the following provisions shall apply:

  (i) the appeal shall be made to a court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in the county, borough or place for which the court of summary jurisdiction acted;

  (ii) the appellant shall, within fourteen days after the day on which the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction was given, give to the clerk to that court and to the other party notice in writing of his appeal, stating the general grounds of his appeal, and signed by him or by his agent on his behalf;

  1747

  (iii) the appellant shall, after giving notice of appeal to the clerk to the court of summary jurisdiction and within twenty-one days after the day on which the decision of the court was given, enter into recognisance with or without sureties as that court, or any other court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same petty sessional division or place, may have directed, and in such reasonable sum as, having regard to the purpose of the recognisance and to his means, they may have thought necessary to fix, conditioned to prosecute his appeal with diligence, or, with the consent of the court, he may, as respects the whole or any part of the sum so fixed, give such other security, by deposit of money with the clerk to the court, or otherwise, as the court deem sufficient.

  (iv) where the appellant is in custody, the court who fix the recognisance to be entered into, or the other security to be given, under the preceding paragraph, or any other court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same petty sessional division or place, may, if they think fit, release him from custody on his complying with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, if he has not already done so, and on his either entering into a recognisance, with or without sureties, and in such reasonable sum as they think necessary to fix, conditioned to appear at the hearing of the appeal, or giving with their consent other security for his appearance;

  (v) recognisances for the purposes of paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of this subsection may, if it be convenient, be combined in one recognisance;

  (vi) quarter sessions may from time to time adjourn the hearing of any appeal;

  (vii) quarter sessions may by their order confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction, or may remit the matter with their opinion thereon to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same petty sessional division or place as the court by whom the decision appealed against was given, or may make such other order in the matter as they think just, and by such order exercise any power which the court of summary jurisdiction might have exercised; and any order made by quarter sessions shall have the like effect and may be enforced in the like manner as if it had been made by the court of summary jurisdiction. Quarter sessions may also make such order as to costs to be paid by either party as they think just;

  (viii) on an appeal against a conviction or a sentence, the powers of quarter sessions under the preceding paragraph shall be construed as including power to award any punishment, whether more or less severe than that awarded by the court of summary jurisdiction, which that court might have awarded;

  1748

  (ix) the clerk of the peace shall send to the clerk to the court by whom the decision appealed against was given, for entry in his register, a memorandum of the decision of quarter sessions, and if the appeal was an appeal against a conviction or sentence or against an order, shall endorse, a like memorandum on the conviction of order, as the case may be, and whenever any copy or certificate of the conviction or order is made, a copy of the memorandum shall be added thereto and shall be sufficient evidence of the decision of quarter sessions in every case where the copy or certificate would be sufficient evidence of the conviction or order;

  (x) a notice of appeal under paragraph (ii) of this subsettion may be transmitted to the person to whom it is to be given in a registered letter addressed to that person at his last or usual place of abode and, if so transmitted, shall be deemed to have been given at the time when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

  (2) Nothing in the preceding subsection shall apply to, or affect the procedure on, appeals under sections three hundred and one to three hundred and thirteen of the Lunacy Act, 1890, or under section ninety-seven of the Poor Law Act, 1930.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think I had better explain the purport of the Amendment. It is of rather an alarming nature as it extends to some three pages, but its effect is to co-ordinate the Amendments to Section 31 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act. In the Committee we amended it paragraph by paragraph, by the most obnoxious form of legislation, that is legislation by reference, but the House of Lords deemed it wise to amend it in the form of one Amendment. There is one part of this new Clause to which I wish to draw attention, and that is that an Amendment has been moved in another place to amend the existing law with regard to the power of the court of quarter sessions to increase the punishment in any appeal against sentence or conviction. I commend this Amendment made in another place, and I feel sure that the House will agree with it. On Second Reading my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves Lord) and the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) pronounced this to be the law at that time. Further research made one doubt the validity of

  1749
  that statement, and the House of Lords has made the matter quite clear and have given this extra power in the Bill. There is one advantage in this Amendment. It was objected against the Bill in the previous stages that it would let loose a flood of frivolous appeals. This new provision put in by the House of Lords will provide a dam against that flood.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Motion.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 8, line 17, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Procedure on appeals.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 30, at the end, insert:
  "except that, where there is a paid chairman of quarter sessions, he shall be chairman of the committee, and, where there is a paid deputy chairman of quarter sessions, he shall be a deputy chairman of the committee."
  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is necessary because in certain counties, Lancashire for example, chairmen of quarter sessions are paid.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Motion.
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 33, leave out "three"and insert "five."
  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  As the Bill passed this House there was an appeal committee. From that appeal committee there was to be drawn a court to hear an appeal. A quorum of the court was to be a, minimum of three and a, maximum of five. The House of Lords have altered the numbers to five and twelve. I am asking this House to agree with the twelve, but it seems wise to disagree with the five and make a lower limit. My reason is that there are occasions on the second day of quarter sessions when justices do not attend as fully as will be necessary if the Lords Amendment be agreed to. It is difficult to get the necessary justices.
  1750
  I therefore ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Motion.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 10, line 7, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment In page 10, line 18, at the end, insert:

  NEW CLAUSE 13.—(Special provisions as to London Quarter Sessions.)
  (1) The powers and duties of a court of quarter session with respect to appeals to which this Act applies shall, in the case of quarter sessions for the county of London, be exercised and performed by courts of quarter sessions constituted in accordance with the provisions of this section.
  (2) There shall be a panel of justices consisting of the paid chairman and any paid deputy chairman of quarter sessions, and the chairman or failing him one representative of each petty sessional division within the county of London (exclusive of the city of London) to be nominated annually from amongst themselves by the justices customarily acting in and for that division; and

  (a) no justice who is not a member of the panel shall sit as a member of any court of quarter sessions sitting for the exercise and performance of such powers and duties as aforesaid; and

  (b) no such court shall be deemed to be properly constituted unless either the paid chairman, or a paid deputy chairman, is sitting as chairman thereof: Provided that, if no other member of the panel is present, the paid chairman or a paid deputy chairman may sit and adjudicate alone; and

  (c) the chairman of any such court shall have a second or casting vote.

  (3) Any reference in this section to the paid chairman or to a paid deputy chairman of quarter sessions shall be construed as including a reference to a person appointed under section two of the Quarter Sessions (London) Act, 1896, to act temporarily in the office in question, and any reference in this Act to the chairman or to a deputy chairman of an appeal committee of quarter sessions shall be construed as a reference to the paid chairman or to a paid deputy chairman, as the case may be, including in either case a person so appointed as aforesaid.
  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 9, to leave out the words, "the chairman, or failing him."
  The object of this new Clause is to deal with the special and peculiar position of London Sessions. There are 18

  1751
  petty sessional divisions in the county of London, and it is thought wise that the panel, the appeals committee in this case, should be formed of the chairman and deputy-chairman of London Sessions, together with the chairman of each of the petty sessional divisions if lie wishes to serve on that appeals committee, and that if he does not wish to serve a, substitute shall be nominated by the petty sessional division. The object of my Amendment is purely a drafting one.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment to the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment made in the Lords Amendment: In line 13, after the word "division," insert:
  "unless on any occasion when such a nomination would otherwise fall to be made the chairman of the justices elects to serve during the ensuing year as the representative of the division, in which case he shall be entitled so to do."
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Mr. Janner, Mr. Lyons and Mr Turton.
  Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Turton.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Turton.]

TROUT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.
Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

TROUT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Annual close time for trout.)
  Lords Amendment: la page 1, line 8, leave out "first," and insert "seventh."
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  There has been some difference of opinion as to the exact date and the date inserted in the Amendment is the one now agreed to.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
  I wish to thank my hon. Friend for the courteous way in which be has met the objection, and made the Bill a completely agreed Bill.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I bad some opposition to this Bill on the Committee stage, but my objections, I admit, have been to a large extent met. I am rather taken by surprise by this last Amendment. I did not know of the alteration. I agree for the moment, but I am not quite sure. Am I to understand that the date inserted means a diminution of the proposed close season suggested by the Committee, or an extension? I understand it is reducing the close season. If so, the Lords are really meeting my point of view.

COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE, BEDWAS).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
7.2 p.m.
Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I speak so seldom that I think the House will excuse my referring to a number of people in Cardiff Gaol—sentenced at one of the Assizes for alleged rioting. Before I get to the sentences I ought, perhaps, to describe the position which led up to them. Bedwas is a new place, a very large township. Pits were put down there, and there is a large population at present. The local council incurred very heavy expenditure laying down roads and sewers, and carrying out other works. They raised a loan of £300,000 for the

1753
borough, and the council are very concerned as to how these payments are to be met. They built about 328 houses, and have a very large responsibility in that respect. Bedwas is just on the borders, between Monmouthshire and Glamorgan-shire.
There has been trouble at a colliery there for a long time. For some reason or other, the pits were stopped and when they commenced to reopen they took it into their heads to put off Bedwas people. It is a very old custom in South Wales that when their places become ready again, the same people should go back to them. That is a very old custom which I have known ever since I have known the coalfields, not only people on our side, but on the other side agree that this is so. These people decided that they would put on anybody except the people who lived in the place. This dispute went on for ever so long. South Wales miners entered into an arrangement. Promises were made, and they were broken. The colliery people went on putting on anybody they liked. The Labour party raised the point whether it was not an obligation of the Government to see that the suggested arrangement should not be carried out, but the Government did not agree with that position.
A representative of the Mines Department made a suggestion which, if carried out, would have settled this dispute for all time. The colliery people took no notice, just as they took no notice of the arrangement with the executive council of the South Wales miners. The company agreed however to appoint two represeatatives from their own side and two from the workmen s side. They appointed the two best-known mining engineers in South Wales who knew the customs well—Mr. John Kane, late Managing-Director of the United National Colliery Company, and Mr. W. Jayne, General Manager of the whole of the Powell-Duffryn Companies. The executive council appointed two, one of whom sits in this House the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring).
They went into this dispute, drew up an agreement, signed it, and we all thought that the trouble would be over. As soon as the agreement was signed, and notwithstanding that they had appointed two of their number, the colliery ignored it
1754
and went on as before. Some little time after they wanted about half a dozen men, and instead of Bedwas men they put on six other people, with the result that there was a stoppage of work. It was an illegal stoppage, but there was grave aggravation. I was surprised that there was not a stoppage before. Nobody would sit down under conditions like that. The company then introduced blacklegs into the colliery. I do not want to say much about them. These men were escorted to and from their work. It must have been a distasteful task for the police. There were booing and shouting every day, until one day the crowd was bigger, and the police say that a stone was thrown. A baton charge was ordered. If a stone was thrown from an excited, protesting crowd like that, it should be put in favour of the people, and not against them, for it is a wonder there was not a volley of stones. It speaks well for the restraint of the crowd. The men say, of course, that there was no stone thrown. Whether that is so I do not know. The police say there was, and a baton charge was ordered. These cases are the result of that.
They were taken to the Monmouth Assizes and sentences ranging from six months to one month were imposed. I think one man had one month, and I believe he returned home last week. Three of them got six months. Two of them have three children, one a child of five. Six others were imprisoned for four months. In one case a man and wife were imprisoned. They have at home a child of three years of age, looked after by some neighbours. One can imagine the state of the mothers in gaol with babies at home. At the same court there was a man in Monmouthshire who had defrauded people of £6,000, and if everybody had come forward the amount would have been nearer £20,000. He deliberately set himself out to do this for the last couple of years. He was given 12 months in the second division. These people were given six months for shouting at blacklegs who were taking their livelihood from them. That sort of thing does not fit very well.
These people could not help protesting, for anybody would have protested if they had seen their living taken away. Their crime was simply trying to protect their jobs, their homes and their children. Anybody would shout at men who were

1755
taking bread out of their children's mouths. If a man would not do so, he would not be a man. Were there any previous convictions? One man who had two convictions before got six months. I do not know what the previous convictions were. Against the others there was no conviction up to this time. They were summoned to the local court for this very same thing—unlawful assembly. They are people of excellent character and standing, and I know them well, as does my hon. Friend whose division comes near to this place. They are decent people, who were simply trying to protect their homes, children and livelihood. It is very hard.
We saw the Home Secretary. A number of my friends gave ten or a dozen cases. The men were from South Wales, and especially those from mining constituencies know that it looked as if the whole of South Wales was to be involved. We saw the Minister of Mines about the point. We did our best to secure that it did not eventually involve the whole of South Wales. I thought that we had earned the good will and respect of hon. Members of this House, but I am afraid that has not filtered through to the Home Secretary. We had no effect upon him. He acted upon some report from somebody and ignored the whole of us. I assume it was the police, because action between the police and the Home Office is pretty close. If he applied to the police for information or a report, I should say he applied to biased people. If any action of mine were questioned and I were asked to report upon it I should naturally wish to prove that I had been right. The police are in that position. It is a question of self-preservation. If the right hon. Gentleman has applied to the police, I say that they are biased people—much more so than the 10 or 12 hon. Members to whom I refer.
I wonder did the Home Secretary apply to the legal representatives of the workmen? They are no more biased than the police and it would be as reasonable to take their report as the report of the police. Did he apply to the Mines Department for a statement? I should not be afraid to take the report of the Mines Department on this question and to accept their findings. They are certainly more independent than the police in this
1756
case. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask for a report from any independent people, from the local authorities for instance, or from the clerk to the local authority who is a very honourable man, a solicitor practising in the local courts? I know what his reply would be if he were asked for a report. He attended a transport inquiry into the question of the running of the omnibuses to the colliery. I sent a copy of his evidence to the Home Secretary. I have kept nothing from the right hon. Gentleman who knows the position as well as I do. But this gentleman, the clerk to the urban council in giving evidence before the Traffic Commission said:
"I wish to state publicly that if the management of the Bedwas Navigation Colliery persists in its present attitude of giving employment only to men residing outside the Bedwas and Machen District it can only have one result—bankruptcy and ruin for the district and all concerned in it. If the present conditions continue it will become impossible for the Bedwas and Machen Urban Council to meet its very heavy financial commitments."
That is the evidence of a local authority official and I think it a scandal that a few men should have the right to render derelict a whole district in this fashion. A number of these workers had purchased their houses and were no doubt paying for them by instalments. They are now left, not knowing what to do and with this millstone of debt to carry. They have a splendid hall there, one of the best in the country, paid for out of the pennies of the workers. There are all the amenities belonging to that hall. They have also paid for a very large recreation ground and have taken some acres for the purpose of extending and beautifying it. That shows the character of the people and the interest which they take in their locality. They are all idle now and the place is left derelict. But, as I say, the Home Secretary did not take our advice, although I claim that we are far more independent in the matter than the police would be. I repeat that the police are biased people in this case, and that the Home Secretary ought to have asked for a report from somebody else.
The people concerned in this case who live on the Glamorganshire side were tried at the local court in Caerphilly and were either fined or received small sentences of imprisonment. They were tried for this same offence, but the chief constable of Glamorganshire was satisfied that the local court should deal with

1757
the case. I do not know whether the chief constable of Monmouthshire is more Callous and vindictive than the chief constable of Glamorganshire, but he put the case in such a way that it had to go to the Assizes where heavier terms of imprisonment could be imposed than in the local court. That is a point which the Home Secretary ought to consider seriously. Glamorganshire was satisfied with the local court but Monmouthshire was not. I look upon these sentences as harsh, cruel and unjust and I claim that there ought to be very substantial remissions. I have said that there was one man and his wife. There was another man there who has four children and whose wife is an invalid suffering from tuberculosis. That man is in prison and the children are getting on the best they can.
If ever there was a case for sympathetic consideration this is one. If hon. Members could only put themselves in the shoes of these people for a few minutes their judgment would be very different from the judgment which has been passed. It is not easy for hon. Members to put themselves in the place of these people but I appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider these cases. The trouble is over and everything is going on all right. The evidence of the clerk to the local authority shows that there are only 50 men from Bedwas working in that colliery out of 1,500. Surely now that the trouble is over—the police have had their sentences and the verdict has been given—it is np to the Home Secretary to reconsider these cases. I ask him to do so in the light of what I have said.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I be permitted to supplement the appeal of ray hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Edwards). My reason for intervening is that a number of the people who were engaged in this controversy belong to my constituency which is on the other side of the river. Those who belonged to my constituency and who were arraigned before the local court in respect of these same occurrences, were much more happy in the issue of their case than the people on the Monmouthshire side. I was born in this valley. I lived in it all my life until the last few years. I know something
1758
of the history of Bedwas. I recall it as a very small village. My own relatives on my grandfather's side came from this very village and I have been acquainted with it from my youth upwards. It has grown from a small isolated village into a comparatively big modern mining township. There is only one colliery there and upon the colliery everybody in the village depends. There is practically no other means of livelihood available. When this colliery was started thousands of people gravitated towards it, habitations grew up around it, and, indeed, the colliery proprietors built a certain number of houses there so as to make it possible for more people to live in the neighbourhood.
Let hon. Members on all sides try to visualise this situation. Here are thousands of people who have come from various parts of South Wales to earn their livelihood in this place. An edict goes forth from the colliery company that these thousands of people who have come there at the behest of that company and to work that company's colliery, are no longer to be employed there. Not a single soul in that township is to have his living out of that colliery henceforth. We are told on the authority of the clerk of the urban district council that only 50 people out of the thousands—as I suppose they are now—in that township, are entitled to earn their daily bread in that colliery. What would hon. Gentlemen feel; what would the Home Secretary himself feel, if, having been induced to come into a township like that, they were to be deprived in the fashion I have described of the chance of earning their livelihood there?
That is one element in the situation. The other is this. Collieries cannot be run except with the aid of workmen and the colliery company in order to attract workmen there have actually been recruiting at the top of the valley, miles away from Bedwas and bringing scores of men by omnibus, through a number of 'mining villages where there are hundreds and thousands of unemployed, into that village where practically everybody is unemployed. What would the Home Secretary say if he were in the position of an unemployed man who saw a colliery company wilfully bringing hundreds of people a dozen miles, to work at the pit where he had earned his livelihood before and where he was forbidden to earn it any

1759
longer? In such circumstances would not the right hon. Gentleman feel hurt? Would he not feel bitter and angry about it? Would he not, perchance, find it possible to call these people who were supplanting him and thousands of his fellows, by the name of "blacklegs"? But in this case the people for whom we are appealing were haled before the courts for shouting the word "blacklegs" at those who had been brought in to take their places.
I do not want to import into this matter any more feeling than there is in it already, but I know of thousands of people on my side of the valley who have been moved by this incident as I have never known them to be moved before. There are decent, law-abiding citizens there who feel a sense of desperation when this kind of thing happens in their midst. When these unfortunate people—and I call them so advisedly—are given what I regard as these heavy punishments, in the circumstances that have been described, is it any wonder that there is a strong wave of sympathy with them throughout the length and breadth of the valley? If that were all it would be bad enough but in addition to those facts there is this further circumstance which my hon. Friend has already indicated. I do not blame the Home Secretary in regard to this matter and obviously it would be improper to do so, but let the House consider the state of mind which is produced in the locality when, side by side with the sentences on these men, there is a sentence of 12 months in the second division on another man charged with defrauding his fellow-citizens of £6,000. He gets 12 months in the second division—no doubt just to make it lighter for his honourable highness, just to make things a little more comfortable for him—whereas these other decent law-abiding excellent citizens receive the sentences which have been described.
I saw one of the women concerned in this case being taken under escort from Cardiff to the trial. I felt a sense of revulsion at seeing an obviously decent citizen like that woman being taken away on such a comparatively flimsy charge to stand a trial and ultimately to be sent to prison. I do not know in what form we should make our appeal to the Home Secretary but I feel that this is a case
1760
which he ought to review. Whether we can bluntly ask for remission of the sentences I do not know, but while I do not excuse stone-throwing or breaking the law, I ask the Home Secretary to review this case in the light of the mitigating circumstances that these people's livelihood was being taken from them, that blacklegs were being brought in and that, as far as the general public are concerned, resentment is felt at the obvious difference between the treatment accorded to one type of prisoner and the treatment given to those for whom we are pleading to-night.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. MAINWARING: May I add briefly to the statement of the circumstances of this case already given to the House with a view to convincing Members that the Home Secretary would be fully justified in favourably considering our appeal.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I am opposing this Bill on what might be considered, after the statements of my colleagues regarding the trouble in this Welsh valley, to be somewhat trifling grievances as compared with those with which we have been dealing. But it is not my choice that the Bill has been put down for to-night and has therefore interrupted that discussion. I take it that it was the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means to put down this Bill for a particular evening in order that it might become law before the end of this month. My objections to the Bill are based upon what has arisen in the West of Scotland since the War. There are certain places there that are

  1761
  looked upon as holiday resorts, and they attract very large numbers of people from ocher parts of the West of Scotland, but it is curious that when the reductions in railway passenger rates generally were made some years ago from the 75 per cent. at which they stood over pre-war charges, the Scottish railways did not fall into line with those sections of the railways south of the Border. It is a still more curious incident that while special fares are in operation during holiday periods in a large number of places, certain parts of Scotland seem to be excluded from any of the advantages that one might get from these cheaper holiday fares.
  I mentioned, in a question that I put on the 5th July, several watering places or Clydeside resorts to which the fares are now approximately 100 per cent. higher than they were before the War. In a reply which has been sent by the railway company to the Minister of Transport, to whom I must convey my thanks for his courtesy in letting me have copies of the replies by the company to my questions which he had forwarded to them, the railway company tries to make it appear that the rates are in no way out of place. The latest communication which I received intimates very strongly that to some of those places the fares are only 75 per cent. above the pre-War rates—I am quoting from the reply of 11th July—and in one case the fare is only 83 per cent. above pre-War rates. There is no cheap holiday fare, no extended holiday fare, to the places that I have been quoting. There is a cheap one-day fare, but there are no week-end fares, none of the cheap fares which exist if anyone desires to go, say, from Glasgow to any part of England, to the Isle of Wight, to Ireland, to the Isle of Man, or to any part of the country where there might be competition in the means of transport.
  That is the reason, obviously, which is justifying, practically in the words of the railway company's officials, high rates to these particular places. The House of Commons is the only place where the grievances of people can be ventilated, when a railway company brings forward a Bill, by the representatives of some of those people blocking the Bill, and trying to prevent its passage. This question has been brought before the railway company on several occasions. The burghs to which I have referred in my questions
  1762
  have approached the railway company by deputations for several years, but the fact that the fares still remain at such abnormal rates above pre-War rates is an indication of the manner in which the company's officials look at this matter. It is therefore time that some public attention was drawn to the treatment which is given to those places.
  Let me tell the Minister of Transport the rather curious method that some people have of escaping the payment of these much higher fares. Take the fare to a watering place like Millport, situated on an island and consequently without competition from motor transport. The fare to that coast resort is 5s. 3d. for third class on the train and steerage in the steamer, or 5s. 6d. for third class on the train and cabin in the steamer, but the railway company, which cannot issue a cheap ticket to Millport, or Rothesay, or other places like that, can issue a seven-day cheap ticket to holiday resorts on the mainland. The fare to Largs is 3s. for a seven-day ticket, the ordinary fare being 4s. Therefore, a number of people who are going down for week-ends to Millport book to Largs, come off the train at Fairlie, join the Millport steamer, and pay 11d. return to Millport, and thus get to Millport for 3s. 11d., when the railway company demands 5s. 6d. That the railway company know of this is borne out by the fact that only last Friday I saw on the ticket office at Fairlie station a notice that passengers who wanted boat tickets, instead of waiting till they got on the boat and buying them from the purser, could buy them from the ticket office at the station.
  The railway company, while it knows that this manner of getting a cheap ticket prevails, cannot see its way to reduce the ordinary fares for people going to these resorts, whose families wish to spend the week-end there with them. In the case of a large number of these watering places, the family have been going there for yeah, the children have grown up, and while the parents go down to take their holidays, the young men and young women, who may not get their holidays at the same time, like to go down to them each week-end, but they have to pay the, full fare unless, in going to Millport, they adopt the method that I have outlined. If they go to Rothesay, they have to pay the same fare, and the

  1763
  same to Dunoon. Though Dunoon is on the mainland, any mode of competition that there might be would be too expensive, because one has to go a very roundabout way to reach the western shores of the Firth of Clyde, on which Dunoon is situated.
  I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that the reply that has been sent indicates that the railway company is under the impression that it can carry on this method of exploiting a certain section of the holiday public in the west of Scotland indefinitely. It has been going on now for a number of years, and, as I have said, deputations from these places have waited on the railway company in the endeavour to get cheaper fares, but they have simply been brushed aside by the railway company's representatives. I want the Minister to convey to the railway company that this has gone on too long, that I intend to block any Bill that is brought before this House by the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company, no matter to which part of the British Isles it is intended to apply, and that I will force it to come for Debate on the Floor of the House for its Second Reading until some of these grievances from the west of Scotland, are put right. It is the only way by which one can bring the railway company to its senses.
  Another matter that I raised is a very small matter, which the railway company might have conceded without any loss of dignity and probably with a great deal more comfort to the travelling public and less inconvenience to their officials in the great Glasgow terminal station. I suggested, in a question that I put, that the particular railway company that is promoting this Bill might run a special train on the fair holiday week-end, the Friday, Saturday, and Monday, to the Ayrshire and Renfrewshire watering resorts. The reply that I received is rather curiously worded; and I have to thank the Minister for sending me a copy of this reply also. It says:
  "Special trains from Govan.—The position here is that, while there is no passenger station at Govan, the platforms at the goods depot are on occasions used for passenger trains run in connection with excursions such as, for example, Sunday school trips. We do in fact already issue tickets in advance at Govan goods station immediately prior to the holiday period,
  1764
  but with regard to the question of using the station for passenger train services at this time, it is felt that, owing to the diversity of the destinations involved, the necessary duplication of services would not be warranted."
  Was there ever a more gross distortion of facts submitted to a Minister by any outside body than is contained in this reply l For example, take the statement "there is no passenger station at Govan." I want to know from the Minister if he can get for me the date upon which the London Midland and Scottish Railway issued its advertisement closing the passenger station at Govan, if he will get for me the date when it sold the building that was the entrance to the passenger station at Govan to a tobacconist and stationer, and if he will get. for me the date when, about a fortnight ago, the company ran a special excursion train from Govan to the very destinations that are submitted in my question, namely, the Ayrshire holiday resorts—Saltcoats, Ardrossan and Largs—and took about 300 people from Govan Station. Yet they tell me in this reply that because of the diversity of the places they cannot see their way to run trains from this particular station. When it suits their convenience, however, they run evening excursion trains and advertise in the local papers inviting people to go to this particular passenger station which, they say, does not exist.
  I remember raising this question some years ago. The reply that was given to me then was that they could not run trains because there is in direct contact except by taking the train to Ibrox Junction and then shunting the engine. That struck me as being rather a curious reply, but I did not press the matter as the holiday period had passed. The holiday period has passed again new, and the days upon which the people of Glasgow go for their holidays are, in the main, over, so that for this particular Glasgow holiday period the operations of any such facilities as I have asked for cannot assist the Glasgow holiday public this year. I am looking, however, to future years. I can recall the time—because I was born and brought up in this district—when passenger trains did run from this station. I can also recall when you could run on to the loop line without going into Ibrox Station. Last week-end I walked round the place to see what had happened to

  1765
  the loop line. It is still there, except that 30 yards of the double track is taken up, leaving only a single line going under the railway bridge at Helen Street. The track has been disconnected from the main line and it only requires the shifting of a few yards of sleepers to connect it up again. One track of the metals is practically out of sight owing to the grass that has grown over it.
  I could also see that, because it suited the railway company, they could build a new platform to accommodate the people going down to the football matches in Ibrox Park once a week and the people who were going to the greyhound racing tracks, two of which are in the immediate vicinity. They had a notice up at the entrance to this new platform intimating that special trains would be run from that platform to Glasgow after the last race. They can run a special train after the race meetings because it suits them. They can build a platform to accommodate the football and racegoing public, but they cannot run a train from the place where a station still exists to suit the people who are resident in that district. The company in their reply also mentioned the fact that they sometimes use this station to accommodate Sunday school trips. I remember a year or so ago a body of people running an excursion to Renfrewshire and they approached the railway company. The party consisted of Govan people, and tickets were sold to them. The excursion was to be run on a Sunday and they asked the railway company to open the station for them on that day. The company said that they could not, and could only run the train from Ibrox station. So the children in the party had to walk 2½ miles when there was a station at their very doors.
  If the Minister thinks I am drawing the long bow in my statements, here is the map of Glasgow showing the very sidings and the loop line connecting with Govan Station. The railway company says that there is not such a thing as a passenger station. It is there. I have here a number of their latest time tables and statements of fares to various places issued from Glasgow which indicate that there are no cheap fares to the places I
  1766
  have mentioned. Here is the touring programme of the Firth of Clyde, which shows that trains can be run to places I have mentioned from Govan. I submit that when the railway company try to mislead the Minister by addressing to him such a reply as they sent in answer to my questions, the House ought to reject this Bill until those who are promoting it look more after the interests of the public than they seem to be doing.
  In the schedules the company are asking for powers to charge for passengers coming off or embarking on passenger steamers from Gourock Pier, Wemyss Bay Pier, Largs Pier and Fairlie Pier. They ask to be permitted to make a charge of 2d. for every passenger going on or coming off a boat. May I ask the Minister if lie has made himself aware of the position? Is he aware that at none of these places is any charge made for going off or coming on a steamer? If these powers are given to the railway company they can charge 4d. for every passenger who goes on to a boat, and this will be an addition to the fares which the people will have to pay if they are going to any watering place which involves going on to a steamship company's boat. The Minister in reply may quote a particular steam-boat company called The Caledonian Steam Packet Company. Let me assure him that anyone in the West of Scotland who knows anything about the steamers on the Clyde know the association of the Caledonian Steam Packet Company, with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. The Caledonian Steam Packet Company, was a subsidiary to the old Caledonian Railway Company. The old Glasgow and South Western Railway had no subsidiary company but operated their steamers direct. When the grouping took place and the London Midland and Scottish steamers and the Caledonian steamboats were put under one company, the Caledonian Steam Packet Company, but it is the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I warn the hon. Gentleman of this in case he is under the impression, because of the difference in names, that the Caledonian Steam Packet Company is a separate company with no connection with the railway company. It is a subsidiary company operating the London Midland and Scottish Clyde passenger steamboats.
  I understand that the House wishes to go back to the unhappy Welsh business and I am sorry for having intervened. I

  1767
  did not know the Welsh business was coming on, but in any case, the Chairman of Ways and Means put the Bill down for to-night, and, as I objected, it was only fair to the House that I should take the opportunity of stating the reasons for my objection. I am speaking on behalf of not only many of my own constituents, but of many thousands of people in the West of Scotland. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will do what he can to have these grievances adjusted in such a manner that will give some sense of satisfaction to those people on whose behalf I am speaking.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. FIELDEN: As a director of the company to which the hon. Member has referred, I may perhaps be excused if I make some reference to what has been said. At the end of his speech the hon. Member referred to some points contained in the Bill. I can only say that the Bill deals with the question of charges at railway docks in Scotland. It has taken some three years for these negotiations to reach agreement. Each year the charging authority has been continued for 12 months, but at least complete agreement has been come to by all the parties concerned. This Bill is now presented and it is asked that it should be passed so that these charges may be permanent. The hon. Member referred to the question of charges for landing passengers. I did not know that that point was coming up and I am not able to deal with it beyond saying that this is an agreed Bill by all the parties concerned.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. Member whether the people of Rothesay, or the people of Fairlie, or of Largs, or of Millport were consulted with regard to the dues to be paid when coming on or going off the steamers?
  Mr. FIELDEN: The people who are interested in these charges, the traders and others, are all agreed about this. The people to whom the hon. Member refers may not be satisfied, but I think they have got to take their share in the bargain. Owing to the regulations and customs of the House on a Bill like this which deals with dock charges, a Member can raise any other question that
  1768
  is connected with the particular company that brings in the Bill. The hon. Member has taken advantage of this custom to bring up this question of fares on the Clyde. I do not blame him. He has the opportunity, and takes advantage of it, to bring his complaint before the House. The fares charged by the railway company to people going from Glasgow to these resorts on the Clyde are low. I gather from him that, because in other parts of the country there are cheap summer fares, the fares charged on the Clyde ought also to be reduced.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Some of them are.
  Mr. FIELDEN: He wants a differentiation between the ordinary fare and the summer fare.
  Mr. MACLEAN: No. May I put the hon. Member right? The differentiation already exists. There are cheap summer fares in existence to health resorts on the mainland, but in the case of those situated upon an island, where there is no motor transport competition with the railway companies, the cheap fares are not being put into operation. That is the differentiation to which I object.
  Mr. FIELDEN: I agree that is the case. The cheap summer fare has been introduced by the railway companies in the hope that it will encourage people to travel more, and that although the companies will lose on the individual fare they will gain through the larger number of people who travel. That fare exists in England and in Scotland, but it does not exist on these river services on the Clyde, or on the services that start in Glasgow, go by rail to a coast town and thence by boat to one of these islands. The differentiation is clear, it is there, and the question is whether it can be justified. The summer fare has been introduced because it is hoped that it will bring more revenue, but does the argument hold that because it has been introduced for railway fares on the mainland therefore it ought to apply to the rail-and-river charges on the river?
  The ordinary third-class fare in this country is 1½d. per mile, but in order to try to induce a larger number of people to travel that fare has been reduced during the summer months from 1½. to 1d. a mile. The railway companies hope that the experiment will be beneficial to them financially. On the Clyde services the

  1769
  fares are, perhaps, two-thirds rail and one-third steamer, and those fares, which exist all the year round, are only slightly over ¾d. a mile. To cheapen those fares would be to put the cost of travel on that particular route considerably lower than it is on the mainland. The fares are extremely low at present, they are the same in the winter as in the summer, and that is done because the companies think—or the company thinks in this case—that it is desirable, because they are compelled to run a service, to encourage as much traffic as possible not only in the summer but also in the winter. Therefore, they have put down the fares to this very low figure of something slightly over id. a mile. In these circumstances it can scarcely be said that the action of the railway companies is wrong or unfair to the community. They are giving on these services a rate lower than the reduced summer fare on the mainland.
  If there are people in Glasgow who want to take a holiday to whom cost is of first importance there are other river steamers which start from Glasgow and go all the way by water to these ports. The journey takes rather longer. On those steamers people can get lower fares than are charged by the railway companies. Those services generally run only in the summer, but during the summer months there is that alternative service for those to whom cost is of first essence. There is a summer service at lower prices, generally speaking, so I am informed, than the services of the railway companies. I think the House will see that there is no injustice or unfairness. The rail-and-river service given by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company is on a lower-fare basis than the summer services given on the mainland.
  The hon. Member referred to the question of Govan station. I did not know that question was coming up, and therefore I have not been able to inform myself properly on the subject, but I take it that Govan Station is no longer used regularly, that it is one of those stations which has had to be closed and is only used occasionally, and hence the reasons given by the officials of the railway company for not running these excursion services from that particular station at the particular time at which the hon. Member suggests they ought to run. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. JAMIESON: Although I represent constituents who make use of these services, I want to dissociate myself from what has been said by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), who complained that the fares to these Clyde watering places were very much higher than pre-War. No doubt they are. At that time railway wages were lower, and there were three railway companies competing for that traffic. They competed with their trains, they competed by running steamers on the river, and they charged fares which, I believe, were lower both as regards the rail and the steamer end of the journey than those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. MACLEAN: But they got dividends.
  Mr. JAMIESON: At that time, there is no doubt, they paid dividends, but the railway companies paid lower wages. What is the position now? The hon. Member quoted the return fare to Millport, 5s. 3d. third-class rail and steerage in the summer, and 5s. 6d. third-class rail and cabin. If that is the fare going by Wemyss Bay, there is a 30-mile railway journey each way. Allowing for the fare which the railway companies are now giving under their summer return tickets, 1d. a mile, as against 1½d. a mile which they ate entitled to charge, we get 5s. for the railway part of the journey, and get 3d. return, or 6d. return, for the steamer part, according as the passenger goes steerage or cabin. I do not think anybody can complain that that is an excessive charge.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Member explain why, as the railway company issue tickets between Glasgow and Wemyss Bay Station on the land service for 2s. 3d. return, they cannot reduce these fares? That is a long way from the figure he has quoted.
  Mr. JAMIESON: I was not aware that those special fares were being issued. If they are, the reason for the issue of them is obvious. Railway companies must live, just as the omnibuses must live, and if railway companies do issue these special tickets to Wemyss Bay or places on the mainland I have no doubt that omnibus competition is the reason. But I want the House to take rather a broader view of this matter. The hon. Member says

  1771
  that to other places summer tickets, period tickets and other cheap tickets of that sort are being issued. The reason, I have no doubt, why the railway companies do not issue them to the particular places he mentioned is that the fares are already within the limit of cheapness conceded under the summer fares. Although, as I say, I represent a constituency where people "gang doon the water" I think in fairness to the railway company that this Bill ought to be passed.
  I want to deal with one other aspect of it. This is a Bill which is seeking to confirm an Order which was inquired into by commissioners under the Private Bill Parliamentary procedure which we have in Scotland—commissioners from this House and another place. I think it would be entirely wrong for the House to reject a Bill which has received the approval of the commissioners simply because an hon. Member has a grievance against the railway company about something not dealt with in the Bill at all. The only matter dealt with in the Bill concerns dues for the landing of passengers. With the exception of the piers which are owned by the railway companies, every pier on the Clyde used to, and I think still does, charge dues for passengers landing or boarding Steamers—
  Mr. MACLEAN: No.
  Mr. JAMIESON:—and I see no reason why the railway companies should not make a similar charge. I hope the House will pass the Bill.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I rise to say one word on this Bill from the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose duty it has been to make the Provisional Order passed as a result of the inquiry in Scotland. It is not my duty, as the House well knows, to enter into the merits of the Bill, but merely to make it clear to the House that this is a Bill which has gone through all the regular procedure, which regular procedure was closely examined by my right hon. Friend before he made the Order. As has already been said in Debate, this is the third Provisional Order dealing with the same topic. I understand that the opponents of the Provisional Order and
  1772
  the promoters have agreed to Clauses which are in the Bill.
  The only other observation that I would wish to make is that the House should recollect that the essential method of the Provisional Order is an examination in Scotland by four Commissioners. That examination has been duly carried through, and it is, I think, the custom of the House, just as it is in the case of private Bills, to pay great regard to the report of the Select Committee, or, in the case of Provisional Orders coming from Scotland, to the decisions at which the Commissioners, who are the delegates of the House, have arrived. That is all I need say. It is my right hon. Friend's task, in regard to these Provisional Orders, to see that the procedure is duly carried out, and that he legally and properly can make them, as he has done in this case.
  5.17 p.m.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has given a very convincing reason to the House for supporting this Measure. Notwithstanding that, I dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson) who seems to disagree with the hon. Member opposite for using this opportunity of introducing this very interesting discussion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has no reason whatever for apologising for raising these matters. This is an opportunity for raising matters which affect the lives individually of the people of Scotland, and we have used it in the past with very considerable effect. One notable example was the agitation for third-class sleepers, in which both he and I played some part, though the agitation had been started by people who were in the House of Commons long before us. Eventually we persuaded the railway companies to adopt the third-class sleeper, and I am sure that no railway company would think of going back on them, because they have been an immense success.
  This is a very useful opportunity for raising questions such as the hon. Member for Govan raised at the beginning of this Debate. I find myself convinced by the arguments of the Under-Secretary that we ought to vote for this

  1773
  Bill, but there is one matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport and of the railway companies. I have referred in the past to this matter, to which I attach very considerable importance, and it is the possibility of giving cheap fares to students of the Scottish universities, particularly to those who come from a long distance to those universities. We took a little time to persuade the railway companies to give the third-class sleepers, and, if we go on drawing attention to this point we may eventually get them to make the concession. Many Scottish students, especially those from the Highlands of Scotland, have to travel very long distances to the universities, and railway fare is a very substantial part of their annual budget.
  When a political party hold a, congress, or a charitable organisation, if large enough, hold a congress, and a sufficient number of people are to be present, they get specially low fares. I suggest to the railway companies that, in the same way, students attending universities in very large numbers, at regular periods of the year, ought to have a claim for low fares. However close they live to the universities, the students should have that advantage. Obviously, those who live in the same city as the university, as a considerable proportion of the students would, would not have any travelling to do, but for the comparatively small proportion who live a long way away from the university, it would be a very great boon indeed if they could get cheap fares when attending the university. This is a plea for which I know there is very widespread sympathy in Scotland, and, if the railway companies could see their way to do what I suggest, their action would be very greatly appreciated, not only by those who would benefit, but by a large number of people who would think that the railway companies had done a fine and generous thing in facilitating the studies of young Scotsmen and Scotswomen.
  Having taken the opportunity of raising this subject, as I shall continue to do until the railway companies are persuaded of the wisdom of this action, I agree that, in the circumstances in which it comes before the House, the Bill ought not to be opposed.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: In view of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson) as to the fares between Glasgow and Greenock—he said they had never had fares of one penny per mile—I should like to recall that there was a period within my memory when the fares between Glasgow and Greenock were only 9d. Greenock is two-thirds of the distance that the hon. and gallant Member attempted to lead the House to believe was really the rail distance travelled by anyone going from Newport to Rothesay. The point was made that there has been an abnormal increase, compared with other localities, in the fares between Glasgow and the watering places on the Clyde, and that that was partly due to the fact that the railway companies have a monopoly. There is no competition, and if omnibuses were running to Rothesay or to Newport, or to any other watering places on the Clyde, I have not the slightest doubt that the railway companies would find it convenient to issue weekly tickets of the kind that are being issued in various other parts of the country, and day-excursion tickets. There would be very considerable inducement for them to make changes such as have been proposed.
  We do not propose to vote against the Bill, but we want to draw attention to these anomalies. I think that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has put a remarkable case, and I sincerely hope that the railway company will meet—or at least the Ministry of Transport will be able to induce the railway company to meet—the very reasonable complaint that has been made with regard to the treatment meted out to passengers from Glasgow to the watering places.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. LECKIE: I wish to join in the protest that has been made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). I feel that he has stated the case for cheaper fares in a very moderate and convincing way. The hon. Member who spoke from the opposite benches for the railway companies made the very best defence he could, but I do not think that it was a convincing defence. I feel that the railway companies ought to do more than they are doing in order to get back

  1775
  in some measure to the pre-War facilities. I know something of this matter, because I know the Clyde about as well as any Member present; I have known every corner of it for many years past, and I remember very well what were the pre-War facilities by road, rail and steamboat, as compared with the present facilities. The hon. Member for Govan has stated the case in a very moderate way. It may be that the ordinary charges are reasonable enough, but there ought to be cheaper excursion fares to enable the poorer people of Glasgow, Lanarkshire, and districts round about, to enjoy a day at the seaside without having to spend a lot of money, as they have to do at present.
  I feel that the railways are exploiting the monopoly that they have. At the present time they have practically a monopoly, because the two railway companies are working together, and the monopoly cannot be broken by motors, because of the intervention of the Clyde. It is up to them to play the game, as it were, and to meet the legitimate demand for a cheaper means of getting to the sea coast. It is all very well to say that people can use the steamers running from Glasgow down the Clyde, but that takes a long time, and people nowadays require quicker facilities than they used to require. It is only reasonable that the railway companies should listen to the protests which have been made in this House, and should meet the situation in a sensible way. I think that this is a case in which the Minister of Transport might well intervene. If he has not any powers, I think he ought to try to get powers, so that the facilities which exist in other parts may be granted to the people of Glasgow and other manufacturing and industrial towns in that neighbourhood. Therefore, I am very glad that the hon. Member for Govan has made this protest, and I hope it will he considered favourably by those in authority.
  8.28 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlarn): I am sure that nobody in the House has any ill feeling against the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) for raising this matter on the present Bill. It is right that every
  1776
  Member of Parliament should seize the opportunity, when it comes, of expressing the views of his constituents or those whom he represents in the House, and I am sure that the hon. Member is doing his best for those whom he represents. At the same time, I am not quite sure that he did not rather mislead the House—quite unintentionally, I am certain—by comparing the ordinary fares at the present time with the pre-War excursion fares. There is no doubt that the present fares represent an immense increase as compared with the pre-War excursion fares, but I am told that the pre-War fares in this particular area were extremely cheap, and the hon. Member who spoke for the railway companies—
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: They made large profits.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They made profits because their expenses were very much lower than they are at the present time. Everybody knows that the railway companies are now passing through a very bad time, and obviously they cannot do now what they did before the War.
  Mr. MACLEAN: My complaint is that they are giving these facilities to other places.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot go into the question of other places; that is a matter between the hon. Member and those whom he represents in that part of the world—
  Mr. MACLEAN: And the railway companies.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM:—and the railway companies; it is not a matter between the Minister of Transport and the railways. The Minister has no power in this matter so far as the steamer services are concerned. The railway companies are entitled to charge such reasonable fares as they think fir, and we cannot in any way interfere in those charges.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: They are introducing new charges.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The same rule applies in that case also; we cannot interfere with their doing that. In such cases, traders have a right to lodge their objections with the Scottish Commissioners. I quite appreciate that, when a new Charge of this kind is put on, there may be a reasonable case for objection,

  1777
  and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that there is this power of lodging objections with the Scottish Commissioners when the Order is considered. I do not know the details of this particular Bill, because, until the present moment, when it comes before the House and a question is raised which affects the Ministry of Transport, it has not come within my purview, but I should like to assure the hon. Member for Govan that the Minister has no power to interfere. With reference to the hon. Member's complaint as to Govan station, that also was answered by the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the railway companies, but I should like at some time to study these rail lines, though it would have been more convenient to have done so before this Debate than to attempt to do so across the Floor of the House, as the hon. Member offered to do with me. I understand, however, that the use of Govan station as a passenger station has passed away as a matter of ordinary usage, though the goods station is still used on occasion for the convenience of the public.
  Mr. MACLEAN: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: From the point of view of my reply to the hon. Member, that is the information which I suggest is correct. If he disagrees with me, that again is a question, not between him and myself, but between him and the railway company.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is not a question between myself and the railway company; it is a question of information being supplied to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, which, from the manner in which it has been supplied to him and given to the House, is misleading to the House. The platforms which are being used at Govan at the present time are not the platforms of the goods station, but are the platforms of the old passenger station, which were used by the passengers when they were travelling out of and into the old Govan passenger station.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Anyhow, from the point of view of the public, I am not stating anything to which anyone would object, for it seems to me that it does not very much matter to a traveller whether he gets off at a goods station or at a passenger station; it is a
  1778
  question of the transport facilities, and, if it is possible for people to use Govan station as passengers, I do not think the matter is so serious as the hon. Member would suggest. That is as far as I can go on the subject. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who spoke with such fervour about educational facilities, I agree that it would be most desirable that students, not only in Scotland but elsewhere, should have special facilities, but that is hardly a matter for the Ministry of Transport; it seems to me to be a matter which should be dealt with by the Board of Education. I suggest to him that he should continue his campaign against that Department and not against mine. I do not think, really, the House need be under any doubt as to what to do on this Bill. The points that the hon. Member has raised are certainly points which he has every right to bring forward, but I do not really think they affect the Bill as a whole.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I hope the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the railway company will carry out these reforms because, if they are not put into operation by the next holiday period, I shall object to any further Bills that they bring in.

  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE, BEDWAS).
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question again proposed.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. MAINWARING: I have declared my intention of laying before the House certain facts which, in my judgment, would enable hon. Members to see that the Home Secretary would be justified to the full in exercising the power he possesses in re-examining the sentences passed upon the persons who are now in prison. I believe I am correct in saying that in 1929 and 1930 this colliery was idle through the depression in trade, that being the effect, as usual, of the colliery

  1779
  working at a relatively high cost of production and selling its coal at relatively low prices. It had for some time previously been operating at a serious loss and gradually became very deeply involved in the hands of one of the large five banks. I believe the bank was more directly in control of the colliery than was the colliery company itself. During this stoppage a change was made in the personnel of the management of the company. After some months of idleness they decided to inquire into the possibility of resuming work. They concluded that it would be impossible on the piece rates and terms which had operated for a number of years previously, and they decided to approach the men and see whether they could arrive at some new basis of agreement with respect to rates of pay and conditions of work. The men were represented by the local district organisation and the Miners' Federation assisted them. The Mines Department very properly lent assistance to the negotiations and sent a representative who has probably had the widest experience of anyone in troubles of this character in the industry. He knew the situation very well and knew the customs of the South Wales coalfields and his services were placed at the disposal of both parties.
  There was no dispute. There was simply an effort on both sides to endeavour amicably to come to an understanding whereby they might resume work. There was no stoppage resulting from a dispute. The colliery was merely laid idle owing to economic depression. Eventually an agreement was made subject, however, to one point. The 2,000 men who were idle were invited by the colliery company to appoint representatives to negotiate with them as to future terms. The 2,000, therefore, were invited to become parties to the agreement. The men asked how they would be treated when work was resumed. Who was to go to work, and how were they going to be reinstated in their former occupation? The services of the representative of the Mines Department were particularly helpful, because he drew up an agreement which was provisional in this sense, that it laid down that, while ultimately the final conditions on resumption for all the men might have to be referred to arbitration, in the
  1780
  interim period the company was to agree to reinstate all of them. The Government and the House ought to feel some degree of responsibility for any agreement made largely as the result of advice tendered by, a representative of a Department of the Government. Work was resumed, but only for a few days. It transpired that the company was not honouring the agreement. There was another stoppage. It was at that stage that it became a problem for the South Wales Miners' Federation, and I became personally interested in the situation. We had to arrange again for the resumption of work but, before doing so, we had to reconsider the terms on which the men were to be reinstated in their former jobs.
  We went into this and once again the Colliery company made an agreement with us. It was arranged that work was to be resumed immediately and that two were to be appointed on each side to go into all the details. The late George Davies, the miners' agent, who was widely respected in South Wales and whose untimely end was so deeply regretted by all who knew him, and I were appointed on behalf of the men. The dispute arose out of the terms made when the colliery was idle and, owing to the peculiar condition of their constitution, the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coalowners' Association refused to accept, any responsibility for such an agreement. Had it been an agreement made while the colliery was working there is no doubt at all that the full weight and authority of the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coalowners' Association would have been used on the side of the workmen in this matter, but as the agreement was made while the colliery was idle through trade depression, the association accepted no responsibility. That is why the company selected Messrs. John Kane and Jayne to act for them. They were not our nominees. They were appointed and given authority by the company to act for the company. We entered upon a consideration of all those matters, and specifically upon the question of reinstatement.
  It was ultimately agreed that the Bed-was Colliery Company should agree that no workman outside Bedwas or men not previously employed should be given work at the colliery until the whole of the

  1781
  men had been reinstated. That was pledge No. 1. Secondly, each workman was to be reabsorbed and reinstated in his former grade and pit. Nothing could be more specific. There was no ambiguity about it. Everybody knew exactly what it meant. The agreement was signed by the two representatives acting with the authority of the company, and by myself and my colleague on behalf of the workmen. Again we discussed and disposed of all outstanding matters. We thanked our lucky stars that we had settled once and for all the troubles at Bedwas. The Secretary for Mines smiles because he, like ourselves, has been informed on many occasions of these troubles. I want the House to realise, as does the Secretary for Mines, how very frequently these troubles crop up despite honourable undertakings. Within a week after we had signed the agreement, the terms were again dishonoured. Although my responsibilities were in a district some 20 miles away, I found myself for 12 months devoting as much time to the Bedwas Colliery, which is outside my area, as I was to the Rhondda Valley, owing to the constant repudiation or attempts of the management, by every means in their power, to avoid operating the terms of the agreement. Strangers were employed in one category or another. All manner of devices were adopted, and men were not put in their accustomed places and other men were substituted. There was such turmoil in the village that I do not think that Members of this House who have not had experience of such things can appreciate the extent to which it really existed.
  Towards the end of last autumn there was a serious situation. The company 12 months before had pledged their honour to me personally, and I had pledged myself to the workmen, that no stranger would be employed in Bedwas until all those men had been absorbed. When I was in Bedwas in the late autumn of last year, the men asked me, "When are you going to implement the pledged word which you gave to us. Where is your pledge that no stranger would be employed in Bedwas? There are 80 or 100 men in Bedwas to-day who never worked there before." That was the position in the autumn of last year. So keenly did I feel the situation that I actually advised the South Wales Miners' Federation to recommend the Bedwas men to tender 14 days' notice, and put an end to
  1782
  the agreement. The recommendation was adopted, but before making it operative we again approached the Bedwas company. We had had enough of bickering and attempts to ignore responsibilities. Once more we talked things over and tried to get the company to apply those terms sensibly and reasonably. During the short time that we were discussing the matter with them the employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, put half a dozen men at one coal face. Here was a situation which had been brewing, week after week, for 12 months. There were deliberate evasions of an honourable agreement. Men were walking the streets without any work to do, while other men were taking their places. There were men who had been idle since 1929. There are Members in this House who think that a man who has been idle for two or three years is a malingerer. These men were seriously looking for work and, were anxious to get back again, but they saw strangers taking their places behind what they had expected should have been an honourable agreement.
  While the last effort of all on our part to get the matter disposed of was being made the thing started again. It was like a spark setting the whole of the powder alight. The men stopped work. Who could blame them for stopping at that time? They had been subjected to 12 months of the most severe testing to which any body of men could have been subjected. I make bold to suggest that if an association of business people in this country had made a contract with a body of people in another country, and the latter had failed to carry out their obligation, there would have been a warship or a regiment of soldiers sent over to enforce it. That is how we should have treated foreigners who deliberately dishonoured an agreement made with British citizens. This so-called British citizen company for 12 months deliberately used their powers to avoid the agreement into which they had entered. What wonder is there that the men stopped work? But the company proceeded further with their brutalities. They said, "Since you have stopped, no man from Bedwas henceforth shall work at this colliery." And immediately they entered upon an arrangement with the railway company and chartered a train to load their "scabs" at one end and to

  1783
  unload them at the other, all of which was done with the deliberate intention of causing frenzy, as indeed it did.
  In the very early days of the Election which I fought before I came to this House, I often spent from 5 o'clock in the morning until midnight in that area seeking to dissuade the men who were acting as blacklegs from continuing their action. I tried my level best, both early and late, to try and avoid a situation arising similar to that which arose eventually. Men were being taken to the colliery in trains and omnibuses, and eventually, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there was a larger crowd than usual, and feelings possibly rose to a high pitch and someone hurled a stone, so it is said.
  Mr. EDWARDS: The men deny it.
  Mr. MAINWARING: Even if you assume the statement to be correct and that there was one who was less restrained than the others who hurled a stone, and that the police, possibly also less restrained than usual, immediately rushed forward and there was a bit of a tumult, I want the Home Secretary to realise the circumstances which led up to the affair. There is an old saying that "To know all is to forgive all." I would therefore ask the Home Secretary, in order really to understand the matter, to consider the situation which developed during the three years at this colliery. Knowing all these facts as they developed, is there a man inside or outside this House who would dare say that these men and women are to be blamed? Really, they are subjects for our extreme sympathy in the circumstances in which they find themselves. No matter how much we may say there has been a breach of the law—of course, there was a breach of the law if the stone was hurled—surely the greatest condemnation ought to be not upon those helpless men, women and children but upon that dishonest colliery company. The condemnation ought to be upon the men who pledged their word to me personally not once but several times; men whom I charge deliberately with seeking to dishonour their agreement. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the whole circumstances of the case.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I should not like it to be thought by the
  1784
  Under-Secretary that the facts that have been placed before us this evening can be viewed or heard of without emotion by hon. Members other than those belonging to the Labour party, and representatives of the mining constituencies in Wales. Hon. Members opposite have a much more intimate acquaintance with the facts of the situation than I can hope to have, and I do not propose in any way to go into the merits of the industrial dispute that preceded the events which we are discussing. The hon. Member has given us an interesting and long account of the negotiations which he carried through, and the whole of the circumstances. The point which has been raised this evening is not whether the colliery company behaved badly or whether the miners were at fault, but whether the sentences upon the men and women are justified. I do not think there is any pretence that the offence which these people committed is an exceptionally grave one. It. is the kind of offence that, admittedly, might be committed by undergraduates at Oxford on the night of a bump supper, where the throwing of one or even two or three stones, shouting and riotous behaviour of a kind might be dealt with firmly but tactfully by the police. It is not the sort of offence which merits savage punishment. That should be reserved for breaches of the law committed with much greater deliberation and forethought and involving much more formidable results for other people.
  In one case which was put by an hon. Member opposite where there was defalcation, deliberate intention to commit a crime, and suffering was inflicted upon other people, you have a comparatively light sentence, but here you have a case in which women are concerned, who have children in their homes, and those women are to be withdrawn from their natural function of looking after those children for six months in two cases and four months in another case. Unless the Home Secretary has information which is not in our possession—and I do not believe there is any foundation for believing that he can have any such information—that these people are habitual criminals. and have conspired to commit a crime, I cannot see how he can justify these sentences. In another court on a charge against similar people for an exactly

  1785
  similar offence, a much lighter sentence was inflicted.
  It is not my duty to go into the merits of the case and into the provocation which may or may not have preceded it. It is no justification in a court of law for an act of violence that you have received provocation, either from a colliery company or anybody else, but the Secretary of State has in his hands the prerogative of mercy. The conditions in this valley have, by all accounts—the Secretary for the Mines Department will agree with me in this—been deplorable for years past. There has been an atmosphere of hatred and unrest and general demoralisation, and if the Secretary of State wishes to see that atmosphere changed he cannot do better than exercise his prerogative of mercy and make it the beginning of a new start in that coalfield. It is on that account, and because I believe that these sentences are in themselves not justified, that I join with hon. Members opposite and implore the Secretary of State to give these cases reconsideration.
  9.0 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I must start by apologising to hon. Members opposite and to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend. He has already explained to the hon. Members opposite the reason for his absence. He regrets very much that he cannot be present to reply to the Debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) dealt with many matters which are not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend. He spoke of the terms of the agreement, the reinstatement of these people, the employment of people outside Bedwas, and other matters of that kind. They were all very important and undoubtedly were largely the reason for the disturbance, but I repeat that they are not the direct responsibility of the Home Department, and in consequence my hon. Friend will not expect me to reply to those observations.
  My right hon. Friend before he left the House listened to the presentation of the case by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) who, obviously, feel the position very keenly. Generally speaking, neither my
  1786
  right hon. Friend nor myself has any complaint as to the fairness of the presentation of the case, with one possible exception. I think it was the hon. Member for Caerphilly who spoke of a man who had been defrauding his fellow citizens to the extent of about £6,000. He said that that man had been committed to 12 months imprisonment in the second division and inferred, although he did not say so directly, that that person was in better circumstances in prison than the people about whose treatment he complained. The fact is that these nine people are also in the second division.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I apologise. It was a misunderstanding.
  Mr. HACKING: I know that my hon. Friend would not have made that statement except out of ignorance, I need not discuss the conditions which led to the arrest of these people a month or six weeks ago, but I do feel it is necessary to say something in regard to their trial. The trial lasted four days and the jury were absent considering their verdict for one hour. No steps subsequent to the trial and sentence were taken by any of the defendants to appeal against his conviction or sentence, but, as described by the hon. Member for Bedwellty, on the 20th June representations were made to my right hon. Friend by a deputation of 10 hon. Members of this House representing Welsh constituencies, urging him to remit part of the sentence passed on the two women, who received the longest sentences, namely, sentences of six months. I understand that the appeal was really confined to the case of the two women.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Not entirely, but we certainly emphasised it.
  Mr. HACKING: I was not present at the deputation but I understand from my right hon. Friend that the representations were, in the main, shall we say, connected with the case of the two women. The appeal was not based on any complaint as to the action of the police—I should like to make that clear—or the conduct of the trial, but on humanitarian grounds alone. On receiving these representations my right hon. Friend took immediate steps to inform himself fully as to the circumstances of the dispute at the colliery and as to the facts leading up to the prosecution. He

  1787
  then carefully considered all the relevant factors and regretfully came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for advising interference in any of these cases. The result of his consideration was communicated to my hon. Friend about a week ago by myself, and upon the answer I gave to his question he asked that the matter should be considered on the Adjournment of the House.
  At this stage one thing must be made clear. The Rouse of Commons is not a court of appeal. The law provides the machinery by which convictions and sentences of the court can be questioned. Under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, it was open to the defendants to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal within 10 days of their conviction, and I would remind hon. Members that it is still open to them to do so, if they can satisfy the court that there are special grounds to justify an extension of this kind. If they have not, however, chosen to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act of 1907 the inference to be drawn from that, and also from the representations made to my right hon. Friend when he was visited by hon. Members, is that any request for a reduction of the sentences is based upon grounds which are not of a purely legal character.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope the hon. Member will not stress the point of the failure of these people to appeal. I have no doubt that his statement of the law is correct, but he will know that there is great poverty in this area and that the finding of money to cover an appeal to the higher court is an absolutely impossible proposition.
  Mr. HACKING: I did not wish to stress that point, but this, that the appeal was made on humanitarian grounds alone. All grounds, other than those of a purely legal character, which, as I have mentioned, were not raised, have been given full and sympathetic consideration, as I have said, by my right hon. Friend and he has decided that he would not be right in advising interference with these sentences. I am glad that hon. Members opposite have not asked my right hon. Friend, directly at any rate, for the reasons for coming to the decision he has reached, although the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) did say that unless reasons other than those
  1788
  known to the House were considered by the Home Secretary he ought to give reconsideration to this case. May I tell him and the House the general principle involved in case's of this kind and in appeals which are made to the Home Secretary. The general principle has been stated in this House on many occasions, and on a recent occasion an answer was given by Mr. Clynes when he was Home Secretary to a question he was asked on the 24th July, 1930. I quote his words not because he happened to be the Home Secretary of the Labour party but because they are words which should be borne in mind by every hon. Member and which ought to be adhered to and agreed to by every hon. Member of the House. Mr. Clynes said:
  "It is the long established practice, which has often been approved by this House, that the Home Secretary does not state publicly the reasons in any particular case for advising or not advising the exercise of the Royal Prerogative."
  The Secretary of State to-day cannot undertake to discuss the details of this case. All I can say on his behalf is that he has carefully considered all the circumstances relating to the question of guilt or innocence, that no material has been placed before him which was not before the jury, and that he cannot go behind the verdict of the jury. On the question of the sentences he has given full consideration to what has been represented to him as to the circumstances of the dispute and also the facts as to the antecedents of the defendants, as well as all the incidents which led up to their prosecution. I ask the House to accept the statement that all the relevant circumstances have been taken into account. But the conclusion which after full consideration the Secretary of State has reached is that it would not be consistent with his public duty to advise any interference with the sentences passed on any of these persons.
  May I say this. One of the most difficult of the duties which fall to the lot of any Home Secretary is that of advising the Crown on the exercise of the Prerogative. Having served under the present Home Secretary for some months I hope the House will pardon me if I give expression to my own personal opinion. I am confident that the House will accept my assurance that the present Secretary of State is no less

  1789
  sensible than any of his predecessors of the importance which attaches to the discharge of these duties in a fair, a just and an impartial spirit. It must be fatal to the administration of justice in this country if cases of this description were ever dealt with in a political atmosphere. I am confident that these cases have not been raised in that atmosphere to-day, and I hope that my reply has been completely free from political bias, that it will be accepted that this matter has been considered solely in a judicial spirit, and that the decision not to interfere with the sentences has only been reached after the fullest and most sympathetic consideration has been given by my right hon. Friend to all the representations which have been addressed to
  1790
  him. Nobody regrets more than my right hon. Friend the decision which he has felt compelled to reach in these cases.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: Does that mean that no further consideration whatsoever is to be given to these cases? These two women have another five months to go. Is this the last word in this matter?
  Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that he has given the fullest possible consideration to all these cases and he feels that it is quite impossible, in the circumstances, to take any other action than the one I have mentioned.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Nine o'Clock.

  PRISON SERVICE (PAY).
  PRISON SERVICE (PAY).
  NATIONAL INCOME AND TAXATION.
  NATIONAL INCOME AND TAXATION.
  BECHUANALAND.
  BECHUANALAND.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD WORKS, WESTMINSTER.
  ROAD WORKS, WESTMINSTER.
  ROAD FUND GRANTS, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  ROAD FUND GRANTS, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  VAGRANCY (JUVENILES).
  VAGRANCY (JUVENILES).
  WATER SUPPLY, SHERBURN HILL, COUNTY DURHAM.
  WATER SUPPLY, SHERBURN HILL, COUNTY DURHAM.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).