Sitting of 24 July 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Fylde Preston and Garstang Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Norwich) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ottershaw Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Oxford) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Pwllheli) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Watford) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    GERMAN REFUGEES.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the report made to the League of Nations by one of its officials, Mr. Macdonald, on the increasing hardships of refugees from Germany and of Jews in Germany; and whether His Majesty's Government have considered what this country can do to remedy the state of affairs referred to?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have not seen any report such as that referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can hold out any hope that the report will be acted upon by His Majesty's Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increase in the number of refugees, and, in view of the increasing seriousness of the situation, will not the Government reconsider whether there is anything they can do to improve the condition of these people?
    Sir S. HOARE: I could not possibly express any opinion until I have seen the report, which has been made to the League of Nations. I am not responsible for the report.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for obtaining this report so that he can form his own conclusions?
    Sir S. HOARE: As far as I know, the report has not yet been sent to me officially.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the new wave of persecution in Germany; and, in view of the probability of an increase in the number of refugees, whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to get a special report from the High Commissioner for refugees appointed by the League of Nations?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am aware of the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It can, however, I think, safely be left to the High Commissioner for refugees to decide whether the position is such as to render it necessary for him to prepare a special report in connection with the development and fulfilment of his task.

    COVENANT (MEMBERS' OBLIGATIONS).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will invite all other members of the Council of the League of Nations to issue a joint declaration that, in the event of any country which is a member of the Council invading the territory of some other country, the other members of the Council will all immediately take steps jointly to carry out their obligations under the covenant of the League?
    Sir S. HOARE: The question of he action to be taken by the members of the League in any such event as that postulated would be a matter to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular case and of such provisions of the Covenant as are applicable, and I do not consider that any declaration in general and unspecified terms such as my hon. Friend suggests would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. LEWIS: As there is some uncertainty as to whether some of the Powers are willing to carry out their obligations under the Covenant, would it not be as well to find out what the position is before a serious outbreak occurs in Abyssinia rather than afterwards?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have given a considered answer to the question, and I have nothing to add to it.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be well to find out whether the United States, who started the League of Nations, will come in and take a hand?
    Mr. MANDER: Is there any doubt that the British Government fully intend to carry out all their obligations under the Covenant?

  MEXICO (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of all British subjects awarded compensation by the Anglo-Mexican Special Claims Commission for wrongful imprisonment or permanent physical damage during Mexican revolutions, and the amount of the said claims; and whether he will make representations to the Mexican Government as to the desirability of these claims being met without further delay, and in priority to the claims for damage to property?
  Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the published decisions and opinions of the Commissioners, issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office in two parts in 1931 and 1933. These publications contain details of each award, under the name of the claimant, and of the nature of the claim, whether loss of property or personal damage, upon which the award is based. Negotiations with the Mexican Government for a general settlement of all the awards are at the moment in progress, so that the second part of the question does not arise.

  ABYSSINIA (LAKE TSANA).
  Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the proposed dam at Lake Tsana?
  Sir S. HOARE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 9th July, to which I have nothing to add at present.
  Brigadier-General NATION: May I ask whether it is proposed to invite tenders for the work from British firms?
  Sir S. HOARE: I think that I had better have notice of that question, which is rather different from that on the Order Paper.

  ERITREA RAILWAY.
  Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the western terminus of the railway in Eritrea is from the Sudan and Abyssinian boundaries?
  Sir S. HOARE: I am advised that the western terminus of the Eritrea railway is probably situated at Biskia, approximately 60 miles east of the Sudan frontier and roughly the same distance north of the Abyssinian frontier. As it is possible that further construction is, however, taking place, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the foregoing.
  Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the extension is in the direction of the Abyssinian boundary or the Sudan boundary?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have said that further construction is reported to be taking place, but I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the statement.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent pronouncements by Mr. Cordell Hull and Mr. William Phillips, he is endeavouring to concert a common policy with the United States of America with a view to averting an armed conflict between Italy and Abyssinia?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have already expressed to the United States Ambassador the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government at the recent utterances of the United States Secretary of State concerning the obligations devolving upon all signatories of the Kellogg Pact. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will always be ready to co-operate with the Government of the United States in seeking to preserve peace.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken by France, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Sweden, and other countries with reference to the export of arms to Abyssinia; whether in any cases exports have been held up or refused; and whether the British Government has yet defined its policy on the subject?
  Sir S. HOARE: According to my information the French Government have prohibited the export of war material to Italy and Ethiopia. In the case of Sweden, I understand that the Swedish Government have as yet received no applications for export licences. I am not in a position to state what action has been taken by Belgium, Czechoslovakia and other countries. As regards the second part of the question, I have no detailed information on this subject, and as regards the last part I would remind the hon. Member that I have already stated that I hope to make a statement on this subject very shortly.
  Mr. MANDER: Is not this rather prolonged delay on the part of the British Government somewhat unfair to Abyssinia? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any licences for Italy have been held up in the same way?
  Sir S. HOARE: I should prefer to leave questions of that kind until I make my statement, which I hope will be very shortly.
  Mr. MANDER: Can we have an assurance that both countries are being and will be treated alike?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask whether there has been any trammel on the export of munitions of war to Italy since this business began?
  Mr. PALING: Does "very shortly" mean before the House rises for the recess?
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is not my right hon. Friend somewhat horrified by this pacifist desire to export arms?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I never was a pacifist.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions have been placed by His Majesty's Government upon the export of arms, aircraft, or other military supplies to Abyssinia which do not apply to similar exports to Italy; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any international action with a view to placing an embargo upon the export of such material to either or both of these countries?
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions have been put upon the export of arms and munitions of war to Abyssinia which are not applicable to similar exports elsewhere?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No licence whatever has been issued for the export of arms to either Italy or Ethiopia during the past four months. There has not at any time since the signing of the Treaty of 1930 between the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, France and Italy been any difference in the treatment given to Italy and Ethiopia except so far as arises from the provisions of the Treaty itself. The Treaty provides that the importation of arms and munitions of war and aircraft into Ethiopia is subject to the production of an export licence issued by the country of export after the presentation to its authorities of an authorisation by the Ethiopian Government for import into Ethiopia. As regards the second part of Question No. 50, I would refer my right hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) on the 22nd July by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: When the right hon. Gentleman says that no licences have been issued, does he mean that licences have in fact been refused to Abyssinia for the import of arms; and does he realise that, if the Government do not come to a decision with regard to export licences

  1815
  for arms to Abyssinia, war may break out, and it will then be impossible for Abyssinia to obtain the means to defend itself against the aggressor?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as the first part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question is con-concerned, there has been no completed application from Ethopia during the last four months for arms, and therefore there has been no refusal.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do the British Government make any distinction between supplying arms to a brave nation trying to defend itself and supplying arms to an aggressor?
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Is it usual for the country that wants to import arms to make application for a licence or for the firm that proposes to export the arms?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The application as a rule is made by the exporting firm. In this case there has been no completed application.
  Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a licence was issued to Lord Carson to export arms to Ireland?

  SMYRNA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the plight of non-Maltese British subjects in Smyrna; whether he is aware that these people were informed, on 25th March last, by His Majesty's Ambassador at Angora that the question of their permanent disposal was receiving the earnest attention of the Government; that pending this decision inadequate monetary help averaging 10d. per head per day is being extended to cases of extreme destitution but that many other needy cases are receiving no help whatever; and whether he can indicate when a settlment of this problem of British subjects living in a foreign country and prohibited from earning their livelihood may be expected?
  Sir S. HOARE: I am aware of the facts of this matter. The rates of relief being paid to the British subjects concerned were arrived at after careful consultation with His Majesty's representatives in Turkey, and I am satisfied that they are adequate. It has now been arranged that
  1816
  all these British subjects shall gradually be repatriated to this country or to other British territory, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Turkey is in close touch with the situation.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is the nationality of these individuals who are receiving 10d. per head per day? Where do they come from? They strike me as being of the working-class, not the middle-class or the rich. They are only getting 10d. per day. What race are they? Where do they come from?
  Sir S. HOARE: They are British subjects, but I cannot say from what part of the British Empire they come until I have made further inquiries.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that, in accordance with Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, no treaty or international engagement is binding until registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations, the Anglo-German Agreement has yet been so registered?
  Sir S. HOARE: As I informed the House on the 17th July, the exchange of notes between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the German Government regarding the limitation of naval armaments was registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on the 12th July.
  Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that on 1st May the official information in his possession was that, as the result of extensive preparations, the first German submarines would probably be completed within six months, whereas it is now officially stated that two German submarines are now afloat and a further 26 are ready on the stocks or will be laid down this year, he is satisfied with the sources from which he draws his information; and whether he is considering means of placing more reliable information before the House in future?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The information in my possession has been correctly stated by my hon. and gallant

  1817
  Friend, except that one submarine has been commissioned and two others launched. All my information has been derived from the German Government. As a result of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, Germany is prepared, from now onwards, to exchange on a reciprocal basis with other naval Powers particulars in regard to dates of laying down and characteristics of future warships, even in advance of the conclusion of a general Naval Treaty. This procedure, which was not in force on the 1st May, should provide the information which my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

  CHINA.
  Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the nature of the information in his possession as to Chinese Communist depredations in Shensi and Szechuan?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have no official information regarding Chinese Communist depredations in Shensi or Szechuan.
  Mr. MOREING: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the infiltration and activities of Russian agents, who come from Sinkiang through Kansu to these two provinces of China?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; I have no official information on that subject. If my hon. Friend would like to bring particular cases to my attention, I hope he will do so.
  Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the state of relations between the republic of Outer Mongolia and the authorities of Inner Mongolia; whether the projected conference between them has been held; and, if so, with what result?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I am not aware that any conference between the authorities of Inner and Outer Mongolia has taken place or even been projected.
  Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the nature of the demand of the Japanese Government to establish a military consul in Urga, and the response of the republic of Outer Mongolia thereto?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have seen Press reports on this subject, but I have at present no official information.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has asked His Majesty's Ambassador in China for a report on the existing relations between the tribal leaders in Inner and Outer Mongolia?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have called for a report on the political situation in these regions.
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the republic of Outer Mongolia is recognised as an independent State by His Majesty's Government; whether it has been recognised as such by other Powers; and in what manner British interests are represented in Outer Mongolia?
  Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware that any other Power has recognised an independent State of Outer Mongolia. It has not hitherto been considered necessary to raise the question of British representation there, and I see no sufficient reason to take a different view now.
  Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that ever since Outer Mongolia declared its independence of China about 1924, it has come more and more under the influence of Soviet Russia and the caravan trade from Tientsin to Outer Mongolia has declined gradually? In that caravan trade, British merchants used to take a prominent part. Would it not be advisable to make inquiries on the subject?
  Sir S. HOARE: I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: In the absence of official representation in that area, on what source do the Government rely for information?
  Sir S. HOARE: It is still recognised as part of China. That being so we rely on our Ambassador in Peking.

  ROYAL NAVY (ROSYTH).
  Sir JOHN WALLACEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to recommend that fresh consideration

  1819
  should now be given by the Board of Admiralty to the future status of Rosyth naval base?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The position of Rosyth is constantly before the Admiralty in connection with the developments of the international situation, but as stated in the reply given by my hon. Friend on the 10th July no change in its status is at present contemplated.
  Sir J. WALLACE: On account of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the whole question on the Motion for the rising of the House for the Recess.

  KENYA (GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY).
  Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the working of the gold-mining industry in Kenya Colony; and whether he can state the acreage that is under occupation for mining in each of the areas, the amount of gold that has been mined, and the amount accruing to the Government of Kenya in licences or in other ways?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the reply is long and contains a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  The gold-mining industry in Kenya Colony is making steady progress and it is hoped that some of the companies interested will reach large scale production by the end of the present year. New claims are still being registered and a considerable amount of plant and machinery is being installed.
  It is not possible to state the acreage under actual occupation with accuracy, but the following figures are approximate:

  Acres.

  No. 1 area

  …

  640

  No. 2 area

  …

  2,000

  Nos. 3 and 4 areas

  …

  2,400

  No. 5 area

  …

  600

  Kakamega

  …

  2,000

  Lolgorien

  …

  500

  The amount of gold mined since the 1st of January, 1926, is approximately
  1820
  52,480 ounces, of which 15,940 ounces were produced during 1934 and 6,600 ounces during the first four months of this year. The total revenue accruing to Government since the 1st of January, 1931, in mining fees, royalties, stamp duties and other ways is about £70,000.

  CYPRUS (AERODROME).
  Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many aeroplanes have landed at the Nicosia aerodrome in Cyprus during the past 12 months; whether there is now a hangar; and whether the edges of the aerodrome are distinctly marked and clearly visible from the air?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: Twelve aeroplanes have landed at the Nicosia aerodrome in the past 12 months. There is no hangar. I am advised that the aerodrome is marked with a centre circle and corner angles of whitewashed stone, which are reported to be clearly visible from the air.

  PALESTINE (CITRUS EXPORTS).
  Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the increased duty proposed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee on citrus fruit-juice imported into this country will apply to the citrus fruit-juice imported from the mandated territory of Palestine; and what representations have been made to him with regard to the adverse effect of this change on the economic development of that territory?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I have received no such representations. I would point out that the change to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is associated with a reduction in the duty on preserved citrus fruit, from which Palestine should gain some benefit.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has my right hon. Friend recently examined the question whether it is still necessary for us to treat Palestine as a foreign country?
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Was the Colonial Office consulted before this change was presented to the House?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I require notice of that question.
  Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the industries in Palestine are given an opportunity of presenting their case to the Advisory Committee before a further duty is imposed?

  SEYCHELLES (NURSE'S DISMISSAL).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Josephine Faure, who was in Government service in the Seychelles Islands as a midwife, has been discharged on the ground that she refused to take work as a nurse at a leprosy colony; that the woman in question is not a qualified nurse and that she felt unable to undertake work in connection with lepers; and whether, in view of the fact that she has lost her employment, together with any retiring allowance to which she might be entitled, he will make inquiries into the matter?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I have not received any report from the Governor of Seychelles on this case, but I will have inquiries made.

  BRITISH COLONIES (DEVELOPMENT).
  Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the expressed desire of certain foreign countries to expand, he will consider taking special steps to increase the population and develop the resources of British colonies and mandated territories by British people?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The development of the resources of British colonies and mandated territories is an object to which constant attention is paid by the Government at home as well as the Governments on the spot. If my hon. and gallant Friend desires to suggest any particular special steps which might be taken, I shall be glad to consider them.

  LONDON METAL EXCHANGE (TIN).
  Captain Sir IAN FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make as to the acute shortage of tin on the
  1822
  London Metal Exchange and as to what steps he is taking through his representative on the International Tin Control Committee and the Buffer Stock Committee to avert a repetition of a shortage of tin for prompt delivery?
  Sir P. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make about the exceptional rise in the price of tin which reached, on the 22nd July, a price higher than for many years; and whether he proposes to do anything in the matter?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am aware of the position on the London Metal Exchange. I note that cash price of tin yesterday was £233. I am informed that the Buffer Stock Committee has at its disposal sufficient tin to meet the normal demands likely to be made in the near future. I understand that a meeting of that Committee will be held within a few days to consider the situation. The representatives of Malaya and Nigeria on the International Tin Committee and the. Buffer Stock Committee are fully aware of the importance of preventing any shortage of tin.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many dealers in tin are under the impression that the International Tin Committee has a responsibility for the violent fluctuations in the price of the metal, the change yesterday being an example? Will he consider the advisability of appointing a special committee to inquire into the whole working of the tin control and the operation of the International Committee?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The facts speak for themselves. Quite clearly, since the International Committee was established the fluctuations which used to take place have been very considerably reduced.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fluctuations this week have been greater almost than ever before?
  HON. MEMBERS: No.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of regulating prices by this arrangement, in view of the considerable addition to the price of manufactured tinplates? Is it not possible now to fix a price very much lower than the £233? Apart from stabilisation, is not the price very much too high?
  Mr. MacDONALD: That it a matter for the International Tin Committee itself to decide.
  Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Will he appoint a departmental committee or a Committee of this House to inquire into the operations of the International Committee?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    CONTRACTS (CONTROL OF PRICES).
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the facts stated in a return to the Treasury in April, 1917, as to the results obtained in 86 national factories of different types in which it was revealed that, as compared with the lowest prices previously obtained by contract, savings had been effected to the extent of £9,000,000, and that certain factories erected at a cost of £1,500,000 had already effected savings very much in excess of the total cost of the factories, he is prepared to reconsider his attitude on the possibility of the adoption of this method of obtaining supplies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The return quoted did not deal with national factories for the manufacture of aircraft, none of which were producing in April, 1917; and, as I have already stated, the general results subsequently obtained from such factories compared unfavourably in point of cost and output with the results obtained from private enterprise. There are, therefore, no grounds whatever for recourse to national factories for the present programme—quite apart from the fact that that programme is due for completion by 31st March, 1937, by which date it would in any event be impossible to organise efficiently or indeed at all an entirely new system of production.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that the supply of aircraft with regard to numbers, costs, and quality was gravely unsatisfactory during the War until January, 1917, when it was found necessary to concentrate all authority for supply under the controlled system then established under the Ministry of Munitions and which yielded greatly improved results, he will consider the institution of such a system with regard to the supplies now stated to be required?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The improvement effected in aircraft supply in 1917 was primarily the result of the concentration of control of design and supply in the Air Board and Ministry of Munitions, in substitution for the earlier system under which the Admiralty, War Office and, to some extent, the Ministry of Munitions were competing against one another. A corresponding concentration is secured to-day through the existence of the Air Ministry. I am satisfied that any arbitrary interference with the present system, which is functioning satisfactorily, would be likely to lead to a deterioration, and not an improvement, in the numbers, cost and quality of aircraft produced.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it was an essential ingredient of the control then instituted that the supply and distribution of machinery, material and other requirements was a part of the function of the Ministry, and it was not in the hands of separate individual firms? It was an immense saying.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is also aware that there is not a war on to-day, and that we are not in a state in which we have got to turn the whole industrial system of the country upside down.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is it not a fact that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, the producing firms are employed at maximum capacity and that the situation is exactly comparable to that of January, 1917, so far as this manufacture is concerned?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course it is not. I did not say they were employed at maximum capacity. What I did say was that I was reasonably satisfied that the structure of the industry could deal with the Government's and all other demands. To say that because an industry is employed at 90 per cent. of its capacity, that is evidence of some awful situation in which you have to take abnormal measures, seems to me very strange.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman opposite say whether the costs estimates to which he referred included anything in respect of his 50,000 assistants who crawled all over the hotels in the West End of London?
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the nation's need has already been taken advantage of by these people by gambling in aircraft shares?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know who has been speculating in shares, but, if the hon. Gentleman heard the statement which I made, on the authority of Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues, as to the willingness of these firms to submit the whole of their books for inspection, then I think that is a pretty unworthy suggestion.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the aeroplanes are being built for?
    HON. MEMBERS: Flying.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For defence.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the control of the factories in 1917, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said that the output surpassed their utmost expectations, as a result of that organisation?
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the large profits recently obtained in the issue of shares of different aircraft manufacturing companies and the concurrent increases of capital and overhead charges, he proposes to continue his dependence upon such companies for aircraft supplies; and whether he proposes to allow for such increased overhead charges in the prices he will be prepared to pay?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: An increase in the nominal share capital of a particular company and/or the placing of its shares on the market at a premium do not in any way affect the rates of profit or overheads to be allowed for in Air Ministry contracts.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in connection with recent issues, there has been considerable increases in the capital attaching to these companies; and has not that capital to be paid for and allowed for in the overhead charges?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman and I have very different ideas on the way to place contracts.

    RECRUITING (SCOTLAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Air the proportion of additional recruits for the enlargement of the Royal Air Force enrolled in Scotland as compared with those enrolled in England and Wales?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The proportion is about 4½ per cent.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the well-known engineering skill of Scotsmen, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something should be done to popularise recruiting in Scotland?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have opened a special recruiting office in Glasgow, and I hope it will attract patriotic, competent and technically efficient Scotsmen.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not the case that most of the competent Scotsmen come to England?

    PURCHASES (SCOTLAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Air the approximate value of material and supplies for the Royal Air Farce purchased in Scotland during each of the past three years?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that it is impracticable, without disproportionate labour, to give the desired information.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the distress existing on the west coast of Scotland, could not something be done to increase existing purchases for the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. MAGNAY: Will the Minister consider the fact, which is obvious from his reply to me previously, that Glasgow is not, strategically, the right place for that sort of thing?

  TRANSPORT.

    HORSE-DRAWN TRAFFIC.
    Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORDasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the desirability of the elimination of horse transport from the streets of large towns at as early a date as practicable?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My hon. Friend will be interested to note the rapid pace at which

    1827
    horse-drawn vehicles are being withdrawn from the streets. The last census showed that at selected points in London the decline in the number of horse-drawn vehicles between 1924 and 1933 was from 210,276 to 81,075, a reduction of 61.4 per cent. Another census will shortly be taken. In the meanwhile it is desirable, consistent with the avoidance of undue hardship, to accelerate the freeing of streets from horse-drawn vehicles, and to this end I am prepared to consider any proposals which may be put forward by the responsible authorities for their own areas. Further, my Department approaches on all suitable opportunities the principal users of horse-drawn vehicles with the object of achieving the more rapid substitution of motor for horse-drawn vehicles in the Metropolis.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: In view of the delay caused by horse-drawn traffic and the cruelty involved to the horses, would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving notice that after a period of, say three years or five years, no horse-drawn traffic would be allowed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am considering, with modifications, something on the lines of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that horse-drawn traffic is the safest method of transport in our great cities and that there were no deaths attributed to it in Liverpool during the past year?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Rutherford) has referred to cruelty, but, in addition to that, there is the obstruction of the streets, sometimes for a considerable distance behind one horse-drawn vehicle. That, of course, has a considerable effect upon the business and convenience of the rest of the community.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a vote of the horses as the Minister of Agriculture has taken a vote of the cows?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether with a view to encouraging the use of pneumatic tyres on horse-drawn vehicles, he will consider a reduction in the cost of the local taxation licences for such vehicles using such tyres?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The only horse-drawn vehicles chargeable with licence duty are private carriages and hackneys, and horse-drawn commercial vehicles, which my hon. Friend presumably has in mind, are not subject to tax.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (ROAD LICENCES).
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport why details of the number of licences granted to railway companies under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are not kept, in view of the fact that similar information is available in respect of licences granted to road haulage contractors?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that the licensing authorities have been charged by Parliament with the duty of relating the number of goods vehicles on the roads to the requirements of the public, and no analysis is made or required of the ownership of the vehicles. The answer to the second part of the question is that the figures which I gave my hon. Friend on 17th July did in fact include licences granted to railway companies, and the number of vehicles operated under those licences.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the main causative factors which have resulted in a decrease in the total of fatalities from road accidents and an increase in the total of injuries during the first six months of this year compared with the same period last year?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The assumption of my hon. Friend's question is, I am happy to say, incorrect. There has been an appreciable decline both in the number of deaths and in the number of injuries on the roads this year as compared with last. The decrease is, of course, to be ascribed to the many measures taken to promote road safety and to the co-operation of the public.
    Mr. GUY: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply and his correction, may I ask him whether he will pay more attention to street lighting, from the safety point of view?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly.

    MOTOR-COACH SERVICES (HOLIDAY TRAFFIC).
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction has been caused among members of the public wishing to use road-coach services during the holiday season by the narrow limits allowed by the Traffic Commissioners on the duplication of vehicles at holiday times on coach services between the principal centres of population; whether those limits are imposed following the decision by him on the recent appeal by the railway companies against duplication allowed by the Traffic Commissioners; and whether, in order to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, he will be prepared to reconsider his decision on this matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second and third parts that the commissioners in the first instance and myself on appeal are required to have regard among other matters to the extent to which the proposed service is necessary or desirable in the public interest.
    Mr. GUY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this time of year many railway trains are over-cvrowded, and, at the same time, as a result of his decision, many people who wish to travel by motor coach are unable to do so?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Those are matters for the commissioners. I think my hon. Friend makes too sweeping a generalisation, and it is one which I could not argue with him in reply to a question.

    ROAD HAULAGE LICENCES.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport whether, in arriving at a decision in connection with the application for a licence by a road haulage contractor under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, any consideration is taken of the possible displacement of labour as a result of the application for a licence being refused?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The licensing authorities act entirely independently of me, but so far as I am aware they take all relevant circumstances into consideration.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Would my right hon. Friend circulate the licensing authorities drawing their attention to the many cases in which labour has been displaced?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think it would be proper for me to seek to influence them in a jurisdiction which is properly conferred upon them by Parliament.

    LLANDOUGH HILL, GLAMORGAN.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult with the county authority concerned on the question of the improvement of Llandough Hill, Glamorgan, as in its present narrow state it is extremely dangerous to motorists and pedestrians alike?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A considerable improvement to the road referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend was effected when Leckwith Bridge and its approaches were opened to traffic a short time ago. I am in consultation with the county authority regarding the further improvement of this hill, the name of which I will not attempt to pronounce.

    RAILWAY SERVICE, CHINGFORD LIVERPOOL STREET.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious overcrowding of trains on the London and North-Eastern Railway between Chingford and Liverpool Street during the morning and evening rush hours on weekdays; and what steps he proposes to take to see that adequate railway travelling facilities are provided on this line?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am making the railway company aware of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the 4th July a man travelling between St. James's Street and the next station died in the train, that the carriage was seriously overcrowded, and that at the inquest it was stated by the medical people giving evidence that had he been able to be laid out instead of made to sit up, it is probable his life would have been saved?
    Mr. HORE-BEILISHA: I very much regret to hear that, and, while I do not in the least dispute that there may be

    1831
    very great inconvenience to passengers, even where trains are not overcrowded, it might sometimes happen that a carriage was full and a man could not be laid out.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the continuous overcrowding for the past 20 or more years, and, in view of that fact, will he not take some steps, which up to now he has not taken, in this matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Government have taken very powerful and dynamic steps to assist the travelling public of London. I agree that there is still much to be done, and I will use all the influence at my command.

  MAGISTRATES (APPOINTMENTS, LANCASHIRE).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of magistrates appointed for the county of Lancaster during each of the last five years, and the number now holding office?
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir John Davidson): The number of magistrates appointed for the County Palatine of Lancaster during each of the last five years is as follows:

  1931

  …

  …

  …

  45

  1932

  …

  …

  …

  52

  1933

  …

  …

  …

  64

  1934

  …

  …

  …

  142

  1935

  …

  …

  …

  162

  The total number now holding office is approximately 2,478.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the Chancellor say whether these appointments are invariably made on the advice of the advisory committee or otherwise?
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: Always on the advice of the advisory committee.

  AIR RAIDS (PRECAUTIONS).
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether any plans have been made for the training of school children in gas-mask drill, or whether such plans are contemplated?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): No, Sir.
  Mr. JONES: May I ask whether the Board of Education does not consider it desirable for it to deal with this matter in the same way as the Home Office seems to have done?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. Member had better refer any further question on that matter to the Home Office.
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Air Raids Precautions Committee has considered the problem of food supplies in the event of an air attack; and what provisions are being made in this connection?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): The question of food supplies in the event of air attack is being considered as part of the whole problem of air raid precautions.
  Mr. DOBBIEasked the Home Secretary whether he will indicate the present extent of the supplies of activated charcoal suitable for use in filter boxes of gas masks at present available in this country; whether the supplies available are sufficient to equip gas masks for the whole of the population; whether he can indicate the effective life of such charcoal when the gas mask is in use and in storage; and whether the supplies available are capable of replacing the charcoal in the filter boxes and, if so, at what interval of time?
  Captain WALLACE: Activated charcoal does not deteriorate in storage and can be kept indefinitely. It would not be in the public interest to give the further information for which the hon. Member asks.
  Mr. DOBBIEasked the Home Secretary the cost of refuges from high explosives and incendiary bombs for the London area and for Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff, and Birmingham, respectively?
  Captain WALLACE: No such estimate can be given: but it is known that the cost of providing, on any extensive scale, refuges which would be proof against direct hits by high explosive bombs would be prohibitive.
  Mr. DOBBIEasked the Home Secretary what plans, if any, have been made to prevent the sale of worthless,

  1833
  inefficient, and dangerous gas masks to the general public; does he propose to institute financial control over such firms in order to prevent profiteering; further, does he intend to examine such products systematically in order to ensure that inefficient appliances are not sold to the general public; and will he take steps to ensure that the durability and reliability of all gas masks, both in use and in storage, is clearly indicated on the mask when it is sold?
  Captain WALLACE: The Government are fully alive to the importance of protecting the public against the sale of respirators of inferior capabilities, and are actively investigating the most suitable means of achieving this object. Special consideration is being given to the question of inspection.
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Home Secretary whether the Air Raids Precautions Committee has devised any means to prevent the explosion of gas mains and water aqueducts in the event of bombardment by incendiary and high explosive bombs; and whether precautions can be taken to ensure that the flooding of underground shelters be avoided?
  Captain WALLACE: The question of protecting pipes and cables of public utility services together with measures for mitigating the effects of damage and for ensuring speedy repair are being investigated with the undertakings concerned.
  Mr. LOGANasked the Home Secretary what quantities of bleaching powder, which can be used as a decontaminating agent against poison gas, are available; how long can such re-agent be stored without deterioration; and does he propose to recommend its use to local authorities?
  Captain WALLACE: Bleaching powder is an ordinary commercial product, but particulars of the available stocks cannot be stated. Its deterioration is largely a question of methods of packing and storage. Information to local authorities as to its use for decontamination purposes will be included in publications now in course of preparation.
  Mr. LOGAN: Is it the intention of the Minister to store it in public institutions?
  Captain WALLACE: I think that will remain to be settled later.
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Home Secretary by which building societies and for which districts his Department has been consulted regarding plans for the building of bomb-proof shelters for their tenants; and whether his Department will arrange for the inspection and approval of such shelters?
  Captain WALLACE: During the past 12 months my Department has been approached by the builders of a housing estate in Middlesex and by two persons responsible for erecting flats in North London. They were advised as to the design and the degree of protection which the proposed shelters would be likely to afford. It is intended, as stated in paragraph 8 of the recent Circular to Local Authorities, that specific advice on this subject shall be made generally available.

  EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE SCHOOL BUILDINGS).
  Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will arrange to have a survey of school buildings made and a five-year plan prepared for replacement where necessary?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The question of replacing defective school buildings is a matter in the first instance for local education authorities, managers or governors, as the case may be, and their proposals are considered by my Department on their merits as and when they are submitted. I do not think that it would be of any assistance to those bodies or to my Department to institute a five-year plan for dealing with the matter.
  Miss WARD: Is my hon. Friend aware that schools on the black list form the basis of replacement, and that at least two schools that I know of which were not on the black list collapsed, and does he not think it would be advantageous to have a new survey, which might result in no dilapidated schools being omitted?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think the local education authorities are fully alive to their responsibilities. If any authority wishes to make a five-year plan, there is, of course, no objection, but I see no special virtue either in the five years or in the word "plan."
  Miss WARD: Might it not be advantageous for the Board of Education to take the initiative?
  Sir P. HARRIS: Will the hon. Member consult the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who is the planner and who does believe in planning?

  NORTHERN IRELAND (PRESERVATION OF ORDER).
  Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Prime Minister Whether he will take steps to avoid the use of British troops and the expenditure of money from the Imperial Exchequer in keeping order in Northern Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Under the common law troops may be called upon to aid the civil power in suppressing disturbances with which the civil power itself is unable to cope, and this applies in Northern Ireland just as in this country. Any expenditure incurred is part of the Imperial liabilities under the Government of Ireland Act, to which, of course, the Government of Northern Ireland contribute.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a ban was recently placed upon processions, that the Orange Lodges defied that ban, and that, as a result of that defiance, the Government withdrew the ban; and will he make representations that that sort of partiality is not likely to lead to peace?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I was not aware.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out?
  Captain DIXON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement made by the hon. Member is entirely incorrect and that no ban was put upon Orange processions; and might I ask further if it is not a fact that Northern Ireland is part and parcel of the British Empire and that, therefore, the civil authority has exactly the same powers of calling upon the troops as the civil authority in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, or any other City in the Kingdom?
  Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole trouble in
  1836
  Northern Ireland arises out of the provocative speeches and sectarian policy of the Northern Ministers?

  EMPIRE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the success that has attended the debates which have been recently initiated between Members of the British Parliament and members of the Parliaments of the Dominions, the Central Legislature of India, and certain of the Colonies, which have been made possible by the Government grant to the Empire Parliamentary Association; and whether he will consider the desirability in future years of earmarking a portion of that grant to ensure the continuation of such debates so that the advantages secured by these personal exchanges of views be not lost?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No one can doubt the value of a free interchange of views between members of the various Legislatures in the British Empire under the arrangements made by the Empire Parliamentary Association. But as regards the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I am not sure that any advantage would be gained by altering the present system under which the use of the grant made from public funds to the United Kingdom branch of the Association is determined by the Association under its Executive Committee.
  Mr. LOGAN: Is it possible for the National Government to set up a debating society for its Members?

  MERCHANT SHIPS (STEERING GEAR).
  Vice-Admiral CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for a representative of the various officers' associations to be added to the committee of inquiry into steering gear on merchant ships?
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the vital importance of the subject to masters and officers of the mercantile marine, he will add a member representing the officers' organisations to

  1837
  the committee which is to investigate and report on steering gear in British ships in connection with the inquiry into the loss of the steamship "Blairgowrie" and steamship "Usworth"?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The members of this Committee have all been selected on individual grounds to deal with a technical problem, and I do not consider that the suggested addition to the Committee is necessary. I hope that the organisations in question will assist the Committee by tendering evidence. I would add that officers' experience is represented on the Committee by Captain Thomas, who has much practical knowledge of the type of gear in question and is also experienced in North Atlantic voyages.
  Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: Is it not a fact that Captain Thomas is a marine superintendent and is, therefore, representative of the owners more than of masters and officers, and is he aware that the Seamen's Union is represented on this Committee; and, if the Seamen's Union is represented, is there any reason why the officers' associations should not be represented as well?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Captain Thomas was invited to serve on this Committee because of his knowledge as a sailor, in the same way as Mr. Spence, who is there not to represent the National Union of Seamen, but because of his experience at sea, which we thought would be useful to the Committee. The same applies to Captain Thomas, who is also an old sailor.
  Sir B. PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say why the practice has become quite common now, when any Committee of this kind is appointed, to put somebody on to represent the workmen's organisations, and why the organisations representing the masters and officers of the merchant service, who are responsible for the safety of these ships, should be constantly neglected in this way?

  CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY, MANCHESTER.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has beers drawn to the judge's remarks in a case at the recent assizes in Birmingham, in which a widow unsuccessfully claimed from the Co-operative
  1838
  Insurance Society, Manchester, under a policy of endowment insurance; and whether, in view of the fact that the judge expressed the opinion that the proposal forms of some insurance companies are traps, he will consider the advisability of taking action to protect the public by preventing insurance companies repudiating policies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The Assurance Companies Act, 1909, does not give the Board of Trade power to intervene in the matter of a contract between a policy holder and an insurance company regarding the terms of a policy.
  Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the deceased person signed his proposal he held himself to be free from disease on the 13th June, 1934, whereas he was in attendance on the doctor before and after that date for a trouble which was diagnosed by a specialist on the 13th August as cancer? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the judge stated:
  "I make it quite clear that in view of the death taking place so soon after the insurance there is full reason why the policy should be repudiated"?
  Mr. CROOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the judge in this case expressed the wish that Parliament should take this matter up?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I am not aware of the personal opinion of the judge. With regard to the individual case, the Board of Trade obviously cannot intervene in the merits of a dispute between a policy holder and the insurance company.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in general insurance companies do not refuse to insure poor people who may die within a short time, and that this inflicts great hardship? If insurance companies accept a life, ought they not to accept the risk in the ordinary way?

  AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRANTS).
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the steamship "Oransay" called at Naples on 30th June and took on board 150

  1839
  Italian migrants bound for Australia; and will he make representations to the Australian Government with a view to migrants from this country being given the preference to immigrants from other countries?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Lord Stanley): I understand that 93 Italian passengers, of whom 65 are adults, are travelling by the steamship "Oronsay" to Australia, and that all are full fare-paying passengers. There are no restrictions upon the entry into Australia of full fare-paying passengers from this country other than the usual qualifications as to health, character and means, which are applicable to all migrants. The question of preference therefore does not seem to arise.
  Mr. CADOGAN: In view of the recent speech of the Premier of Australia on the subject of British migration, will the Secretary of State ascertain whether these Italian migrants are going to be in competition with British settlers in Australia?
  Lord STANLEY: I will try to get the information desired, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that many of these southern Europeans who are used to a climate and standard of living different from our own, are prepared to accept work which our own people are not ready to undertake.

  RIVER DERWENT (FLOOD PREVENTION SCHEME).
  Captain DOWERasked the Minister of Agriculture when sanctions are to be granted to the River Derwent Catchment Board to enable them to cleanse the River Derwent and carry out the other work necessary to prevent a repetition of the flooding of the River Derwent at Cockermouth?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): On 24th May a grant under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, of 60 per cent. of the charges on a loan of £15,800, or the actual approved net cost of the scheme, whichever is the less, was approved in respect of a scheme proposed to be carried out by the Derwent Catchment Board for the
  1840
  purpose of flood prevention on the Derwent. The authority of my Department is not required for the actual carrying out of the works referred to.
  Captain DOWER: May I take it from my right hon. Friend that there is nothing holding up these schemes so far as the Ministry is concerned?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I think that that is correct. There is a further arrangement to be made with regard to borrowing, but we have the sanction for that ready, and it will be issued almost immediately.
  Captain DOWER: May I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that the matter is of extreme urgency because now is the time, when the river is at a low level, for the work to be carried out?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The only delay was because the board altered their arrangements in regard to borrowing. We fully realise the urgency of doing the work during the dry weather.

  SCOTLAND.

    MARRIAGES, GRETNA.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state the result of his conversations with the representative of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in regard to marriages performed at Gretna; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in this connection?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend much regrets that he has not yet been able to meet the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland, but he hopes to do so during the Recess.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the fact that this is a subject which could most suitably be dealt with by a national Government, will my hon. Friend see that it is dealt with before the end of the present Parliament?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a question which affects civil marriage, and will be take steps before taking any action to consult the authorities who have to deal with civil marriage as well as those connected with the churches?
    Mr. SKELTON: There is no question of taking any action at the moment. It is a question of discussion with the committee which wishes to put its views before my right hon. Friend. Before any action were taken dealing with the law of Scotland in this matter, most careful and full consideration would have to take place.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that there are 80 questions on the Paper.

    HOUSING, IRVINE.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Department of Health refused permission to the Irvine Town Council to proceed with a scheme of 112 houses to relieve overcrowding at a feu duty of 1s. 1½d. per pole as being too high; and whether he is aware that the burgh of Irvine feus land for building to private enterprise builders at 1s. 6d. per pole?
    Mr. SKELTON: The Department of Health have refused to approve a proposal by the Irvine Town Council to feu 10 acres of land at Springbank Farm for a housing site at the rate of £10 per acre as they are advised that this rate is excessive and that a fair rate of feu duty for the area is £3 5s. 6d. per acre. Representations made by the town council to the Department in support of their proposal are now being considered by the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue who act as the Department's advisers in these matters. I am aware that the town council have feued land for building to private enterprise builders at 1s. 6d. per pole but I understand that the feus in question were in small lots and situated in a better area.
    Mr. LEONARD: In view of the fact that the Department has refused to meet the officials of the town council, will the hon. Gentleman go into this matter again with special reference to the fact that the town desires to meet the possibility of industry further leaving the district, and, in order to cope with this possibility, wants to build on the sea side of the river so as to foster the district as a seaside resort as an offset against any industrial loss?
    Mr. SKELTON: The matter is before me, and I will take all relevant facts into consideration.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the hon. Gentleman see representatives of the town council?
    Mr. SKELTON: I will take all the action that will be necessary.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in England and Wales on the live register of the Employment Exchanges who are in receipt of public assistance and also the number of persons dependent upon them; and whether the total is increasing or decreasing?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The number of persons in receipt of out-relief in England and Wales registered at Employment Exchanges is decreasing. The average number in June of this year was 114,274; in May, 121,358; in April, 123,511; and in January, 152,758. The number of dependants was respectively 204,914; 217,673; 222,034; and 301,879.
  Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures indicate that the rates of benefit have been reduced to a point where many thousands of recipients are still destitute?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    STATISTICS (LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE).
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines being worked in Lancashire and Cheshire on 31st March, 1931, and 31st March, 1935, respectively, and the numbers employed at the said mines?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. At 31st March, 1931, the number of pits in Lancashire and Cheshire producing coal was 205, and the number of wage-earners on colliery books was 71,800. The corresponding figures for 31st March, 1935, were 178 and 60,800.
    Mr. MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines the total wages paid in the mining industry in Lancashire and Cheshire in the quarter ended 31st March, 1931, and in the quarter ended 31st March, 1935, respectively?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: During the quarters ended 31st March, 1931, and 1935, the estimated total amount paid in wages in the coal mining industry in Lancashire and Cheshire was £2,072,000 and £1,800,000, respectively.
    Mr. MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines the total output of coal in Lancashire and Cheshire in the quarter ended 31st March, 1931, and in the quarter ended 31st March, 1935, respectively?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The output of saleable coal in Lancashire and Cheshire during the quarters ended 31st March, 1931 and 1935, was 3,944,000 tons and 3,797,000 tons, respectively.

    FUEL OIL (HYDROGENATION PROCESS).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Secretary for Mines the cost of production and the estimated selling price in bulk of fuel oil obtained by the hydrogenation process; and the bulk selling price of fuel oil for bunkering obtained from natural crude oil?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In the present stage of development of the hydrogenation process it is not practicable to make the comparison the hon. Member desires.

  MANCHESTER REMAND HOME.
  Mr. CHORLTONasked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take as a result of the communication he has received from the chairman of the juvenile court panel in Manchester with respect to the remand home and the long period that some cases have been detained there?
  Captain WALLACE: On receipt of the chairman's letter, my right hon. Friend consulted the Manchester Education Committee, who are responsible for the remand home, and he was assured that the provision of further facilities is receiving their immediate consideration.

  PRISONS (CINEMATOGRAPH EXHIBITIONS).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary what was the nature of the reply made by His Majesty's Prison Commissioners to requests during the past 12 months to permit cinematograph films
  1844
  to be shown in prisons; whether it is against prison regulations to allow films to be shown in prisons; and, if so, whether he will hold an inquiry into the possible advantage of showing selected films of educational and reformative value in prisons?
  Captain WALLACE: Three offers have been made in the period in question: one film was accepted for exhibition at a Borstal institution and one at a prison: the third offer was declined. It is not the usual practice to allow cinematograph exhibitions in prisons, but the Prison Commissioners do not exclude the possibility of using cinematograph films in connection with education schemes in Borstal institutions, or for selected classes of prisoners. There appears to be no case for a general inquiry on this subject.
  Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many shows have actually been given in the last 12 months?
  Captain WALLACE: I have told the hon. Gentleman that there were two. Three were offered, two were accepted and one was refused.

  IMPORT DUTIES (CONDENSED MILK).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to say whether the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an application for an increase in the tariff on foreign condensed milk will be available for Parliamentary approval, if necessary, before the House rises for the summer recess?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 11th July.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman see that no Order of this kind, which is likely to interfere with the price of milk will be issued when the House is not sitting, but will be held over until the House is in a position to confirm or reject it?
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Cannot we have an answer to that question, which

  1845
  is one of very great importance. Possibly an Order, which may raise the price of milk to the poorer classes may be settled in the absence of the House of Commons.
  Mr. COOPER: I can give no undertaking with regard to that.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the price of milk already rising?

  CIVIL SERVICE (STATISTICS).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the respective numbers of men and women civil servants employed in the administrative class, the executive class, and the clerical class during the last financial year; and the aggregate number of days of absence for sickness of men and women, respectively, in each class during that year?
  Mr. COOPER: As regards the numbers of men and women in the three classes mentioned, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement given in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) on the 8th April, 1935. Figures for a date later than 1st April, 1934, are not yet available. As regards the second part of the question, sick leave statistics are collected only from the larger Departments and the returns do not show the various grades separately.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Gentleman any information at all as to the difference in the case of men and women?
  Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the representations made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, the Government have decided not to take the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill before the Summer Recess. The Bill will, however, be taken immediately the House reassembles after the Summer Recess, and passed into law as soon as possible.
The business to be taken on Friday will now be as follows: Housing Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments; Motions to approve the Amendments of the Bacon Marketing Scheme and the Development Scheme; Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; Committee stage of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, & c.), Money Resolution. Further progress will be made with the Assurance Companies (Winding Up) Bill [Lords], and, if there is time, further Orders may be taken.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
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).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 44.

Division No. 286.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

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

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

Cook, Thomas A.

Albery, Irving James

Browne, Captain A. C.

Cooke, Douglas

Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cooper, A. Duff

Asthury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Burnett, John George

Copeland, Ida

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Crooke, J. Smedley

Balniel, Lord

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Cross, R. H.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Crossley, A. C.

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

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

Curry, A. C.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Bernays, Robert

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Dickie, John P.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Blindell, James

Christie, James Archibald

Doran, Edward

Boulton, W. W.

Clarry, Reginald George

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Clayton, Sir Christopher

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

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Eales, John Frederick

Broadbent, Colonel John

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Edmondson, Major Sir James

Brockiebank, C. E. R.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Elmley, Viscount

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Rickards, George William

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

Robinson, John Roland

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)

Ross, Ronald D.

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Rothschild, James A. de

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

McKeag, William

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gledhill, Gilbert

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Glossop, C. W. H.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Gower, Sir Robert

Magnay, Thomas

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Savery, Servington

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

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

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

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

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Martin, Thomas B.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Harbord, Arthur

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Harris, Sir Percy

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Soper, Richard

Hartington, Marquess of

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sotheron Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Milne, Charles

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

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

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Stones, James

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Storey, Samuel

Horsbrugh, Florence

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

Strauss, Edward A.

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

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

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Morrison, William Shepherd

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Moss, Captain H. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Sutcliffe, Harold

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Tate, Mavis Constance

Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

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

Templeton, William P.

Janner, Barnett

Norie-Miller, Francis

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

North, Edward T.

Thomson, Sir Douglas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Nunn, William

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

Patrick, Colin M.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Peake, Osbert

Watt, Major George Steven H.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pearson, William G.

White, Henry Graham

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Law, Sir Alfred

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Wise, Alfred R.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Pybus, Sir John

Womersley, Sir Walter

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Radford, E. A.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Levy, Thomas

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Lewis, Oswald

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

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Llewellin, Major John J.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colone

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Rea, Sir Walter

Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Mainwaring, William Henry

Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Banfield, John William

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Paling, Wilfred

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

Healy, Cahir

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cape, Thomas

John, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cleary, J. J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kirkwood, David

West, F. R.

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Stephen Owen

Leonard, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Dobbie, William

Logan, David Gilbert

Wilmot, John

Edwards, Sir Charles

Lunn, William

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gibbins, J.

McEntee, Valentine L.

Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

BILLS REPORTED.

  HOYLAKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL. [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Ipswich Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Confirmation Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cuddington Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Surrey Water) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Harpenden Water) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Monks and Princes Risborough Water) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rainham Water) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Oxfordshire Water) Bill, without Amendment.
Government of India Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords],
Severn Navigation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY.

    COLONIAL OFFICE.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £105,719, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[NOTE: £52,000 has been voted on account.]

    COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £478,401, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid."—[NOTE: £240,000 has been voted on account.]

    MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £137,124, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[NOTE: £68,000 has been voted on account.]
    3.58 p.m.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): It is a very agitating thing for a Minister to present the Estimates of his Department to the House for the first time, and if I should, in the later stages of my speech, exhibit signs of exhaustion of breath, perhaps I may apologise in advance. I have looked to see what my right hon. Friends and
    1858
    revered seniors, who opened their Estimates last week, had to say in their introductory remarks. The Minister of Health gave a review of 25 years of his Department, in and out of which he has been going ever since it started. The Home Secretary told of the advance which had taken place since first he took up that office 20 years ago. The President of the Board of Trade gave us a very admirable and encouraging review of the trade of the country over the last 12 months. If I limited myself to the five weeks exactly to a day in which I have occupied this office, my speech would be brief, and I do not think it would be interesting. It falls to me, therefore, to review a great deal of the work of my predecessor. I think we should all like to pay a tribute to the way in which he grappled with the questions of the Department. He has earned the gratitude of the mining industry as a whole for the work he put in there.
    I do not propose to go too far back, because in this industry there are too many bygones that had better be bygones. There is also the point that it is difficult for me after so short a time, to see the wood for the trees. I admit that I have come across a great many snares, traps and pitfalls in the undergrowth already, but there are some clear-cut avenues through which on this hot afternoon we might take a walk, to inspect some of the trees. I may start by reminding the Committee of my statutory functions. The Act of 1920 established the Department
    "for the purpose of securing the most effective development and utilisation of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom, and the safety and welfare of those engaged in the mining industry,"
    and, at the same time, it should
    "undertake the collection, preparation and publication of information and statistics relating to the mining industry."
    That is what is laid down in the Act. Taking the last part first, I would like to point out what that work involves. There are 45 officers in my Department who spend their whole time in collecting and collating statistics both of the mining and quarrying industries in this country, and about similar industries in other parts of the world, work which has been particularly heavy in view of the negotiations for trade agreements. As a matter of fact, this House makes considerable claim on their time, because in 12 months no fewer

    1859
    than 130 very complicated statistical questions have been asked by hon. Members. I may say that we are only too glad to have the opportunity of answering questions of that kind.
    I leave that subject, and turn to health and safety. With regard to health, I should like to start by removing a misapprehension under which the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) is labouring. Speaking last week on the Home Office Vote he said:
    "I find that there is no co-operation or co-ordination between the two Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1935; col. 1004, Vol. 304.]
    That is, the Home Office and the Mines Department. I do not know if the hon. Member ever dabbles in trying to find the Derby winner. If he does not find it, it does not follow that it was not among the starters. If he wants examples of co-operation, I will give him two instances. First of all, the two Departments are trying to co-operate to get the best dust respirator which, of course, affects factories as well as mines; and secondly to ascertain the efficiency of a method of laying dust after shot firing which, again, concerns both Departments. If I may use the words of the King's Speech, "My relations with other Government Departments continue to be friendly." The fact that a number of the officers of the Mines Department dealing with health and safety questions came from the Home Office makes it very easy and congenial for them to keep in touch with their old colleagues. In this connection I have had to consider a number of problems.
    Take, for example, silicosis, which, I suppose, is one of the most important of industrial diseases to-day. The Medical Research Council, under my right hon. Friend the Lord President, has a research committee which deals with causation and diagnosis. The Home Office comes in to deal with compensation problems and we come in with regard to prevention. If I may be allowed to make one personal reference on that point, it will be to say with what great satisfaction the right hon. Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), the late Home Secretary, and I were concerned in being able to extend, last October, the statutory scheme of compensation for silicosis to all mineworkers underground, and, a fact which may not be quite so well known, to extend it in
    1860
    March to cover all underground workers in the haematite ore mines. It may interest the hon. Member for Rhondda, West if I say that when I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, received a deputation on that subject, I remember quite well the officials of the Mines Department were then present to assist me.
    Coming to the prevention side, I will only say there is to-day one official of ours who spends his whole time on the problem, and we all know it is a very difficult and exacting one. It is a very baffling problem, particularly in South Wales, where it appears to be on the increase although there is no history of abnormal exposure to silica dust which, in the past, is supposed to have been the chief cause of its incidence. It requires a good deal of consideration, but, on the silicosis side, the Committee can rest assured that everything in the way of co-operation between the Departments concerned in the problem is really being done.
    Mr. JOHN: The complaint I made with reference to the lack of co-ordination between the two Departments was as to its effect, which applies now to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. My complaint was that where the medical board have certified that a man is suffering from silicosis, compensation is not paid until a great deal of time has elapsed for the Department to make an investigation as to how the man has contracted the disease. My point was that once a man had contracted the disease, and it was certified by the medical board, it was wrong for the man to have to wait for compensation until the Home Office or the Mines Department had made inquiries as to how he had contracted the disease.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not want to run away from the point. I merely say that the actual compensation part is no longer my business; it is a Home Office matter. But, so far as research is concerned, there is an inquiry by the committee of the Privy Council on which both Departments are represented.
    With regard to the other principal industrial disease, nystagmus, it is a great relief to all of us to find the drop every year in the number of new cases. Between 1929 and 1933 the drop was no

    1861
    less than 40 per cent. I know perfectly well that there were fewer men employed, but not 40 per cent. fewer. The decrease in the average number of men employed underground was 19 per cent., and the drop in the number of cases, as I said, was 40 per cent. I do not say that is exactly the percentage, because there is a difference in time worked. But, even taking that into account, there is a big drop, and it is very satisfactory. That disease has been considered to be due largely to bad lighting and that brings me to the lighting regulations issued last year. First of all the workers at the coal face must have lamps with a certain minimum standard of lighting performance. Those new lamps were started in use on 1st September last, and a complete change-over has to take place by the end of 1936. That is so that it may be done in an orderly way. I think it is as well to say here and now that any delay in taking steps to make the change would not be accepted as an excuse after the statutory period has elapsed at the end of 1936.
    Secondly, from last July the area in which mains lighting is permissible was extended, subject to certain safety precautions. Here I must express my disappointment that so little has been done. I am told that there are only 20 of the new areas so lit, and actually in three of the divisional inspectorate areas nothing has been done at all. I propose to pay considerable attention to that. The third regulation was with regard to white-washing. That has been very rapidly dealt with, and there has been very great improvement there. That of course will help to solve the nystagmus problem from the point of view of lighting, and also from the point of view of accidents, because it stands to reason that the better lit face must obviate the possibility of some accidents. Hon. Members may take it from their own experience. Coming home late at night they are less likely to bark their shins in a well lighted hall than if they have to strike a series of matches to take them to bed. Better lighting is of assistance, and I am glad that that part of the problem has been improved under the new regulations.
    Lighting in that connection takes me to safety, the connecting link, of course, being the inspectorate. We have 111
    1862
    inspectors and 101 deal with mines under the Coal Mines Act. Last year there were 2,123 mines at work, and I believe the Committee would like to know the number of inspections. I do not want to give too many figures, but I know that these are generally interesting. The number of inspections underground was 17,566, and on the surface 5,601, while 1,301 mines, or over 60 per cent. of the total, were inspected throughout. I know that includes a number of small mines which are probably inspected throughout, when any inspection is made at all. Still, it is a pretty satisfactory figure. Of course, I had better say that the development of machine mining has meant that work has gone on when coal was not being drawn—a question in which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is interested. In three months ending 22nd June there were 189 underground inspections in the afternoon and 379 at night, representing 14 per cent. of the total number of underground inspections during that period. So much for inspection.
    With regard to accidents, the past year has been marred of course by the terrible disaster at Gresford. This House has already expressed its sympathy with the bereaved at the time of the occurrence, and the nation as a whole has shown its sympathy by the amazing response which was made to the appeal for funds. Of course, the 265 casualties at that disaster has swollen the total of fatal accidents very much. The total for the year was 1,073, but if we exclude the Gresford disaster it was 808. The three-day accidents were 132,859. For the first six months of this year preliminary figures show that there were 399 fatal accidents, a reduction of five compared with the same period last year. That represents a rate of 3.6 per million tons of output, the basis of comparison which is used from year to year, and it is the lowest rate that we have had. One thing at which, coming new to this job, I have been shocked as much as at anything on reading the reports of the inspectors—I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say this—is that so many of these accidents might have been avoided. Take scratches. A scratch might happen to any one of us. I might scratch my finger here on this Box and pay no attention to it, but, if septicaemia sets in, it may result in the loss of a limb, or even in death. We all

    1863
    know personally of cases of that kind which have nothing to do with the mining industry at all, but they do occur in that industry.
    There is another group of accidents, where you have a momentary lack of concentration, or where, perhaps, one has done the job so often, however dangerous it may be, that one forgets that it is dangerous and something happens. I am not blaming anyone; I desire to make that quite clear; and I am not minimising the accidents which arise from the faults of other people; but I am saying that in all grades of accidents one sees perhaps, on looking back, that some might have been avoided if more care had been taken. I put it no higher than that. Any of my hon. and gallant Friends in this House will bear me out, from their own experience in the War, that time after time, when one was going down a trench, there would be a notice telling one to get on ones hands and knees, because it was dangerous; but a number of people would think that their name was not on the particular bullet that was coming, and that they might as well take the chance, because, if they did go on their hands and knees, they knew that, since there was a foot of water in the trench, they would certainly be uncomfortable for a long time. This is something against which I hope it may be possible to guard. I do not minimise other causes, but that is one group.
    I now come back to the figure of 808 fatal accidents in mines, excluding Gresford, and 132,859 non-fatal accidents. In July of last year I spoke in this House about accidents from the point of view of the Home Office. The figures given in this year's report of the Chief Inspector of Factories—the figures for industrial accidents in factories and workshops—approximate in a very remarkable way to the figures of mining accidents. Last year the fatal industrial accidents were 785, which I compare with 808 for the mining industry; and the non-fatal accidents were 136,073, which I compare with just on 133,000 in the mines. I make that comparison for one purpose only, and that is to point out that the number of hands with whom the Chief Inspector of Factories is dealing in his report is just over 5,000,000, whereas the number of miners with whom our figures deal is somewhere in the region of 780,000 only.
    1864
    Does it not bring home to the Committee and to the country in a very vivid way the risks and dangers of the mining industry when we see that its accidents, both fatal and non-fatal are, comparatively, something like six times the number occurring in industrial life in factories and workshops? What can be done? Suppose that we start with propaganda. The Chief Inspector of Factories deals this year in his report with the enormous number of accidents that occur in factories to young persons coming into industry, and he says:
    "The adult worker has become accustomed to his environment, and has—or ought to have—acquired habits of caution. The young entrant finds factory life an entirely new experience, and possesses, in addition, certain qualities of youth, such as bravado and curiosity, which render him essentially susceptible to accidents."
    He is talking about factories, but there is a great deal in what he says that applies to the mining industry. He goes on:
    "It seems to me, therefore, that it is encumbent on us to give him an apprenticeship in safety just as in his productive work, and to see that he is not only warned, but forewarned, of the dangers inherent in all industrial life."
    The Factory Inspector goes on to suggest that the young entrant into industry might be shown the principal risks to be guarded against, that he might be supplied with copies of the safety rules, that a watch should be kept on him during his first year, and that steps should be taken to see that those who meet with many accidents are put on some other job. In the autumn of 1931, propaganda was started with regard to boys, and this is a matter to which my predecessor gave a great deal of publicity by making speeches up and down the country in conjunction with employers and representatives of the workers. That has spread tremendously. Last year there were no fewer than 261 centres, at which there attended 10,647 boys. Awards are made and certificates given to those who are most successful, and 5,500 of these boys received awards. That is preventive work which is really admirable, and I hope that everyone concerned will co-operate with us in seeing that it is continued. There is one black spot. I find that, in regard to South Wales, which has been particularly slow to get this work started, the Inspector's report for the Swansea district states that last October 11 centres were started,

    1865
    at five of which only 107 boys were enrolled, while at six the attendance was so small that the classes had to be discontinued. I appeal to hon. Members for Welsh constituencies, and also to employers of labour in South Wales, to assist me to see whether that cannot be improved upon.
    From propaganda I turn to the question of avoidance of accidents. With regard to safety equipment, most of the time of one Divisional inspector and all the time of one Junior inspector is now devoted to work on that side. Then, there are the recent regulations which require that in every safety-lamp mine the management must provide sufficient fire-damp detectors of approved type. I want, however, to give a word of warning in this regard—that the provision of these detectors is not to be a substitute for the statutory examinations. It was not easy, as hon. Members who have followed this matter will know, to agree on the number of detectors which ought to be laid down in the regulations, but it was decided that some elasticity would be required. It was decided that the number should be one safety lamp or other approved detector for every eight men in long-wall workings, and one for every four men in other types of working. These regulations are to be tried for an experimental period of two years, and then it is intended to set up a committee to review their working. It is not, of course, the intention to constitute the committee now, but only when it will have become possible to see and report on the effect of these approved gas detectors, which will comprise, firstly, any approved type of flame safety lamp not fitted with internal relighters, and, secondly, approved automatic detectors such as the Ringrose. I repeat that these must not be regarded as substitutes for the statutory examination. If I may sum up this part of my statutory duties with regard to health and safety, I would say that research is being continued and inspection is being kept at the highest possible mark.
    I turn now to my other function, of securing the most effective development and utilisation of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom, and this brings me to say a few words about the trade position. In 1933, the output of saleable coal was just over 207,000,000 tons.
    1866
    Last year that figure rose by 13,600,000 tons, an increase which so far as can be traced was almost entirely due to an increased demand in the home market. When I hear questions asked as to what has been the effect of the tariff policy on the coal-mining industry, and when I note that many people are prepared to say that it has had no effect at all, I would remind the Committee that it is precisely the increase of employment in protected industries that has caused this increased demand for coal, and not least in the iron and steel industry. I find that the increased demand in that industry was something like 4,000,000 tons last year. The iron and steel industry has certainly improved its production as a result of the tariff, and that, at any rate, is one form in which assistance to the mining industry has come from our protectionist policy. Of course, there have been great economies in the methods of using fuel in the iron and steel industry. I have seen some figures quoted in the Press which put the quantity of coal required for the increased production of iron and steel at far too high a figure. Much less coke is required for the production of pig iron than was the case 10 years ago, owing to improved technique, and the quantity of pig iron required for the production of one ton of steel has been halved. I estimate to-day that, unfortunately, only 1¾ ton of coal is required to make a ton of steel.
    Mr. T. SMITH: It used to be 4 tons.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I know, and probably the figures I have seen were based on that estimate, but this is the estimate as closely as I can give it at present. That does not alter the fact that the improvement in home industry has led to an increased demand for coal. The reasons for the falling away in demand are well known. Among them are the increased use of petroleum products, both for industrial and for marine purposes, and the very large economies which have been made by big consumers of coal, like power stations, gas works, and iron and steel works; but for all that the output figures are interesting, and I am happy to say that this year's output to date is better than that of last year.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has dealt with the effect

    1867
    of tariffs as regards the home market; will he tell us about the loss in the export market?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I shall have something to say presently about the success of the trade agreements in obtaining what export trade there was to have, but I think that perhaps I had better make my points as I go along. As regards the improvement in output this year, the total production up to the 13th July was 122,597,900 tons. That is an increase, as compared with the corresponding period of last year, of 322,900 tons, which I think is very gratifying. Last year showed an increase of 13,600,000 tons over the previous year, and that increase is not only being kept up, but is being slightly enlarged, again owing to an increase in the home demand. This increase has been shared by all districts, but, of course, has not been shared by all in equal proportions. Northumberland and Durham show the highest percentage improvement, namely, 10.9 and 10.8 per cent. respectively; while South Wales had the lowest increase, namely, 2.4 per cent.
    In the export trade last year, cargo shipments amounted to 39,600,000 tons—an increase of about 500,000 tons compared with the previous year. That is in exports of coal. If you work back into coal the total of the coal equivalent of coke and manufactured fuel, the total shipments, including foreign bunkers represent, in coal, 57,000,000 tons, which, as I indicated, is about 500,000 tons better than the previous year. As regards foreign markets, I think it is well to remember that we are dealing with three groups of countries—first, the group with which we have made or are negotiating trade agreements; secondly, the group of countries which have import quotas which are imposed by the Governments of those countries, and over which, therefore, we have no control, because it is for them to settle the quotas and they select whatever year is taken as the basis; and, thirdly, there is the small group of markets where there is free and unrestricted competition. The result of our negotiations is shown in this, that, if we deal with the export of coal and translate coke and manufactured fuels into their coal equivalents, in 1931 33.7 per
    1868
    cent. of our exports went to the countries with whom we now have agreements but did not have then, and last year that percentage had gone up to 43 and in tonnage by 3,000,000, whereas in the quota countries over which we have not got control, the drop was from 45 per cent. to 36 per cent. or, in tons, from 21,000,000 to 15,000,000. That is the answer to the question: What has been the value of trade agreements as a whole? They have not only held the markets in countries with which we have made agreements but they have allowed us to increase our exports to them.
    The proceeds of coal commercially sold last year was 2d, less than in the previous year—13s. 4½d.—but, owing to the fall in the cost of production, the credit balance was 5d. On the employment side coal was won on 241 days on the average, the greatest number since 1930 and not far short of the number of days in that year. The number of wage earners on colliery books at the end of the year was down by 11,000, and during the first six months of this year the average has been 767,000 as compared with 783,400 in the corresponding period of last year—a drop again. Some consolation is to be found in the average cash earnings per worker in the year. The average per shift was 9s. 1¾d. and the total average cash earnings for the year was £115 11s. 6d., which was an increase of £5 on the year before, £6 on 1932, £4 on 1931 and about 30s. on 1930. If we are going to consider this sort of figure, I think it is only fair to mention the cost of living, which dropped between 1930 and 1934 from 58 per cent. to 41 per cent. There was an increase in cash earnings per annum of 1½ per cent. over 1930, and though there was a similar decrease per cent. in the average earnings per shift, there was a great drop in the average cost of living.
    I have collected figures to show what has happened in competing countries with regard to that. Whereas we are within 1½ per cent. of the figures for 1930, in France the drop in earnings per shift is nearly 12 per cent., in Poland 20 per cent., in the Ruhr 20.5 per cent. and in Belgium 29.4 per cent. We can all draw our own conclusions with regard to that, but, at any rate, the miners' position here has been held in a way that it has not been in other countries. The only other point about foreign trade on which

    1869
    I want to say anything is that following up the Resolution of the World Economic Conference of 1933, where it was suggested that production should be organised on an international basis, some development has occurred in that coal-owners in this country have had discussions, and have reached an agreement, with their opposite numbers in Poland, and there are hopes that that development may be extended. Certainly the agreement has been received with great interest in a great deal of the foreign press.
    Employment and earnings bring me to the question of overtime. By a great effort on the part of the Stationery Office we were able to let hon. Members have last night the report of the Scottish inquiry on overtime. I am most distressed at what I read in that report, and I intend to take the earliest opportunity of consulting both sides of the industry to see what it is possible to do about it. Of course, I recognise, as hon. Members opposite do, that there has to be a certain amount of elasticity, but that does not mean that it must be stretched from here to Lambeth Bridge. The report dealt with six weeks in October and November, and it said that certain managers had been warned by those who made the report that there must be an alteration. As soon as I got it I asked that inspection should be made again in the worst pits, and the information that I have now received is that there has already been, in the worst pits to which reference is made, a 50 per cent. improvement. That is something. It also mentions the keeping of registers. That is a matter in which the present state of affairs as reported there is not to continue.
    I pass from that to the utilisation and development of mineral resources. Here I must say a word about Part I of the Act of 1930, because we have seen some changes during the last year. First of all, there were amendments made by the industry itself, the effect of which was to have not only output allocations but inland and export supply allocations in order to have greater elasticity. There were some difficulties with regard to the allocations to coastwise districts, but they were settled by going to arbitration. There has been some difficulty with regard to coal exports from the Humber which has been brought to my notice.
    1870
    I only propose now to say that on Monday the quota committee of the Midlands scheme met and increased the quota for July from 55 to 60 per cent., an increase of 51,000 tons, which is, as far as one knows, equal to, and very likely more than, what is likely to be required. I understand that the committee is to meet again next Monday to settle the August quota.
    The other point on the Act is the co-ordination of minimum prices, a matter which, I am sure, everyone hopes will be pursued with the utmost energy. There have been changes to this effect that, if a complaint is made by an executive board about another executive board having done something or not done something, the Central Council can give directions non-compliance with which will entail penalties. As a matter of fact, there have not been any complaints yet, but that is one of the amendments that was made. A joint committee of the executive boards of Lancashire and Cheshire, North Staffordshire and North Wales, have gone ahead on this co-ordinating question. They have agreed on a delivered price at 100 railway stations for household coal. The same districts are now discussing the co-ordination of minimum prices for industrial and gas coal. Another group of districts is at present discussing minimum f.o.b. prices for export coal and bunkers, so that there is something doing, and it is important that it should be pursued energetically. The third, and perhaps the most important, point with regard to the Act is the Lancashire selling scheme which was passed without any Debate in this House. The effect of it is that the whole of the coal of that district is in future to be sold co-operatively and, with the reduction of expenses that that will involve, one hopes to see an improvement in the proceeds.
    From the 1930 Act I pass to fuel treatment. This Government, of course, has done a great deal to foster that. There are two ways in which you can help it. Either you can make oil, especially foreign oil, less attractive by a duty or a tax, or you can increase the oil prodcts from coal here. There is a penny per gallon on imported heavy oils, there was the recent increase to 8d. per gallon on oil used for road transport purposes with a preference to home-produced oil, and there is the fact that, so far as this Parliament

    1871
    can do it, there is a 10 years' guaranteed preference for motor spirit, which has enabled, notably, Imperial Chemical Industries to go ahead with large-scale plans. The President of the Board of Trade told us something the other night about Billingham. It is now working, and, at full capacity, can produce 45,000,000 gallons of motor spirit a year, which is 3¾ per cent. of our total consumption, and it represents work for 1,900 miners as well as 1,000 men employed on the plant.
    Mr. McKEAG: How many tons of coal?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot say offhand, but the point is that it is the equivalent of the work of 1,900 miners. Of course, there are other sources of supply. There are shale oil, coke oven, gas works and low-temperature carbonisation plants. They are now producing at the rate of 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 gallons a year, so that by the beginning of August I estimate that we shall be getting 60,000,000 gallons of motor spirit, and, when we have had a whole year of production at Billingham, that figure may be raised, even if no other plants are started, another 50 per cent. I think that is a matter on which the Government can be congratulated for having made it possible for the industry to go ahead. It is interesting to some Members who are connected with the Air Force to know that at present nine Royal Air Force stations and one flying school are using a mixed fuel, a large ingredient of which is this British petrol distilled from British coal. In 1933 there was only one squadron. That gives a measure of the increase.
    Pulverised coal is also in greater use. There was a 12 per cent. increase compared with 1933. In coal cleaned the quantity was 87,500,000 tons, an increase of 10,000,000 tons. That represents a very high percentage of the coal which is suitable for cleaning. This shows that, although some people are very quick in criticising the leadership of the mining industry, the industry is fully alive to the importance of improving the mineral that it sells.
    I said at the beginning that it was difficult to see the wood for the trees. I have taken the Committee down one or two well-worn paths. There is just one thing about which I want to say something
    1872
    because none of us knows whether it is going to be a path or not, and that is petroleum, which has been laid upon the Mines Department as the result of last year's Act. It may become a very busy Department in future. Under that Act regulations had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but in neither House was a word said about them. That is one of the greatest tributes that could possibly be paid to those who drafted the regulations, because here were officials having to produce a code of licensing on a subject of which there is no practical experience at all in this country as far as the Civil Service is concerned. That rather interests me, because in the last 12 months I was concerned at the Home Office in drafting regulations upon a subject very different from this—the regulations for the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks. I only mention it because there again was a topic entirely outside the purview of the officials who had to deal with it, and yet in both cases the regulations were passed and have gained praise from the industries concerned, and have been highly praised in the relevant technical Press. I say that to show what a great debt not only this House but the Committee owes to its Civil Service that it should be possible that this could be done. I would add, in passing, that I do not omit the debt that we all of us owe, and any hon. Member having anything to do with the mining industry must owe, to the staff of the Mines Department, because they are so closely in touch with hon. Members and, as I said earlier on with regard to statistics, are always ready to assist those who want information. I hope that that may long continue.
    I will say this and no more about the petroleum regulations. I have had 43 applications so far, and the way is now clear to deal with them when the necessary investigations and negotiations have been completed, and all the documents are ready. They cover substantial areas of this country—I was surprised how substantial—and when the licences are granted I am required by the regulations to announce in the Gazette both the name of the licensee and the area for which he gets a licence, of which there are two kinds. One is a prospecting licence by which you are allowed to

    1873
    prospect over not less than eight and not more than 200 square miles, first of all for three years, and then it may be extended for two further years. Then you may get a mining licence, in respect of which the area, is to be not less than four and not more than 100 square miles, which is good, in the first instance, for 50 years, and can be renewed for a further 25 years. I think it is encouraging, when one hears so much gloomy talk, that there should be persons who are prepared to sink a great deal of money—it is by no means a cheap proposition to look for oil—in the hope that they may be able to start a new industry in this country. I expect that everybody in this House would wish them well; at any rate, that ought to follow by the way the Bill dealing with this topic was received last year. That is all I want to say about my statutory functions.
    There are many other problems, and I know that in the next five hours I shall probably have more of them brought to my notice than have been brought in the last five weeks. I would like to close by saying this. What about the future? At my initiation into public life I was taught to be cautious, and I do not think that this is the moment to throw caution to the winds after five weeks' experience. The statement which I have submitted to the Committee to-day is merely the background of a painting which the Committee and I have to fill in. It has merely dealt with current affairs. I purposely did not delve too far into the past, and I certainly have not poked my nose too far into the future, and, indeed, in Committee of Supply I am debarred from doing that, because anything involving legislation is quickly ruled out of order. I am left with first principles. I will just put three, and perhaps the Committee will agree with me. First of all this industry is of fundamental importance to the country. We are all agreed about that. We are all agreed that it is a difficult and a dangerous calling; the figures which I have quoted prove that. And I think that we shall probably agree that it is not yet on an economically sound basis. Those are the ingredients of the paint which we have to mix to make the complete picture.
    If I am asked to say something about the future, I will give the Committee the analogy not of the mining industry, but
    1874
    of life itself. It is one of the greatest gifts that an all-knowing Providence has bestowed on its creatures that they cannot pierce the veil between to-day and to-morrow. We do not know our future joys or our future sorrows, or the moment of our passing; if we did, life would be intolerable. But if we do not know the milestones along the road we have to travel, we do know what is the luggage that will serve us well on our journey. Whether our journey is in this House, whether it is in the service of the Crown, whether it is business, or industry, or commerce, whether it is in the mines under the ground, or on the land, whether we work with our hands, whether we are employers of labour, surely every person that travels knows that what will stand him in good stead is kindliness, toleration and good will. I am a newcomer to this job, and have to face problems which I have never considered before. I make no denial of it; it is obvious in one's public record. But I do say that just when the industry does not look too bright, and just when, as an occupation, it involves discomfort, hardship and danger, cannot I as a newcomer try to drive home to all sections that they should remind themselves of the value of co-operation between both sides, of trying to settle differences amicably on both sides, of more personal contact on both sides, facing up to one another's difficulties and putting the best construction and not the worst on what the other man does? I am convinced that that is worth trying. I know that it is difficult.
    4.52 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I have known the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines all my Parliamentary life, and I have always had a very good opinion of the way in which he used to put his case, especially when he sat on this side of the House during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The Committee will agree with me this afternoon that he has presented his case admirably. If I disagree with him profoundly on some of the things that he has said, I trust that we shall be able to discuss those differences in the hope that we may be able to secure some agreement later on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to his predecessor, and, in the absence of the right hon.

    1875
    Gentleman I would say that, much as I have disagreed with him on politics generally and on matters in connection with the Mines Department, I have always had this opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Labour—he tried to understand his job, and he certainly has done a little for the benefit of the mining industry.
    The Secretary for Mines went on to say that a good deal had been done with regard to health and safety, and he also mentioned the questions of silicosis and of miner's nystagmus and the lighting regulations which are related to it. May I say to him and to the Committee that those of us who have had experience of underground work appreciate the benefit of increased lighting underground. Those of us who used to spend our time underground with an oil safety lamp which very rarely maintained an illumination of .75 at the end of the shift view with a good deal of encouragement the newer kind of lamp which is now in use at some pits and which gives a greater illumination and makes for more congenial work underground and certainly lessens the danger of nystagmus. From that angle we have nothing about which to complain. We still think that there is room for a good deal of improvement but we appreciate what has been done in that direction.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not be expected to deal thoroughly with the question of safety underground and with the accidents which occurred during 1934. He very skilfully avoided examining the accident rate for 1934 when more than 1,070 people lost their lives. The Gresford disaster, of course, greatly increased the number, but we cannot pass over Gresford as easily as that. I propose to examine the fatal and serious accidents that occurred in the mines of this country during 1934. Last year when the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Labour presented the Estimates he boasted that the fatal accident total of 831 was the lowest in the history of the industry for many years. He forgot that the output was also the lowest for nearly 40 years, and that the time worked was the worst for many years. As against 831 in 1933, there were 1,084, according to the figures I have, or 1,070 odd, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, in 1934. Two main causes were responsible for the bulk of those accidents.
    1876
    Falls of ground were responsible for the killing of 448 people underground last year mainly at the coal face. We on these benches think that we are not making the progress that we ought to make in reducing the accident rate underground, and that, as far as accidents at the coal face go, if there were less speed and less rush at the coal face there is a possibility that that figure might be reduced.
    Hon. Members who have not had experience of the mining industry may be unaware of the practice underground. Mechanisation is increasing with extraordinary rapidity, and the very moment that a pit turns over from hand-got coal to machine-mined and has to readjust prices, you get colliery companies offering 10½d. and 1s. per ton or slightly more, which means that men have to turn out eight and nine tons a shift of seven and a-half hour in order to make something like a reasonable day's wage. The hurry and scurry that takes place on these conveyor faces is responsible for many of the falls of ground at the coal face. I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to pay some attention to the suggestions which will be made from this side of the House. We are not satisfied with the conditions on many conveyor faces. We think that the length of face is often far too great, that there ought to be better means of ingress and egress than is provided in many pits of which we know, and that if there were not so much rush work the accident figures could be reduced.
    I recognise that the Gresford inquiry is incomplete and that one cannot very well go into certain things until the report is received by the Department and by this House, but there are certain things that need saying. We have been told for years in this House by spokesmen of the Government that the loss of life through explosions was only a small proportion compared with the whole. Indeed, the Mines Department went to a good deal of trouble in order to present Members of Parliament with diagrams showing the proportions of various kinds of accidents, in order to emphasise that explosions were responsible for less than 5 per cent. of the total accidents. The Gresford disaster gave the country a shock, and I think it will compel those excellent officials in the Mines Department to revise some of their opinions with regard to

    1877
    explosions. It should also compel the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Mines to revise some of his opinions on explosions. I have a quotation from an article by him in the "Liberal National Review," which appeared a few days before the Gresford explosion. That article contained these statements:
    "Explosions of such magnitude are a thing of the past, now that the practice of stone-dusting the underground roadways of mines to prevent the coal dust propagating an explosion is universal and enforced by law. Enforced by law, law based on the one hand on the discoveries of modern science, on the other hand on the accepted principles of the humanitarian control of industry, that is the key to the progress which for nearly a century now has raised British mining, the corner stone of the industrial greatness of this country, above that of any other country in the world in the matter of safeguarding its workers."
    There has been an opinion held among certain mining people that the day of big explosions has gone by, but Gresford is a reminder that that statement is not true. I cannot very well go into the whole of the evidence given in connection with the Gresford explosion, but the evidence, of which I have a full summary, shows quite clearly that most of the known factors likely to lead to an explosion were present for some time at Gresford before the tragedy occurred. I challenge contradiction on that point. There were long and tortuous airways ranging in the case of 20 and 61 district for a distance of no less than 5,000 yards. In another case the distance was 6,000 yards. Anyone who cares to peruse the map of the ventilating system at Gresford will agree with me that the ventilating system at that pit was far from perfect. When we get the report somebody will have something to say about it. At the Gresford pit there were electrical coal cutters, intensive mining, shot firing, about 200 shots per shift, flame lamps, and the presence of gas, which necessitated in some cases the use of compressed air pipes in order to remove it. Certainly, there were factors present likely to lead to an explosion. Evidence was given by a responsible colliery official that he would be satisfied if 25 per cent. of the air that went down the intake shaft found its way to the workmen at the coal face.
    We have to revise our opinions with regard to explosions, and I should like to deal with one or two things that will
    1878
    have to be taken in hand if we intend to improve the situation. The first defence against explosion is good ventilation. That is admitted by all people who know anything about mining. You want good ventilation in order to prevent the accumulation of fire damp, and to make it reasonable for the men to work. Good ventilation demands good airways, not merely a good intake airway but a good return airway. We know from experience that there are return airways in some pits through which an ordinary man cannot crawl. We think the time has come when the inspectors should pay more attention to the question of ventilation than has been done during the past two or three years. They ought to insist on specific heights and widths of airways, both intake and return. A plentiful supply of good air is necessary in order to prevent an accumulation of gas. Hon. Members must not forget that when Parliament passed the Mines Act of 1911 it laid it down that when there was more than 2½ per cent. of gas in the atmosphere the workmen must be withdrawn. It is known that you cannot get an explosion until you have between five and six per cent. of gas present. We know that the regulation is not kept in all cases.
    In order to have an explosion there must be two factors operating simultaneously, first, an accumulation of gas, and, secondly, means of ignition. If the Committee desire, and if the Secretary for Mines desires during his period of office, to reduce the accident rate we ought to see that the deputies or firemen are engaged exclusively carrying out their statutory duties. The deputies and firemen are the policemen of the pit. They have responsible duties to perform and they ought to be allowed to devote their whole time to carrying out their duties. What happens to-day? The deputy in many instances is not only the official responsible for carrying out the Act but he is almost a traffic manager. He has to devote a good deal of his time to output. I have known deputies who have had to combine their duties of carrying out the regulations of the Act with the task of getting good output and acting as shot firers as well. If I were to discuss the question of the State payment of deputies I should be out of order, because that would involve legislation, but we are entitled to say that the fireman or deputy

    1879
    should be allowed to devote his entire time to carrying out his statutory duties.
    Now I come to the question of the means of ignition. Too much shot firing is taking place in our pits to-day. The Chief Inspector of Mines says:
    "In 1934 there were 48,412,000 shots fired, with 363,216,000 ounces of explosives, in 240 working days."
    Too little attention is paid by some colliery managements to alternative ways of getting the coal down. We think that shot firers should have a definite number of shots to fire each shift. I have the reports of three or four inspectors to justify that statement. The Chief Inspector also said:
    "Conditions vary from mine to mine and from seam to seam in the same mine. On that account it is not possible to lay down the time required by the shot firer to carry out the various provisions of the Explosives in Coal Mines Order prior to firing a shot."
    The divisional inspectors, who know their own districts better than anyone else should co-operate—we have heard something to-day about co-operation—and consult with the colliery management in determining the maximum number of shots that should be fired in the course of any shift by a single shot firer. Shot firing should be done deliberately. The man who has a shot to fire should have sufficient time to examine around the shot and see that everything necessary is done to prevent an accident. We know from experience that shot firers, like deputies, have too much work to do on occasion and have far too many shots to fire, and we ask the Secretary for Mines to apply his mind to this side of the question.
    With regard to the regulations dealing with gas detection, hon. Members on this side have for a number of years been pressing successive Secretaries for Mines to bring in an Order making compulsory the use of gas detectors underground. We are to have a regulation from the 1st October. While I believe that regulation is necessary and will be a step forward, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and many hon. Members on this side of the House are not quite satisfied with the terms of the Order. We believe that there should be some consultation between the workmen and the management as to the type of detector to be used underground. We think that the men who have to risk their lives in the pit
    1880
    ought at least to be consulted by the manager as to the best type of detector to be used in a particular seam. There is something to be said for that. The Miners' Federation believe that the time has come when there should be used underground an automatic detector, not as a substitute but as a supplement. However, they accept the new Regulation on the basis that it is better than the existing position. I would say to workmen, trade unions and colliery managements that for the next two years this Order is to operate. If it is worked fairly I think it will be a good thing and will make for safety. At the end of the two years when the Committee gets down to examine the evidence it may be possible either to improve the regulation or to bring in one that will be better, from an entirely different standpoint.
    The Secretary for Mines referred to the inspectors. I regret, in view of what occurred at Gresford, that there is no mention in the Estimates of an increase in the number of His Majesty's inspectors of mines. He told us that there were 111 inspectors and that a certain number of pits were examined during 1934. I think he said that every pit in the country was inspected at least once during every 12 months. That is not sufficient. With only 111 inspectors and more than 2,000 pits it is obvious that the inspection cannot be as adequate as it should be. What does the divisional inspector for the North Midland division say in his report for 1933?
    "During the year there were 184 mines at work in the division, and at each of these an underground inspection was made, while many of them received frequent inspections; in the course of the year 20 or more underground inspections were made at some of the large mines. Complete inspection, that is, inspection of the whole underground workings and surface arrangements, of 102 mines was made during the year. As I pointed out in my report for 1930, to make a detailed examination of a large mine may occupy an inspector every day for a fortnight."
    I submit that every mine in the country ought to be inspected at least once a quarter not once every 12 months, and I regret that there is no mention in the Estimates of an increase in the number of inspectors. If a further 10 inspectors were appointed at a cost of £5,000 per year and they succeeded in saving the lives of 20 or 30 individuals it would be worth all the money expended. However

    1881
    ever good the inspectors may be they cannot do the impossible. They cannot adequately inspect the mines when you remember that it is the inspector's duty to attend all coroners' inquests and do many other things. I think they do wonderfully good work in the circumstances, but there is a need for an increase in the number. There is one other point from the safety side to which I must refer—the question of stone dusting which has received the attention of the Department and the industry for many years. There is a feeling amongst eminent mining men that the regulation governing stone dusting ought to be revised. Instead of it being on a fifty-fifty basis the 50 per cent. should be the minimum, and in some schemes where the circumstances warrant it there ought to be more stone dusting done than is asked for in the regulation. There is what is termed the caking of stone dust, and on this point the divisional inspector for the Midlands and Southern District says:
    "Though I have not met with any cases of stone dust caking, I should like to call attention again to the fact that certain dusts absorb moisture from the air and form a fairly hard crust. Dust which is caked in this manner is not easily raised into a cloud, and consequently is of little use in preventing the extension of an explosion should one occur. Tests should be made of the dust on ledges in the roads by blowing with the mouth, and if after it has been on the ledges for some weeks it cannot be easily raised by a sharp puff of the breath, it should be regarded as unsuitable for its purpose."
    I am pointing out that it is no use having stone dusting unless you use stone dust which is going to be effective. If you get certain underground conditions which causes that stone dust to cake you will have stone dust which is almost ineffective for the purpose for which it was placed there. I hope the Secretary for Mines will give some attention to this matter and that the Department will look over the regulation and if it needs improvement that they will not hesitate to amend it. We have heard many statements from the hon. and gallant Member about the position in the industry. He mentioned that for the six months and two weeks of this year there has been a slight increase in production. In answer to a question of mine a few days ago he said that for the six months ending 30th June the output for the year had been 111,116,000 tons. If he looks at the
    1882
    figures for 1934 he will find that it shows a reduction of nearly 850,000 tons. While there has been an increase of 17,000,000 tons over 1933 we have to remember the tragic situation in the coalfields. The Minister for Labour said yesterday that Ministers come and go but facts remain the same. They do, and, unfortunately, they are tragic from the point of view of the mine worker.
    Let me give one or two figures. In 1924, that is 10 years ago, there were 1,248,224 wage-earners in the industry. In June, 1935, there were 757,100, or 491,124 fewer than in 1924, and 186,342 fewer than five years ago. That is a tragic situation. We heard a, good deal about the special areas yesterday, but this situation is tragic in every coalfield in the three countries, and will have to be faced and dealt with on lines which the Government have not yet touched. Look at it from the point of view of wages. There has been a decrease in the cost of living since 1920, but there has also been a big decrease in wages. Miners' wages to-day, on the average, are 28 per cent. more than they were in 1913, but the cost of living is more than 40 per cent. more.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is that rates or total annual earnings?
    Mr. SMITH: If the hon. Member takes the rates and the annual earnings he will find my statement to be correct.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Is it a 28 per cent. increase in each case?
    Mr. SMITH: I am talking about the average, and I have the figures here and can show the hon. Member how I arrive at that figure. In 1920 the total wages paid in the mining industry was over £265,000,000. In 1930, 10 years later, they had fallen to £104,781,000, and in 1934 to £87,997,000. If you take the average wage in 1920 it was £4 6s. 11d. per week. In 1930 it had fallen to £2 3s. 10d., and in 1934, although there was an increased output of thirteen million tons as compared with 1933, the average wage was £2 4s. 5d. per week. On the other side, the individual output per man per shift has increased since 1920 from 55 to 60 per cent., while his average wage has fallen between 50 and 55 per cent. These are gross wages, and it must be remembered that stoppages have to be taken into account. On the

    1883
    average between 5 and 10 per cent. must be deducted from these wages for certain stoppages at the pit. I have the pay ticket of a man who last Saturday drew 38s. on his pay sheet, out of which he had to pay 3s. 4d. for stoppages at the pit, leaving him £1 14s. 8d. to take home. These are the kind of stoppages they have to pay: checkweigh and pick sharpening, 1s. 3d., national health insurance 9d., unemployment insurance 10d., hospital 3d., welfare 2d., and nursing association 1d. Therefore, the average wage which is shown in the statistics must be reduced by 5 to 10 per cent. if you are to arrive at the figure which the man actually takes home.
    But there is another side to this question. There are tens of thousands of men in the coalfields who are going home with less than 35s. per week. The position of the day worker in every coalfield is a scandal. The position of the piece-worker is bad enough, but that of the day worker is even worse. They work four and five days per week. They are necessary to mines because you cannot have men winning coal unless you have men doing the repair work. These men are working for less than 8s. per day, despite the fact that there is a subsistence wage in operation. The wages in the mining industry to-day are an absolute scandal and should be remedied. The Miners' Federation Conference at Rhyl last week passed certain resolutions. They told the country the position of the mine workers, and what they intended to do. They intend to put forward an application for an increase of wages, and I am not surprised. The amount which they intend to put forward is not material to my argument. The position in the coalfield is tragic from the point of view of wages. The Secretary for Mines sent a letter to the conference last week which gave them cold comfort, and rather indicated that the Government intended to do nothing to deal with an application for an increase.
    The point I want to put is this. The Minister finished his speech by asking for co-operation between all parties in the industry; he said let by-gones be by-gones. We are prepared to do that, but we cannot forget poverty. He appealed for co-operation between all those in the industry. I re-echo that appeal in this sense: What is the hon. and gallant
    1884
    Gentleman going to do to try to get a meeting between the two parties? What does he intend to do, to resume contact with the coalowners and the Miners' Federation? Why should he not try to arrange for a meeting between the two sides, or a tripartite conference at which he could put forward his plea for co-operation? The Miners' Federation are not seeking a strike. Believe me when I say that. We have had many strikes and lock-outs that we did not want, but the Federation are saying that those who work in the industry are entitled to more wages than they are getting to-day. They are desirous of having a meeting with the coalowners. I ask the Minister to tell us to-night what he is prepared to do to bring that meeting about, and to translate into action his appeal for co-operation. Is he prepared to interview the coalowners and to ask them to meet the Miners' Federation? Or is his appeal purely a sentimental one? The hon. and gallant Gentleman may or may not be Secretary for Mines very long, but at least he has that position now, and I ask him to do what he can to bring that meeting about.
    I will put another point to him. The Federation have been meeting the Department during the past year and have been asking for certain things to be done. If the Federation were to say that they were prepared to accept the position of the National Board, what would be the attitude of the Department towards the Federation? At least the Federation are entitled to some definite reply on that point. Up to now the Department has contented itself with saying, "We are not prepared to do anything because we know the Federation do not believe in compulsory arbitration." But the miners have great faith in the National Board and want the right to put their case before it, because they know they have a good case. There is another thing that ought to be put. The Government some time ago told the House and the country that they were desirous of having conversations with employers of labour to secure a reduction in hours by agreement. I want to know why the mineowners were kept out of those conversations. Twenty-two meetings were arranged, but there was no mention of the mineowners. Did the Government not want to interfere with the coalowners? We have a right to an answer.

    1885
    The Federation are going to put forward their case for an increase of wages. Have they to wait until they threaten a strike before they can get a meeting? Should not time be taken by the forelock, and should not the Mines Department take the initiative? It has done so before. I happened to spend some time in 1924 in the Mines Department as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Shinwell, and again from 1929 to 1931. We were face to face with a demand. The Department took the initiative and called a conference of the two parties. I submit that the Secretary for Mines has the best chance now to do that. Let the two sides put their cards on the table and see whether they cannot get together on this question of improved wages.
    The question of overtime has occupied a good deal of time in this House during the past two or three years. We have now got a report with regard to Scotland. It states what many of us knew, that there is far too much overtime being worked where machine mining is in operation. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would give this report consideration, and see what could be done. I am quite satisfied that the Department has not taken up a strong enough attitude on this question of overtime generally in the coalfields. When the 1908 Act was passed there was an emergency clause inserted. That Clause made provision for overtime working in certain circumstances, in the case of accidents. If a man was buried in a place it did not matter whether those working to rescue him stayed underground for eight or 18 hours. If there was rescue work to be done the men did it. If there was a fall in the main level and men had to be employed to remove the dirt, that was emergency work and there was no complaint. But it was never understood that ordinary coal-face working would be defined as emergency work. The wording of the Clause is:
    "which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine."
    What is happening to-day is this: Men are told "You must not leave that face until you have cleared it for the machine to go on." Men have been kept in for eight, nine or 10 hours per shift. This overtime work is being construed by some managers as emergency work within
    1886
    the meaning of the Act, but the Act was never intended for that kind of work. When the Act was passed only 6 per cent. of coal was being got by machines. To-day more than44 per cent. is got by machines. Machine mining was almost unknown in 1908 and there was very little overtime done. If a deputy said: "I want that heading there for ventilation purposes," a man stopped for a couple of hours to do it. When he left work his name was entered in a book and he gave an explanation of where he had been. A colliery manager told me himself that since this Government had been in office there had not been the same "pep" shown on this overtime business. The inspectors have winked at it more during the lifetime of this Government than during the lifetime of any other Government. This question of overtime is not confined to Scotland. Overtime is being worked in more than one district. We ask the Minister to give the matter attention and to tell the mineowners that ordinary work on a machine face is not emergency work. If in spite of that warning they continue to work overtime, the Minister should take action against them.
    In the mining industry there is a good deal of poverty, and in the mines there are far too many accidents. What we can do from this side of the House to co-operate with anyone in reducing the accident rate we shall do. We have always been prepared to do it. Often we have made suggestions which have not been accepted. I want the Secretary for Mines to believe me when I say that I appreciated his point of view when he talked about the men taking risks. Of course men take risks; they are compelled to do so. But all the accidents in the pit are not the men's fault. I have read the reports very carefully and I know what is said. It is usually said, "Well, they could have been avoided." Perhaps an accident could have been avoided, but it happened, and there are a good many things that need to be put right.
    While the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) was Secretary for Mines he had something to say about initiating protective equipment. I have seen some of this equipment. Some of it is very good indeed, and I think a word of encouragement ought to be given to Major Hudspeth for the work he is doing. There is the cap with a cushion inside, which

    1887
    prevents injury in many cases. But how many are in actual use in the pits? There is the reinforced boot which has a very strong toe-cap, so that when anything falls on it the boot is not crushed. The latest type of boot is a very fine thing indeed. If the colliery owners are anxious to prevent these small injuries why do they not provide this kind of protective equipment to all men and lads who want it? The men in their poverty cannot buy everything that is put before them. These appliances are not extensively used because men cannot afford to buy them. It would be a good investment for the owner to make provision for an extended use of this safety equipment.
    With regard to the classes for boys, I agree with what the Minister said as to their usefulness. Most of us have had the honour of attending the annual meetings and distributing the awards. I wonder how far these classes could be extended. It has been put to me that there is not the necessary finance for such extension. Would the Minister say in how many districts these safety classes are in operation and whether any complaints have been received by the Department that their activities have been limited on account of lack of money? I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have a happy time in his office in devoting himself to the complex matters that will come before him, and that next year we shall not only see a more prosperous industry from the workers' point of view but accident figures that are far lower than those of to-day.
    5.44 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has given a speech which I am sure the whole Committee will feel expressed what was in the mind of us all so far as the new Minister is concerned. I would certainly like to join in the congratulations that have been given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon his appointment to this very important position, and I think that when he has finished his period of service at the institution which I still like to think is called Cromwell House, he will have learned three things, as all his predecessors have learned them. First of all, I think that at the end of his period of service the hon. and gallant Gentleman will feel marked gratitude towards those who assist him in the
    1888
    Department. He will have found there a body of civil servants who can hold their own with any similar body in the world. Next, he will have, I think, a high appreciation of those engaged in the industry generally, who are carrying on, in spite of the necessities and difficulties of modern times, because the blast of depression has struck upon that industry more than upon most others. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have a profound admiration for the miners, especially when he has had the opportunity, which may have been denied to him in earlier years as it was denied to me, of seeing the miner at work. With that appreciation, there will be associated just a touch of humility.
    I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have paid his tribute to the assistance already received by him in the Department, and I think the whole Committee will agree upon the three propositions with which he concluded his speech, namely, that this industry is fundamental in its importance to the nation; that mining is a difficult and a dangerous calling, and that the industry is not yet upon an economically sound basis. It was when he had stated those propositions that the hon. and gallant Gentleman passed to to ask for kindness, toleration and good will, and it was perhaps a little difficult and against the grain for my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton to commence his speech, immediately afterwards, with a proposal for the reduction of the Minister's salary. Another thing which I think the Minister will learn from his experience in the Department is that the affairs of the miners are in very competent hands. I would like to express the regret which, I am sure, is felt by all at the loss of Mr. Peter Lee, who was for so long President of the Miners' Federation. He set a great example of moderation and devotion to the interests of his fellows during his long and honourable association with the federation. I would like also to take the opportunity of thanking the Labour Opposition for having had this Vote put down because a Session would be incomplete which did not afford an opportunity of discussing these questions, touching so closely the lives of so many of our people.
    I propose to confine my attention mainly to two matters relating to safety,

    1889
    but before dealing with those, may I make a further reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton? He, of course, has special experience. Not only has he been engaged in the ordinary work of the industry, before being sent here by his fellows to represent them, but he has been at the Department itself and has a close acquaintance with its inner working. He knows something of the enthusiasm behind the demands which come from outside and the difficulties in the way of translating that enthusiasm into administrative practice. He was closely associated with certain proposals for securing the safety of his fellow-workers underground, and he and Mr. Shinwell were largely responsible for starting those safety conferences which I had the honour of continuing. The credit in the matter was entirely theirs, and I am sure that those conferences have had a useful effect in bringing the expert at the Department into immediate touch with the man who has to carry out the orders of the administration. The fact that they have been brought face to face in such a way that questions can be put and answered directly, instead of through the long and elaborate processes which often have to be adopted, has had an excellent effect among the many thousands of men who accepted the invitations, issued in the first instance by my predecessor in office.
    May I make a further reference to what the hon. Member said on the subject of co-operation in regard to wages questions? He asked whether the Government, and the Minister in particular, were prepared to invite the coal owners to come into conference on the question of wages, and I shall be very much surprised if the Minister is not willing in that respect. I know that was the deliberate policy of the National Government when it was first formed. We were most anxious that upon the national board which dealt with these matters, there should be, not merely one or two independent owners, responsible only to themselves, but representatives of the Mining Association prepared to talk over with the men, face to face, questions affecting the conditions of the miners' livelihood. I hope that point will be dealt with later by the Minister, and I shall certainly be much surprised
    1890
    if there has been any "resiling"—I believe that is the word now in use, since the debates on the India Bill—if the Government have in any way resiled from the position taken up at that time.
    I remember a speech upon this subject by the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) who is closely associated with this industry. I remember what he had to say, at a time when high controversial feeling was aroused, as to the wisdom of owners meeting men face to face in friendly co-operation to discuss wages and other conditions applicable to the industry. I believe if that invitation, emphasised by the Noble Lord and others in the debates of 1932, had been generally adopted there would not be such a strained position in the industry to-day. I associate myself unqualifiedly with the hon. Member for Normanton in his request that a matter of this kind should be dealt with, at any rate in the first instance, by conference between representatives of owners and representatives of miners. It is a monstrous thing that a question of this kind should have to be decided by ultimatums and threats and menaces. Further, I am sure that it will be agreed by every Member and by all who think on the subject at all, that the miner's wage to-day is deplorably low. As to the methods by which it can be raised, that is a subject for discussion and I expect to hear more of it to-night, but that it is deplorably low, especially having regard to the conditions of the work and the perils that work involves, is a proposition that will command general assent.
    I now come to the two matters of safety with which I wish to deal. I suppose that the Minister has come to the same conclusion as others that the problem of safety in mines is not solely the problem of the big explosion. I am not sure that I followed the hon. Member for Normanton in his remarks upon that subject. I think it is still true that the real danger, the continuing danger, which involves so often death, disaster and maiming is associated with causes apart from explosions. No one, of course, could say that there should be any less inquiry into explosions or that any less emphasis should be laid upon the need for ventilation and every scientific appliance that can be used to prevent explosions, leading to such great tragedies as that which recently occurred at Gresford. Nevertheless, the figures show that the real

    1891
    calamity in the mines is not the calamity which touches the public imagination, when some great loss occurs like that of Gresford, involving, I think, 265 lives. The heart-breaking business is the weekly return of deaths. Anyone who has experience of the Mines Department knows that everybody working in that Department is concerned about the weekly return of deaths, sometimes getting up to figures of 18, 19 or 20 and also the weekly return of non-fatal accidents. I believe that every attention possible is concentrated upon bringing about a reduction of those figures. I would only point out to the Committee that, even with the outstanding calamity of Gresford, during the past year many more men lost their lives through falls alone than through other causes.
    It is upon that point that I wish to deal with two practical matters. The first is the training of boys. In that work no one has assisted more than the hon. Member for Normanton. I think I saw it almost from its beginning and I believe I was the first to distribute badges in Yorkshire to boys who had completed their training. It was a wonderful sight to see those boys coming up for their badges and I think a great deal of importance ought to be attached to those badges and their presentation ought to be invested by the Minister with as much significance as possible. I hope that in the midst of a busy life he will find time, as often as possible, to present these prizes, giving them that added value which will arise from his presence and his remarks. This movement which was only in its beginning when I spoke from that Box has now so grown that 10,000 boys were enrolled in these classes in 1934.
    There is, however, a remarkable difference between the figures in one locality and those in another, on which I should like some explanation. Why, for instance, should there be in the Northern division 63 centres with 3,266 boys enrolled, compared with only 14 centres in Swansea with 245 boys enrolled? It is difficult to understand why in the Yorkshire division there should be 64 centres and 2,413 boys enrolled and in Cardiff only 34 centres and 648 boys enrolled. The disparity is remarkable. I am sure, the boy in South Wales is just as keen on safety training as the boy in Yorkshire
    1892
    or the Northern division and I do not think a boy's aptitude for learning is any less because he happens to have been born in the Principality. I am sure that suggestion would be resented by some of my hon. Friends upon these benches. Why, then, does this difference exist? I know it depends largely upon the colliery officials who help in the teaching of the boys and also upon the co-operation of the local education authorities.
    Now that we have had a few years experience of this healthy and wholesome work, my hope is that, wherever districts have fallen behind, more propaganda will be carried out and more attempts made to secure the co-operation of the local education authorities or other agencies who hitherto have been lagging behind in this work. We want to give the boys of South Wales the same opportunity as the boys of other areas. It is not only a question of teaching the boys methods of safety. I think it was John Stuart Mill who said that the main part of a man's education came from his daily occupation. It is a good thing for a boy who is employed in a pit to know more about his own occupation. I understand that in many of these classes the boys who have passed through and gained this modest diploma are not satisfied with that but are pressing on to the mining classes proper and not merely limiting themselves to the question of safety. In my opinion the work that has been done in the last few years and has already brought about such fruitful results is the very best manifestation of what I think is one of the finest movements in the country, and that is the Workers' Educational Association. My hon. Friend near me comes from Yorkshire, and I know that will have his very strong approval, because their records there are very encouraging.
    Will you allow me now to pass to a subject that was dealt with only very briefly by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and that is the question of protective equipment? Just now when the matter was mentioned I thought I discerned a little laughter, but I hope that I was mistaken. I am quite sure the hon. Member who last spoke would not underrate the importance of that question, upon which I want to put a few facts before the Committee. When a

    1893
    disaster takes place such as that at Gresford, there is an outpouring of public sympathy and the most amazing response as far as material gifts are concerned, but when the one man is struck down in the ordinary course of his work, the bereavement comes just as closely and the blow falls just as heavily upon that home, and we need to get that sympathy which was poured out on the occasion of Gresford applied more generally to all these losses that are borne week by week and month by month. We shall then see the need of dealing not only with explosions, but with the injuries caused by falls, haulage, and so on.
    I ask the indulgence of the Committee while I quote something that I said from that Box on the 3rd May, 1932:
    "One day we shall have protective equipment in our mines. I have no doubt that one of my successors will make obligatory the use of helmets, gloves, safety boots, and goggles. I do not know why this has not been done before, but the British miner, so advanced in other ways, is often conservative in his customs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 3rd May, 1932; col. 973, Vol. 265.]
    I remember that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. D. Davies), who spoke afterwards, suggested that perhaps I did not know very much about underground conditions, which was quite true, and that in the heat of the mine to use a helmet was almost impracticable. That may be true, but I think that the prejudice which then existed is rapidly being overcome, and I do not know why it should not be that the helmet, which played a part in the panoply of war in the Middle Ages, should come back in our own generation. No international footballer would go on the field without his shinguards. No cricketer, I suppose, would go upon the field to take part in a first-class match without his pads and his gloves.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: No footballer would wear shinguards.
    Mr. FOOT: I thought he did wear shin-guards.
    Mr. CURRY: My hon. Friend is quite correct.
    Mr. FOOT: When the experiment was instituted, in order to overcome the prejudice the line that was taken was that we went to the Miners' Welfare Fund and said, "Will you put the money to enable the helmets to be provided?" Then,
    1894
    through the assistance of Sir Henry Walker and Major Hudspeth, to whom a very merited tribute has been paid by my hon. Friend., hats were supplied in five pits in 1932. Each of these pits was provided with 50 hats at an inclusive cost of £250. In the following year there were further experiments, at a further cost of £250, and this money did not involve any special grant, but was found out of the revenue of the Miners' Welfare Fund. It was not a case, as we can see, for coercion or enforcement; it was a case for persuasion and example, and at that time, although that is only three years ago, and although only 50 hats were supplied in those five pits, and in the following year a similar number of hats were supplied in other collieries, I am very glad to know that that number of helmets has so increased that now the number in use in this country is 140,000. If we take the total number of miners in this country, given just now at something like 750,000, I think—
    Captain CROOKSHANK: A little more than that.
    Mr. FOOT: —that number of 140,000 shows the appreciation of the collier himself. Even now it is remarkable hew you can have one colliery where practically all the men are fitted with the helmets and you can have another colliery where no one wears them. The reason for this should be found out. I think it is not very much good having publicity and advising the individual collier to use a helmet. It ought to be used altogether in the pit. No man likes to be thought to be peculiar, and the one man who provides himself with the equipment that science now suggests he ought to use, makes himself different from his fellows and hardly likes to incur the criticism. That is one of the difficulties. Another difficulty is expense. I think it is so important that the use of this protective equipment should be enlarged that no question of expense to the miner should stand in the way. I hope some suggestion can lie made in that respect, and certainly some contribution should be made by the owner at least, as he stands to gain a great deal, having regard to the very immense burden of compensation arising from accidents in the mines.
    Taking not the figures relating to deaths, which were given by the hon.

    1895
    Member, but certain figures showing injuries to head, hand, eye, and foot, in 1933 there were 122,136 non-fatal accidents calling for compensation, and that number represented 57 per cent. of the total number of accidents in the mines. These were made up of 9,110 injuries to the head, 40,616 injuries to the hand, 5,868 injuries to the eye, and 13,895 injuries to the foot. The relevance of those figures is the use of protective apparatus. It was reckoned that in that year the cost to the industry in compensation for all accidents was about £2,125,000. That shows how serious is the economic factor. The injuries to the head in 1933 were 9,110, and in 1934 they were 9,544. I know the man-shifts were slightly higher, but in 1933 one out of every 72 underground workers received head injuries. Taking the hand injuries, the number in 1933 was 40,616, and that means that practically 1,000 colliers every week were injured in their hands.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: And those only that were reported.
    Mr. FOOT: I am speaking only of injuries calling for compensation. That number of 40,616 had risen to 43,870 in 1934. Taking the eye injuries, they were 5,868 in 1933, and in 1934 they were 6,530. The injuries to the foot were 13,895 in 1933, and 14,854 in 1934. It is on those figures that I ask the Committee to consider what steps can be taken to reduce this area of suffering. If we can do it only in a small measure, I think it is right to invite the co-operation of the Committee. To those interested in this matter, may I recommend a report of a lecture that was given by Major Hudspeth, which will be found in the "Iron and Coal Trades Review" for 18th January of the present year? Major Hudspeth, under the inspiration and guidance, of course, of Sir Henry Walker, has laid the workers in the colliery districts, I think, under a heavy debt of obligation by his persistence in this matter. If he had been set aside by the opposition which he evoked at the beginning we should not have made this progress. When Major Hudspeth first put on the helmet, they were inclined to look upon it as being a performance for their entertainment. Views have changed since that time, and Major Hudspeth has now got some very remarkable results.
    1896
    We have tried this equipment for too short a period to be able to speak except with diffidence, and, therefore, we cannot get much information upon it, but will the Committee bear with me while I quote what Major Hudspeth says about the experience in America? He gives two illustrations to show what has happened in particular mines in America following upon the use of this equipment. For instance, a coal company employing about 1,600 men enforced the use of safety shoes and goggles, commencing January, 1930, and these are the results: In 1929 there were 396 eye accidents, and in 1932 there were 17. The days lost in respect of eye accidents in those years fell from 5,839 to 13. Taking the accidents to the foot, in the same mine in those years they fell from 184 to 5, and the days lost in respect of foot accidents fell from 1,129 to 54; and the reduction was progressive. That was where the equipment was made compulsory. The other illustration was where the equipment was not made compulsory, but in this mine the employees to the extent of 95 per cent. adopted the protective helmets, and let us see the effect upon the head injuries. In 1929 there wer 126 head injuries, and on the 30th June, 1932, they were down to 7, and the days lost in the same years had fallen from 693 to 26. Major Hudspeth gives quotation after quotation. He refers to a Scottish colliery where a man's life was absolutely saved by the use of his helmet, and he says "He was wearing one of the Cromwell hats," a name that ought to help in its development. I do not wish to occupy too much time, but if that information that Major Hudspeth put before the country responsibly in the early part of this year is borne out by what we find in this country, surely that is something that we ought to develop here in the interests not merely of the industry but most of all of the men themselves. With regard to publicity, one of the North Staffordshire collieries had a notice up depicting a beacon displaying the word "Stop" and a picture of the hat with the words:
    "This hat saved your mate's life. A few shillings will replace a broken hat, but a broken head cannot be replaced."
    Perhaps the Minister who dwelt upon this in his speech will tell us of his interest in this matter, and what steps he thinks his Department will be able to take in

    1897
    the next 12 months to follow the excellent lead that has been given by Sir Henry Walker and Major Hudspeth. We have had brought home to us to-day, very simply, by the figures given by the Minister, the fact that the eye peril that exists in the industry is six times as great as that of ordinary industry. That and the weekly loss involving so many deaths and accidents, coupled as it is with such disasters as happen now and again, bring home to us our dependence upon the people who make our continued civilisation possible. The Minister said that it was the fundamental industry. The fact that it is the fundamental industry is the claim of the men who are engaged in it to fair consideration and proper treatment. Our ordinary amenities of life not only depend upon their efforts, but upon their facing peril, and I believe that the people of this country want a fair deal for the miners. They know very well, as they are reminded sometimes by great disasters and losses, that their coal is got at a great price. When these facts are brought home to us we are almost inclined to look upon coal as David looked upon the water that had been brought by his men in a time of great peril—
    "Is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?"
    Throughout the country there is the desire that those who do this work and face this peril for the needs of our civilisation should receive the consideration to which they are entitled. I am only anxious that in the two matters that I have ventured to mention to the Committee some progress may be made in the next 12 months, so that an inroad may be made on the figures which are at present returned.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. DICKIE: I should like to join with previous speakers in congratulating the Minister not only on his appointment, but on the lucidity with which he made his statement. I should also like to associate myself with the plea that has been made for closer co-operation and toleration between those engaged in the industry, because only in that way can it return to greater prosperity. In the Debate on the special areas yesterday, the position and the future prospects of the mining industry loomed very large. To-day we are discussing the industry itself. In the close association of these two subjects history is repeating itself,
    1898
    because it has been a curious feature of the present Parliament that every year about this period, whenever there has been discussion on the Mines Vote, there has been a discussion on the distressed areas. That is no mere coincidence, and on this occasion the association is closer than ever it was, because the problem of the mining industry is really the problem of the distressed areas. Until we can find a solution of the problem of the mining industry, we cannot hope for any solution of the problem of the distressed areas.
    There are one or two points on which I should like to touch, and one or two questions which the Secretary said he expected he would be called upon to answer. Before I refer to them, however, I would like to make a reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on the attitude of one or two of my colleagues and myself to the question of the Miners' Welfare Fund. He unwittingly did us some injustice, and I should like to remind him that I not only voted against the reduction of the Welfare Fund, but actually spoke against it. I should like to remind him also that one of the hon. Gentleman's own colleagues referred in complimentary terms to the attitude which I have taken on that matter, and to the speech which I made. I would also like to remind the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, as a result of the reduction in the Miners' Welfare Fund, I was compelled to withdraw a Bill that I had introduced for utilising a portion of the fund for giving pensions to aged miners. Having regard to these facts, I think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will probably think he was a little ungenerous in his criticism when he spoke about some of us trying to have it both ways, and that he will realise that some of us were just as gravely concerned as he or any of his colleagues were about what we honestly believed to be an unnecessary curtailment of the beneficent work of the Miners' Welfare Fund.
    I would like to ask the Minister a question relating to the quota. It is whether there are in existence in all the districts arrangements for the pooling of the quotas and for the purchasing of quotas? It is possible for a grave injustice to be done to individual owners when no such arrangements exist. Towards

    1899
    the end of the quota period an owner may have almost exhausted his quota, and he may make inquiries in every direction and be unable to obtain another. Then he is faced with the position of either having to close his pit and throw his men out of work, or he has to face the possibility of a fine of 2s. 6d. per ton for every ton he produces. If he decides to work his mine he may find that there was, after all, in the district a quota which was available and which he ought to have had the right to purchase had a pooling arrangement been in existence. On top of that, having been fined for exceeding the quota by the heavy sum of 2s. 6d. per ton for keeping his men at work, he may find that the district, too, has exceeded its quota, but it may not have exceeded it by as much as the individual colliery. The owner is fined by the District Council the full amount, and the Central Council then proceeds to levy a lesser fine upon the district. The individual owner may then be faced with the situation of being fined more than the district, and the balance goes to the district committee, which is composed of his own competitors. I should be glad to learn that the Minister will consider that point and will tell me whether any means can be found of redressing the grievance.
    I will turn to another matter on which I should like to have a little enlightenment. The Minister has referred to the fact that petrol comes within the jurisdiction of his Department. There is, however, another series of mines that come within that jurisdiction, namely, the metalliferous mines. On 17th May last year his predecessor introduced a small Measure to facilitate the working of these mines. He was very pleased with his little Measure; in fact, I remember that he almost blushed with pride as he introduced it. He commended it so very highly that even the Opposition did not oppose it, with the result that he got his little Bill in about 20 minutes. It passed its remaining stages unchallenged, received the Royal Assent, and was placed on the Statute Book under the name of the Mines (Working Facilities) Act. I would like to ask the Secretary for Mines what has happened to this delightful babe which was brought to us with such paternal pride by his predecessor. It is true that the late Minister
    1900
    for Mines was not the parent of the Bill. It came from another place and he adopted it, but he was as proud of it as if it had been his own, and he spoke of its birth as something which would have a most beneficent effect on the future of metalliferous mines. This is a matter of such importance that I hope the Committee will forgive me if I quote what the Minister for Mines said. After a reference to the genesis of the Coal Mines Act, 1923, he said:
    "In the course of the working of that Act—a very successful working—it was discovered that there were certain difficulties with regard to coal. This was brought before the Government, and in 1926 an amending Act was passed extending the 1923 Act in three respects. In the first place, it extended it so that instead of only persons with an interest in the minerals having the right to make an application to the tribunal, which is the Railway and Canal Commission, a most able and impartial tribunal, any person may make an application.… In the third place, there was a provision giving power to modify or to annul restrictions, terms and conditions in mining leases which prevented coal being worked efficiently or economically. That applied to coal only, and it has worked well, with general approval, since 1926 to the great advantage of the coal industry."
    He went on to say:
    "One of the major recommendations calling for legislation is contained in the Bill—namely, to give to metalliferous minerals contained in the Schedule to the Bill, which went through another place without opposition and without amendment, the same facilities already enjoyed by coal under the Act of 1926. Hon. Members must understand that there is one over-riding necessity, namely, that those who make the application must prove to the Railway and Canal Commission that it is in the national interest that powers should be put into operation. Anybody who has seen the working of the 1923 Act in regard to all minerals and the amending Act of 1926 in regard to the coal industry, will agree that they are for the good of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1934; cols, 2030 –31, Vol. 289.]
    From that quotation the Secretary for Mines will see that his predecessor was inordinately proud of his adopted child. What has become of this little cherub? Has it fulfilled the promise of its earlier days? Has it survived the first year of its life, or has somebody been lurking round the corner waiting to assassinate it? I ask because I believe that any benefit which the owners of metalliferous mines may have expected to derive from the placing of that small Measure upon the Statute Book has been destroyed by

    1901
    a decision in the Court of Appeal in a case which was fought on the very evils which this Act was intended to eradicate. Almost every commission which has inquired into the mining industry has reported on the evil effects of wayleaves, and even in the report of the Commissioner for the special areas, which was debated yesterday, appears the statement:
    "It is particularly necessary to deal with the principles affecting wayleaves; the amounts levied at times are quite unwarranted and their unfair imposition tends to hold up the economic expansion of the industry."
    I will give the Committee a few figures to show the grossly excessive charges which are levied by the owners of surface lands for the right merely to transfer coal from one point to another. In this case a railway was made by the company concerned, because that was the only way of getting the coal from where it was mined to where it was to be used. The land in question had an area of 27 acres, and at full letting value was worth no more than £5 per annum. Time and again the company endeavoured to buy the land and offered a high price, but the owners declined to sell. From 1890 to 1st December, 1931, that iron company paid a total of £164,473, or £6,092 per acre, merely for the surface use of these few acres of land.
    The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) referred to wages, and the Secretary for Mines gave us some figures of the earnings of miners. I have always contended, in season and out of season, that the wages paid to miners are far too low for such hazardous work, but I ask the Government, How can any industry afford to pay reasonable wages if it is mulcted in such parasitical charges as having to pay £6,000 a year for a few acres of land used merely to carry coal from one place to another? We have been told that wages have fallen substantially during the last few years, but there has been no fall in this charge, which still remains at £6,000. In one of this morning's newspapers there is a case which I should like to bring to the notice of the Secretary for Mines. It is such an extraordinary story of low wages in the mining industry—of which I know something, though I may not have an intimate knowledge of its technical side—that I am not prepared to accept the statements there made without inquiry. But they are figures into which the Secretary
    1902
    for Mines might inquire, because if they should be verified they are an outrage and a scandal, and if they are not true then their publication is an outrage and a scandal on the part of the paper publishing them and of the journalist who wrote the story. It says:
    "I am told of nightshift men who are working from 11 to 12 hours every night, afraid to refuse for fear of being sacked and having their unemployment benefits stopped for six weeks."
    That is a question of overtime, with which I am not concerned at the moment, but as it has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Normanton I expect the Secretary for Mines will refer to it in his reply. Here is what I wish to call attention to:
    "Two young married men, after being out of work for four years, started in a low seam, 18 to 20 inches high, to which they were not used. They worked seven shifts of eight hours between them, and, after offtakes, had only 6s. 3d. to divide."
    That is after working 56 hours. It is an almost unbelievable story. The wages work out at less than 1½d. per hour. It is a case into which the Secretary for Mines might inquire.
    To go back to the instance of way-leave payments which I cited before. The company applied to the Railway and Canal Commission, to "this capable Commission," as it was described by the present Minister of Labour, for relief from these grossly excessive charges, and they won their case. The case was carried to the Court of Appeal, where the decision was reversed. There is no appeal to the House of Lords. While this particular company, like many others, has to carry on year after year without being able to pay a penny to its shareholders or to pay adequate wages to its workers, the wayleave owners, who neither toil nor spin, draw from it every year £6,000 for the use of the small area of agricultural land I have described. I ask the Secretary for Mines whether the Government propose to do anything about it. A question was put on the Order Paper on 8th April, and I was then told that the matter was under active consideration. I refrained from troubling the Secretary for Mines until mid-July, when I put another question, and was then told that the Minister had nothing to add to the reply of 8th April. I suppose the matter is still under active consideration. What I want to see is

    1903
    not so much active consideration as a little more considered activity. I appeal to the Minister to make representations in the proper quarter to see that the industry is relieved of these grossly excessive Charges.
    The Secretary for Mines referred to the iron and steel industry. He knows, as does his chief, the President of the Board of Trade, and as does everyone associated with any of these industries, that there is no direction from which greater improvement could come more quickly to the mining industry than from the iron and steel industry. Everyone knows how closely interwoven and interlocked are the mining industry, the iron and steel industry and the shipbuilding industry; the mining industry being, after all, the foundation of the whole of our industrial life. If anyone can solve the problem of these three industries, he has solved the problem of the distressed areas. An Act to assist British shipping was recently placed on the Statute Book, but from what I hear advantage is not being taken of it to the extent that it might be. I do not know what are the difficulties in the way, but the improvements which we had expected in the mining, the iron and steel and the shipbuilding industries, particularly on the North East coast as a result of the "scrap and build" policy of the Government, have not materialised. I appeal to the Secretary for Mines to use all his influence to see that any misunderstanding which may have arisen as to the provisions of this valuable Measure should be removed as speedily as possible. If there are any flaws in that Act which prevent shipowners from taking advantage of its provisions, I beg the Government to remove them as soon as may be, in order that all three industries may derive the greatest possible benefit from the Measures placed on the Statute Book by the National Government and that we may enjoy that improvement at the earliest possible moment.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Seldom, if ever, have the Estimates for the Mines Department been introduced with more clarity and, I might say, with more charm than they were to-day. I was not disappointed when I heard the apology in
    1904
    advance which was offered to us, because, generally speaking, apologies in advance are unnecessary apologies, and I felt that it would be so to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman certainly presented what are difficult Estimates, very complicated and dealing with many aspects of mining life, in a most charming manner, and we on this side of the Committee, though we differ from him about many things and differ with him about much that he said, appreciate the manner in which the Estimates were presented. Probably these will be the last Mines Department Estimates presented during this Parliament. I would not hazard a guess at the date of the next General Election in the presence of the Prime Minister, but I think I may risk the statement that no other Secretary for Mines will present Estimates in this Parliament.
    That being so, the occasion affords an opportunity to look back over the lifetime of the Government and to ask what they have done to make the mining industry a greater asset to the nation. I realise that I must not refer to anything which may need legislation, and I will try to avoid doing so, but one or two things ought to be emphasised. The mining industry to-day is worse as an employing agency than it was when this Government took office. It is also definitely worse from the point of view of the purchasing capacity of the mining community than when the Government took office. Those matters need careful examination. I agree that the industry has improved as a producing agency. Before dealing with any of those aspects of the industry however, I wish to refer to one or two points which, though they may appear to be relatively smaller, are matters of great importance. Overtime has been mentioned, and I would call attention to two passages in the reports of the Divisional Inspector of Mines for the North Western Division, one in the 1933 report and the other in the 1934 report. My reason for doing so is that I do not like the tone of those passages. The Divisional Inspector does not seem to appreciate what overtime means to those employed in the mines and to unemployed miners. He treats it rather lightly. In the report for 1933 he says:
    "It is difficult entirely to avoid overtime in collieries where machine-mining is carried on, managers invariably claiming,

    1905
    in terms of Section 1 (2) of the Coal Mines Act, 1908, that the men kept in the mine are engaged in work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which require to be dealt with in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine. If a coal-cutting machine does not complete the cut, there is no work available for men in the following on coal-filling shift, or if the coal is not cleared off a face, the machine cannot make its cut."
    I feel that that reference is far too lenient towards overtime. Our concern is not that the machine which produces coal has made it difficult to work exactly the same hours as with hand-cut coal, but that that type of overtime can be prevented. It was wrong of the inspector in his report for 1934 to say—and again I object to the tone of his reference—
    "The working of overtime has been found by inspectors when visiting collieries and some complaints about it have been received. It appears to be impossible to eliminate it, but a genuine effort is made to keep it at a minimum."
    What is a minimum of overtime? Overtime which does not comply with the emergency code laid down. He goes on:
    "The mechanisation of coal production has introduced factors which are non-existent with purely hand work and circumstances frequently arise which necessitate immediate attention. This results in the men so employed being detained beyond the normal end of the shift."
    When the divisional inspector approaches the question of overtime in that way and in that tone, we doubt whether the inspector deals with the matter effectually. Let us look at this as an unemployed miner would. He stands at the street corner. He has been at that very colliery looking for work, and, three or four hours later than the ordinary end of the shift, he sees a number of miners returning home having got one and a-half shifts. Just imagine how he feels. He has been to the colliery in search of work, and has been told "We do not want any men," but then he sees a number of men who have been working overtime. If hon. Members will view it in that way they will see what it means. It has been suggested that even if we eliminated overtime it would not mean the employment of numbers of miners; we have never contended that it would. We have said that for overtime to be worked as it is to-day, in every colliery in Great Britain, while so many colliers are out of work, is unfair. We lay great stress on the question of overtime. I was exceedingly pleased with the reference which the Minister made to
    1906
    the Scottish report, when he told us that it was proposed to take definite action.
    The question of small mines may be a small one, but I am rather perturbed about the number of small mines that are appearing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and myself are, as most hon. Members probably know, very fond of walking, and we take our tramps in the fields of Lancashire. If we delay our tramps, we find new collieries opening, and we are concerned about it. I put a question to the Secretary for Mines on 29th April, and in reply he said:
    "In 1934 the number of coal mines in Lancashire and Cheshire employing less than 30 members was 38, of which 16 were supervised by a certificated mine manager."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 43, Vol. 301.]
    Out of 38 such collieries, 22 were not managed by certificated managers. We think that that is a very haphazard way of carrying on the mining industry. It may be said that such collieries do not employ many miners—only from 10 to 30—and that surely small mines like that could not be expected to have a certificated manager; but the Minister gave a reply at the same time telling me the number of deaths that had taken place at that type of colliery. May I here compliment the divisional inspector, because in his report for 1934 he gives a list of prosecutions, and he tells us that there have been 66 prosecutions in his division instituted by the Secretary for Mines. I find that 35 of those prosecutions have taken place in collieries situated in my division, and that the whole of the 35 have taken place at those small collieries. The divisional inspector found that he had to insist at one of those collieries upon the appointment of a certificated manager. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that if there is no control whatever by his Department over the sinking of a small mine here there and everywhere it is time to prevent that kind of thing from happening. It is not good for the industry, although it may benefit a few individuals who do it for a short time. Will he also insist that every one of such mines must have a certificated mine manager, because in that way the Minister will help his divisional officer? It is important to us also. It is time that the Secretary for Mines has some control over the sinking of

    1907
    mines. In the report on the Distressed Areas I find the following reference to the coalfields:
    "Despite the vast reserves of coal [in the different coalfields] more than capable of meeting a shrinking demand, the Kent coalfied was developed in a rural area. London, its nearest important market, can obtain cheap seaborne coal from the North-East Coast. It is difficult to see that the development of Kent coal which has suffered a chequered career, was justified."
    The Secretary for Mines should deal with this matter in such a way as to prevent mines being worked, and if he fails in that he should insist upon certificated managers.
    What has happened during the lifetime of this Parliament? The mining industry is a smaller employing agency than it was when the Government took office. I was rather surprised that the Secretary for Mines emphasised trade agreements so much. I do not belittle the efforts of the Government in that direction, nor do I doubt their motive, but I hope that the Minister will agree with me that there is not much hope in that direction for the mining community. A few more million tons in exports would help a little, but it is not in that direction we expect great help for the miners of this country. Trade agreements have, in my opinion, dismally failed in some directions. I notice that some figures were used by the President of the Miners' Federation when dealing with the change over as a result of the agreements. He gives the exports of Italy, Germany and Poland for the first six months up to the end of March for 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935. He says that Italy imported in 1932 over 800,000 tons from Germany and in 1935 over 3,000,000 tons. We want to know, is not that position adversely affecting Britain? Poland in 1932 exported to Italy only 448,000 tons, but in 1935 exported over 992,000 tons. Have those figures not affected Great Britain adversely?
    Trade agreements are a step in the right direction, but I do not want the Secretary for Mines, because he has been able to get some advantages over the short period, to tell us of the great things which the Government have done for the miners by trade agreements. He has to deal with this question. To-day I asked a question, having special reference to my own district of Lancashire, as to
    1908
    the total output of coal, and the number of miners who were employed in March, 1931 and 1935. I was told that in Lancashire and Cheshire, in 1931 there were 71,000 miners, and in 1935, 60,000. The Lancashire miners want to know what the Government have done to prevent the increase of unemployment at so rapid a rate in the mining industry of Lancashire. I asked also what wages were paid in the first quarter of 1931, and the figure I received was £2,072,000. In the first quarter of 1935, the figure was £1,800,000. That means that there was over £200,000 less purchasing power in the hands of the miners of Lancashire. That means, to Lancashire, not only that the miners are suffering as compared with 1931, but that their loss of purchasing power is affecting other people directly and indirectly.
    We do not think that the Government have a coal policy of any kind. I think that they are largely influenced by the employers in their general policy and particularly in their mining policy. I do not mind the Tory Government being influenced by the mineowners, if that influence is always in the right direction. The Tory party will always work strenuously to help the employing side of industry, and in none more than the mining industry. In my town I have scores of personal friends who are bringing home 35s. a week to keep a wife and four children. I can never understand how it is that when a man is a miner he is treated so differently from men who are something else. There are friends of mine who left the mining industry and work for the urban district council, and others are insurance agents, and they are always better off than they were. Some are Members of Parliament, and they are always better off. I cannot see why, when I was earning my living as a miner, I was compelled to go through agony for years for the sake of my wife and four children. Now the same man is here, and I am able to provide adequately for my wife and four children. What earthly difference is there in me?
    The fact has to be realised sooner or later than the miner makes as substantial a contribution to the wealth of this country as any other person. If the wage arrangements and ascertainments are such as to prevent him from getting what he is entitled to, a fair standard of life, I want to know from the Government,

    1909
    not only if they are going to do something to assist, but are they going to sit down quietly because the mineowners say: "We are not meeting the demands nationally because they are against our interests. We can deal more effectually with these negotiations district by district than nationally. Therefore, no national negotiations"? Does the Prime Minister think that we ought to have national negotiations in the mining industry? Does he think that miners in Lancashire, in Scotland or in South Wales are not all entitled to the same consideration? Does he think that the mere fact that they are divided by geological differences ought to account for different wages? I appeal to him to exercise his influence as Prime Minister to see that the mineowners in this country do their duty.
    In Edinburgh to-day they may say, "No, we will not agree to it." That will bring about, as sure as I am here, that which I do not desire and the Prime Minister does not desire, an industrial struggle, the result of which will be serious. I ask him to exercise his influence on the coalowners now and to say: "Our opinion is that the mining industry ought to be regulated nationally. It varies in its geological strata and its underground differences, but, notwithstanding that, we think it ought to be regulated and controlled nationally, and we ask you, as mine-owners, to meet the miners' representatives and engage in a national settlement that will give the miners a higher standard of life." I say to the Secretary for Mines that when we go to the country, in the mining areas we cannot tell the electorate that this Government have succeeded in doing anything that has improved their standard of life. Today they are on a lower standard than they were. To-day the worker is producing more per shift than formerly, and getting less in return.
    I quite appreciate what the Secretary for Mines said about dealing with accidents. I believe that the civil servants in his Department are doing very good work in reducing the accidents in mines. I give them credit for having brought about a reduction in accidents. But I ask that while the Minister continues with that grand salvage work it should be realised that the miner in
    1910
    work wants something more than precautions taken to safeguard him against injury. He wants something that enables him when he has done his day's work to live his life as the rest of us live ours. I wish this debate was taking place in some valley in South Wales or in some derelict village in Lancashire, with all of us there and with the audience composed of unemployed miners, maimed miners and miners on low wages, with their families. Then I think every one of us would realise that we are not doing our duty by that great and brave body of men whose praises we sing in time of war and whenever there are pit explosions—that we are not doing our duty to leave that brave body of men to continue to live the depressed life that they have led now for so many years.
    7.3 p.m.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I wish to pay my tribute to the new Secretary for Mines, and to wish him every success. If his speech is any criterion by which to judge him, I am sure that my wish will be fulfilled. I always hesitate to intervene in these important Debates, because I have not that sense of personal knowledge of the industry possessed by so many hon. Members opposite. But I can assure them that those of us who, like myself, are on the managerial side of the industry, always pay the very closest attention and the greatest respect to the arguments they advance with such eloquence. The Minister told us that there has been a slight improvement in the coal industry in the course of the past year. There has undoubtedly been some increase in trade owing to the improved output of iron and steel, but I am afraid that in the gas trade the improvement has not been on the same scale, mainly owing to the fact that we have had two hot summers and a comparatively mild winter. Although there has been some improvement, for which we are grateful, it is impossible to say that the coal trade is in a healthy state.
    The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) said that miners' wages were low. I thoroughly agree with that. When we consider the work which the miner has to do, and the dangers he faces, and the fact that the mines are working short time, one can only come to the conclusion that miners' wages are

    1911
    very low indeed. On the other side of the ledger we find that colliery companies are not making sufficient profits to pay adequate dividends on their capital, and in certain cases they are not able to modernise the plant at their pits. I know that hon. Members opposite will say that this proves their case, and that it is due to the breakdown of the capitalist system. I know, too, that hon. Gentlemen will say that the only useful policy is one of nationalisation. They may have an opportunity of introducing nationalisation in the future. They have had two occasions in the past when they might have done so—though, I admit, in circumstances of the greatest difficulty—and they did not do so. What the last Labour Government did introduce was something greatly different, the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which is a great deal better than anything that my party has done. I was not here at the time, but if I had been I should have taken the opportunity of supporting the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who, I think, was one of the very few Conservatives, if not the only Conservative, who had the foresight to support that Measure. I take the view that that was a Measure which was of incalculable benefit—and if that is the type of legislation which we can expect from a Socialist Government in the future then, perhaps, some of us on these benches need not be unduly apprehensive of the statements made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).
    It is quite easy to enumerate the ills of the coal trade. The falling off in the export trade is due very largely to the fact that during the War and since foreign countries began to mine their own coal instead of buying their supplies from this country. We have keen and bitter competition in oil. We also have what is, perhaps, the most important factor of all, to which the Minister has referred, and that is fuel economy. Take the gas trade. Since 1913, owing to improvements in technique, the gas trade has come to produce the same number of cubic feet of gas by carbonising nearly two-thirds of the amount of coal formerly consumed. The same principle is at work in the production of pig iron and steel, and again in a similar way in regard to the output of electricity. It is correct to say that the chemists and scientists have been
    1912
    working dead against producers of coal and in the interests of consumers. On the other side, it is true to say that the mines have very much improved their technique of production. The situation now is that as a result of fuel economy there is a less demand for British coal and that still fewer men are required to produce that coal.
    It is easy to enumerate these difficulties, but it is not so easy to find a solution. One school of thought would like to go back to the old war of cutthroat competition and the survival of the fittest. That school, I am glad to say, is very small, and in a very short time I hope it will be extinct. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want nationalisation. Then there is the influential and powerful school which would like to see a drastic policy of amalgamation on the lines laid down by the Reorganisation Commission. I must confess that the idea of compulsory amalgamations is one that does not appeal to me, and I do not think that it would provide a solution of the troubles in the coal industry. I admit, though, that voluntary amalgamation is coming about very slowly, and too slowly for the advocates of drastic compulsory amalgamation. Some measure of amalgamation is undoubtdely a benefit, but to those who support drastic compulsory amalgamation I would like to put one or two simple questions. In the first place, I should like to know how they describe a redundant pit? We are told that we must close redundant pits and concentrate production on the more economic pits. I do not know what is a redundant pit. I know pits that have failed to pay for the last three years and which are now beginning to work comparatively regularly. They were redundant, but they are now paying concerns. Some very old pits in the county of Durham are working very regularly, and some new and up-to-date pits are working only 3½ to four days a week. I should be glad if somebody would provide me with a definition of what is a redundant pit.
    Another question I would like to ask is this. If you close down these old pits, what are you going to do with the men who will be automatically displaced? We already have tens of thousands of miners unemployed. I should like to re-employ men rather than add to the number of the unemployed. Are we, by closing down these pits, to increase the number of the

    1913
    unemployed? Are we to follow the lead of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and put these men on the land? That is not going to be an easy job. My experience of mining in Durham has taught me that a man is a miner by tradition; his father was a miner, and his grandfather and his great-grandfather were miners, and though his occupation is dangerous and arduous he is proud of the fact that he is a miner. It is not going to be easy to find alternative employment for these men. It must also be remembered that when you close down a pit you are not merely putting the miner and his family on the dole. A colliery village is usually an isolated community, and if the pit closes it means that everybody there, the miners, the tradesmen and all the other people are going to suffer.
    There is also a material side to the policy of amalgamation. It is a very costly business to close down a pit temporarily. I know that from experience in my own group. You have to keep your main haulage road intact, and you have to keep your airways and your ventilating system in perfect order to prevent the accumulation of gas. You have also to keep your pumps in continuous operation, otherwise the workings would be flooded out. So that if you do all these things and you then want to work that coal again, it is going to be a very difficult and costly operation. If you leave a pit like that, practically sterilised, it may be that coal from that pit will be needed in the near future. It may be that we shall have a shortage or that through improvements in the processes of preparing pulverised fuel, hydrogenation, and low temperature carbonisation we may require that coal which at the moment is virtually condemned to sterilisation. I put these few questions not with any idea of being destructive.
    So far I have not put forward anything of a very constructive nature, but I would now like to make to the Minister a few simple suggestions. In the first place I would suggest to the Minister that as soon as he possibly can he should get to work on what is essential in the reorganisation of the coal trade, and that is the unification of coal royalties. I do not want to enlarge on that subject now, because I hope that the Government will give us an opportunity of discussing it
    1914
    fully at the earliest possible moment. The second thing I would suggest is that the Minister should instruct Sir Ernest Gowers to go slowly on the question of amalgamation and to concentrate his undoubted ability on the question of selling pools for the whole country. As soon as we see that the district scheme now in action is a success we want to set up selling pools in every district. We also want a central body to co-ordinate minimum prices under the various district schemes; it would do a great deal to save the coal trade. In the districts pits belonging to people who wish to evade the Act would be unable to do so, and from the national point of view we could deal with the foreigner on a fair national basis, which is bound to mean an increase in the price of our export coal. I would suggest that Sir Ernest Gowers' undoubted ability might be better employed in dealing with the distributive side than with the productive side, which is as efficent here as anywhere else in the world.
    I would also like to refer to the vexed question of wage agreements. I admit frankly that I am one of those who believe in the efficacy of the district agreement—and for this simple reason. I believe that if there is a dispute, say in Durham, that dispute will be decided more quickly, more cheaply and better by the people who live on the spot and know the local conditions than by a mixed tribunal of Scotsmen, Welshmen and men from Nottinghamshire, sitting probably in London. On the other hand, I appreciate the fears and apprehensions of the miners' representatives that there may be a piecemeal reduction of wages district by district without the national power of opposition. I fully agree that if my idea that the coal trade of the future should be organised with stronger forces at the centre is brought about, the case for re-discussion of the wages question with the miners' representatives would be very much strengthened. As I have said, I believe in the principle of district agreements, but I definitely do not agree with refusing to discuss this question, especially in view of the possible future conditions in the industry.
    I say this for one very good reason. We have had too much disunity in this industry. We want unity; we do not want discord. We all remember what happened in 1926, and there is not a

    1915
    Member of the House who does not realise that, if we should have a repetition of that disaster, away would go another huge portion of our export market, and more and more men would be put on the dole. In particular, we should take note, on both sides of the industry, of the excellent advice given to us by the Secretary for Mines to-day, and the broad-minded views expressed by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). Surely it is not beyond the wit of man that we should make absolutely impossible any recurrence of what happened in 1926. We are told by some people that the era of coal is coming to an end. I do not believe for a moment that that is the case. I believe that we are on the threshold of a new era of increased production, and more especially of increased efficiency in distribution, in which once again we shall be able to enjoy to the full the benefits resulting from properly organised utilisation of our great national asset.
    7.17 p.m.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) has given us, for the first time in my memory, some kindly words for the work which we have been doing during the last 15 years. He admitted that it was the Labour Government that passed the Act of 1930, and I gathered from what he said in that connection that, had he been in the House at that time, he would have supported the Labour Government. That is so much to his credit. It has always seemed to me, when I have listened to speeches from hon. Members on the benches opposite, that they would have us believe that we lack constructive ability, but apparently we did put some constructive ability into the Act of 1930, since it has satisfied representatives of the coalowners as well as representatives of the miners.
    I want to congratulate the new Secretary for Mines. It seems to have become almost a custom with us to congratulate a new Secretary for Mines when the Estimates for his Department come before us for consideration. I recall that since 1920 there have been eight Ministers of Mines. That is, on the average, one every two years. I was amused when the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated to us, just before he finished his speech, that he
    1916
    was rather fearful of peering into the future. His predecessor has now been promoted to a higher rank than he himself occupies, and two previous Ministers of Mines have gone to another place, so that the chances are that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will come off very well, provided always that he is successful at the forthcoming General Election, and also that his party is sufficiently successful to ensure their sitting on that side of the House in the next Parliament.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman made it perfectly plain that, since becoming connected with the coal-mining industry, he has discovered that it is one of those industries which are fundamental to the life of this country, and I rather think his suggestion was that practically all other industries are more or less dependent on it. I think that that is fairly true. Why is it, then, that a fundamental industry like the mining industry is in charge of a subordinate department in this House? I should say that probably the two most important industries in this country are agriculture and mining. There is no question as to the right of the agricultural industry to have a direct representative in the Cabinet, but the mining industry appears to be looked upon with a considerable amount of suspicion, and very often a considerable amount of prejudice, by the people who really count in the Government of the country. The consequence is that the Mines Department is a mere subsidiary department of the Board of Trade, so that nothing can be done by it on its own account. It has to have the sanction of the President of the Board of Trade, and, in any case, it becomes a second-hand question before it reaches this House. I want to enter a protest against the continuance of that procedure. I hope that if the Labour party, within a decent interval of time, have charge of the Government of this country, they will amend it, if the present so-called National Government is not prepared to do so, and will put the Mines Department in a higher position than it has had during the last 15 years by giving its Minister in this House a seat in the Cabinet.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the fact that the industry is a difficult and dangerous one, and we all know that that is the case. He said that

    1917
    there had been many improvements during the last three or four years. It depends, however, on how far you look back. I can look back for 50 years, and I have seen many changes. Some of them are good, and some are not. In my opinion, working in the mines, from the miner's point of view, has not been improved. I remember that I had to work from daylight till dark, from five in the morning until the same hour at night—a 12-hour day. If, however, it should be my misfortune, as a result of the next election, to have to look for a job at the coal face—I doubt whether I should get one, because I have not been in the mines since 1926—I should without hesitation, as a miner, prefer to work under the conditions of 50 years ago than under the conditions of to-day. There are some old miners still moving about in the mining localities who can tell the younger ones, who have not had a similar experience, about the sort of life that the miner had in those times as compared with the present day. I think it will be found that anyone who has had the same experience will agree with me that, while the conditions then were not such that one would look upon them as heavenly, still they were far preferable in many ways to the present conditions. Why is that? The accident rate is very much higher in the mines now than it was in those days. The men had more time to look after themselves. They were themselves responsible for maintaining the safety of their own place, but now they have to do it by Act of Parliament. If it is a case of putting in a prop to keep up the roof, it has to be done at a certain space—three or four feet—and that may be just an inch or two from the spot where the danger really lies.
    I need not stress the question of danger further than to say that the figures given by the Minister to-day are pretty much a repetition of what they have been every year for the last 30 or 40 years. Within my lifetime there have been a great many more casualties in the mines of this country than there were during the War. I do not say that more men have been killed, but there were more casualties, and a casualty is sometimes a very serious matter, as the Minister himself has quite properly said to-day. I have no fault to find with the manner in which he has presented this Estimate, and,
    1918
    indeed, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, (Mr. G. Macdonald) as to the charming manner in which he did so. He was not quite as bluff in putting his case to-day as the last Minister, although we realise that he is equally capable. It is curious that the men at the Mines Department who have never been in the mines know a great deal more than men who have been in the mines all their lives. It is very difficult to get them to take our point of view, and much more difficult to get the Department, and apparently more difficult still to get the inspector, to see our point of view.
    I have much that I could say of a pleasurable kind with regard to the Department, and also with regard to the inspectors. I have no personal ill feeling towards them, but I think they are just a wee bit more than cautious. The Minister himself said he was advised that he should be cautious, but if in the future he goes among the miners to any extent he will find that they are very conservative—more conservative even than people who are called Tories. We are all inclined to be cautious. But caution can be carried too far, and I am rather inclined to think that the Department has been a wee bit too cautious in a number of the matters in which we have been particularly interested during the last few years. When the Department came into operation 15 years ago, there were a number of districts in the British coalfield that were not troubled very much with machine mining, but machine mining has now been carried to a very high point in the Scottish mines, and I venture to say that there are few coal-producing countries in the world where the engineering genius and qualities have been higher than in the Scottish minefield.
    I am quite willing to admit, having some little knowledge of the geological conditions of some parts of that country, that, had it not been for machine mining, considerably fewer men might have been employed in the mines of Scotland than are employed there to-day. I attribute the fact that we are still able to employ a considerable number of men in that country to the capacity of those who have been in control of the industry during all those years. We never try to depreciate the qualities of the men with whom we come so closely in contact. Generally speaking, the relations between the workmen

    1919
    and the employers are good. It is only when we come to argue out the question of wages or overtime, or something of that sort, that difficulties arise. I am a little tired, however, of this continual talk of sympathy. There is far too much sympathy. We want more money, better conditions in the mines, shorter working time and many more men employed.
    We have recently put questions relating to overtime in the Scottish mines. I have also raised the question of Sunday labour. I am a Presbyterian, and, if I were living here, I do not think that I should go to the English church, so strongly am I imbued with the Calvinistic faith of my forefathers. Everyone imagines that the Scottish people are all very strict Sabbatarians except some of the coalowners. Not only are they breaking the law as far as working time is concerned, but they are breaking it with regard to the Lord's Day. Some of them preach on Sunday, but they allow the pits to be worked on the same day. We have had to protest against that, but we have had very little satisfaction or support from the Department. We are supposed to have some sort of an agreement, but it is something similar to the part of the Act of 1908, which is very often described by the Department as being elastic. The agreement is elastic in the sense that Sunday work is still being carried on, and it should be stopped. I agree that there is necessary work, but it is no greater to-day than it was 50 years ago. When I first went to work in the mines, if I had to work on a Sunday it was after midnight, and there is nothing to prevent the coalowners, and there is sufficient capacity in the managerial staff to organise the industry so as to ensure that work can be carried on without the breaches of the Sabbath Day which are so common in Lanark and elsewhere in Scotland.
    Now I come to the question of overtime. When the attempt was made in the first instance to get the Government to appoint inspectors to inquire into overtime, we found a considerable amount of opposition. It was finally agreed to send inspectors into the Lancashire coalfield, and a more or less half-hearted promise was given that, if their report turned out along certain lines, it might be necessary to extend the work of the inspectors. The report stated that there was only 0.38
    1920
    per cent. overtime being worked. The Lancashire Miners' Association did not agree with that, but in my view the inspectors on this occasion have done their work very well. They have produced a document which goes far to prove the allegations that we have made as to the continual and unwarranted breaches of the Act that were taking place in the Scottish coalfields. After dealing with the difficulties against which the Scottish mine-owners have to contend because of the thinness of the seams, the report goes on to say:
    "There is no escape from the conclusion that the position in Scotland, as evidenced by this report, generally gives ground for strong criticism in many respects. Some managers have made, and are making, persistent and praiseworthy efforts to keep overtime down by having recourse to one or more of the various expedients to which reference has been made above. Others, faced with recurrent difficulties, more geological than mechanical, do not seem to have troubled to look far beyond overtime for a remedy. At any rate, much more could apparently be done to reduce overtime than is at present being done, and the question is one to which Scottish coalowners and colliery managers as a whole should devote careful and continuous attention."
    That is what the inspectors say, but it is not only a question for the coalowners and the managers. It is a question for the Government as well. It is their business to see that the law is carried out, and the law is being broken to an extent that was almost unbelievable until this report was submitted. The Minister has told us that the managers have been warned that negligence or carelessness in this direction cannot be permitted. The excessive working of overtime by deputies must be dealt with at once by systematic methods of re-organisation. What is the use of talking about laxity in keeping the register, as referred to in the report? The only thing that the inspectors could get was the register, and the register might have been cooked. If it was cooked then, it may be cooked still. There is nothing to prevent it. The inspectors have no power at all to deal with the question. They cannot prevent the employer from working more than the overtime than he is doing, because he can always get off by saying it was due to that section of the Act which gives the excuse for saying that it was an emergency. This question should be settled by the appointment of

    1921
    inspectors to deal with it alone. The report from Scotland is a proof of the necessity for the appointment of men specially dealing with the question.
    There are 195 mines or pits dealt with in the statement that has been submitted here. They are divided into four categories—those in which there is no machinery in use, those in which there is coal-cutting machinery only, those in which conveyors only are in use and those in which both cutters and conveyors are in use. Of mines where there is no machinery at all, there are 10 and there is no overtime over 1 per cent. There are 62 mines which have coal-cutters and 12 of them have over 1 per cent. of overtime. There are five mines with conveyors, of which one has overtime over 1 per cent. There are 114 mines which have coal cutters and conveyors. In 58 of them overtime over 1 per cent. is in work and, over the whole of the 195 mines, 37 per cent. work more than 1 per cent. overtime, and 39 per cent. over 5 per cent. The report proves the absolute necessity for special appointments being made to deal with the question of overtime.
    The late Minister rather held the view that the appointment of inspectors for Scotland would finish this question, because it appeared that in Scotland mechanisation in the mine was carried to a much greater extent than in the other colliery districts. That was true at one time, but it is not true now, and I gathered from a statement that was then made, I believe to our Miners' Federation, that there would be no more inquiries into overtime working. Scotland is not now in the position of being the most highly mechanised district. For instance, in Northumberland 10 years ago 25 per cent. of the output was produced by coal-cutting machinery. In 1933, according to the Mines Department report, 81 per cent. of the output was being produced by machinery, Derby had 74 per cent., Warwick 56 per cent., North Stafford 56 per cent., and North Wales 56 per cent.
    Where machine labour is being used in any of the districts there is overtime, and the management cannot avoid it. The manager has to look after his job just the same as the miner, and if he does not do the work which he is told to do by those in control of the industry,
    1922
    he will find himself on the scrap-heap just the same as the ordinary miner. The manager has to look after his own position, and he requires to be protected as much as the miner, and his protection in this connection should lie in the direction of a special inspectorate appointed to deal with the question. In Northumberland and other districts in the British coalfields the same complaints are being made to-day as were made in Scotland, and the Mines Department well know it. It is no use the Minister or anyone else trying to make us believe that the question can be dealt with by the inspectorate. I formed one of the deputations which met the Department at Millbank during the period that the Labour Government were in office, and we raised the same question and were told that we could not prosecute the employers for breaches of the Act on the question of overtime because of a case that was dealt with in the Ayrshire Sheriff Court, the decision of which would require to be overturned in the Court of Session before the Department could take any action. At that time a promise was made that legislation would be introduced to deal with the matter if and when the decision of the Sheriff of Ayrshire was overturned with regard to the working of the eight-hour day.
    The time has come when there is a necessity for a complete change and a new Act to be put upon the Statute Book dealing with the mining industry as a whole. The one under which we are working to-day dates back to 1911, and the conditions to-day are nothing like what they were then. Both the employer and the miner recognise that there have been great changes during the last quarter of a century which have rendered that particular Act practically useless. The Act of 1908, certainly as far as the shorter working day is concerned, is practically useless, and we require new legislation dealing with these questions. I hope that the new Secretary for Mines will during the course of his work in this particular office set himself to the task of bringing in legislation to deal not only with the question referred to by an hon. Member from one of the Durham constituencies, but with the mining industry as a whole.
    I suggest to the Minister, to the Department, and to the President of the Board of Trade, who is the chief of this

    1923
    particular Department and is now present, that the time has come when a radical change is required in the law governing the mines of this country so as to safeguard not merely the life of the miner, but the officials in the mines, and ensure that they will be able to put the law into operation without fear or favour, and without feeling that the time may come when they may find themselves thrown out of employment if they attempt to carry out the law as it is laid down in the Statute Book. I certainly hope that the discussion to-day will have a good effect in that respect.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I am sorry that the new Secretary for Mines is not in his place, for I should have liked to have said to him how very much I appreciated both the matter and the manner of his speech. There are one or two points with which I wish to deal. The first is overtime, of which we have heard a good deal this evening. I do not think that hon. Members have put the whole side of the picture before the Committee. One of the main functions of the Secretary for Mines will be to get the co-operation of the Miners' Federation and of the men in general in stopping overtime. Speaking certainly for Northumberland, I think that a great deal of the overtime is due to the willingness with which men work overtime.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Starvation drives them to do it.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: For instance, there are certain classes of employés who regularly work a shift and a half because of the money they earn; I am thinking of locomotive drivers and people of that sort. The second point I want to bring forward is that of Workmen's Compensation, and I hope that I shall not be excluded by the Rules of Order, because I believe that the Home Office have at last arranged to appoint a Departmental Committee to discuss certain aspects of compensation law, and I am certain that the Department of Mines will put forward their own recommendations. The whole working of the Workmen's Compensation Act in so far as it affects the mining industry is profoundly unsatisfactory. There is a lot to be done in looking into the question of nystagmus not only from
    1924
    the mining point of view, but from the purely legal point of view. It is deplorable that that quite useful little Act of 1931 should have been struck right out by a recent judgment in the House of Lords. The fate of the partially disabled miner, I have no hesitation in saying, is a disgrace to civilisation. I am simply horrified by his lot. I could go into it at greater length but I am a little frightened of being out of order, but I beg of the Mines Department not to neglect that side of their duty. The third point is that I wonder if mines inspectors make quite sure in every case that the managers do not know what districts they wish to go into. The fourth is that I also wonder in how many pits to-day ponies are working two shifts in the 24 hours. I am a sentimentalist, but I do not approach this from a sentimental point of view. In a pit where ponies are regularly overworked, you can be pretty sure of finding other and more serious things wrong, so I recommend the Department to keep their eye on the question of ponies. So much for the specific details which I wish to bring forward.
    The Secretary for Mines made an appeal for kindliness, toleration and goodwill, an appeal which I am sure we all echo. It has particular point to-day. I honestly confess that I am profoundly uneasy at the state of feeling in the mining industry. Since the disaster of 1926 the industry has been comparatively peaceful. It has had a realistic approach made to it on all sides. It is the industry above all others that needs realism, and the calm, full consideration of the facts without passion and without emotion, though admittedly with a proper atmosphere of sentiment as distinct from sentimentalism. The old atmosphere of wild words and loose talk seems to be returning. [An HON. MEMBER: "What wild words have been uttered?"] The hon. Member asks, what wild words? Heaven only knows—
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: It is like a prayer meeting.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: I do not say my prayers like that. They are wild words when you get a demand for 2s. a shift all over the country without a single indication of how it is to be got or given. This may be the way a child says its prayers; it is childish.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Do the farmers and the shipowners and other people in this country prove their case when they make an application for subsidies? Surely the miners are entitled to as much help from this Government as the people receiving subsidies.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: The interruption of the hon. Gentleman is very interesting. I was not aware that the suggestion was that the whole of this 2s. was to be met by the Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It has to be met and given to the miners by somebody.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: I am glad to hear a representative of the miners say how it is proposed that the 2s. a shift increase should be met. We heard from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) that nobody in the industry wants conflict. I do not believe that they do. I am going to tell the Committee what I heard on Saturday last. I have the honour to represent a constituency in which every year the Northumberland Miners' Gala is held. It is a great and historic function, and I always attend it as one of the crowd. We had great speakers. We had a man whom I am proud to call my friend, Mr. Ebby Edwards, and we had Mr. Herbert Morrison, and statesmen of the Labour movement; and yet this is the headline that appeared in the following morning's paper:
    "Improved conditions or conflict likely."
    There is this deplorable talk of strikes and conflicts. We have heard speeches to-day, perfectly sincere speeches, outlining the problem and stating the evil conditions under which the miner works and lives, but they have not suggested what should be done to better them. That is where I see the danger. One would expect to hear from miners' leaders how things could be bettered. At that picnic on Saturday only one memorable word was uttered, and that by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who referred to Abyssinia as consisting of "arid swamps." There was not a single word uttered to the miners which offered any leadership whatever. I wonder if really the way that miners should be treated by Labour is to be told that the whole thing can be met by nationalisation and Socialism. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition, who, I believe, is to
    1926
    speak at Durham on Saturday, will offer them constructive leadership. I hope he will. The danger is uncertainty, and the preaching of magic words like "nationalisation" and "Socialism" without a suggestion being made as to what the miner should do to better his conditions; and this stressing of the disasters to the industry without one word being offered to the miners on how to avoid accidents such as we heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). In the last fortnight I have appealed to all the friends of the miners in my constituency to whatever party they may belong to try to co-operate in getting something done to improve Northumberland wages, at any rate, something that is practical, but up to now I have not had a single response.
    I have appealed to the friends of the miner who delight in demanding action from the Government to try to set up a selling pool for Northumberland county. I am satisfied from my own knowledge—I do not pose as an expert myself—that the experts are convinced that a selling pool for Northumberland would, on the coastwise trade to London, enable an increase of 1s. to 1s. 6d. or even more per ton to be gained without losing trade. That is the line that I wish my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines to take. I am not blaming anybody, but I am saying that the time has come when somebody has to give the pitmen of this country a lead. I think that their own leaders have failed them completely. They tell them the same old story. The record of their leadership is disastrous. To-day, when something constructive should be done, not a single constructive suggestion comes from the men's leaders. That is why I turn to my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines and express the hope that he will do the leading. I hope that he will urge, by all the above-board and subterranean forces at his command, the owners in Northumberland to consider the advisibility and the feasibility of setting up a selling pool.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the miners' leaders of this country have been asking for selling agencies for many years?
    Mr. NICHOLSON: I made my appeal 10 days ago. Mr. Edwards, the Secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great

    1927
    Britain, spoke at the miners' gala and referred to me and to my demand for a selling pool. He said:
    "You cannot have a selling pool without nationalisation."
    Everybody knew perfectly well what I had said in my newspaper article, and there has not been a single response from any miners' leader to say that he would be content to come with me in an effort to get something that could be made immediately useful, rather than running after that wild will-o'-the-wisp, nationalisation.
    Mr. JOHN: Is it not true that on the 5th July, 1932, when were were discussing the mines question in this House every miners' Member spoke with respect to centralised selling agencies? If the hon. Member will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date, he will see what was said.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: That may have been part of their programme, but they have never been willing to combine with their opponents in advocating that programme apart from the general question of nationalisation. The mining industry has continually fallen between the two stools. The Labour party have gone the whole hog for nationalisation and have been unwilling to take any small but certain steps that could be taken. I make this very definite charge against the whole of the Labour party that they have done nothing but mislead the miners and have failed to seize the opportunities that have been presented to them of getting actual and concrete improvements, possibly small but none the less real and genuine.
    Two mornings ago I was reading "Lycidas," and I came across 20 lines, which I shall not quote, which perfectly describe the situation in the mining industry. Milton was describing how the young writers and the young poets of England were left without genuine leaders and were receiving false leadership from men who did not know their job. I will recite three lines:
    "The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,
    But swoll'n with wind, and the rank mist they draw,
    Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread."
    I do not care who gives leadership to the miners, whether it comes from this side of the House, from the Opposition
    1928
    or from the Government, but I do say that the worst thing that can happen to any industry is lack of leadership. Let England beware lest the mining industry lacks leadership and lest the mining districts rot inwardly and spread foul contagion that will take many generations to eradicate.
    8.6 p.m.
    Mr. CURRY: The discussion has ranged over a very wide field, a field much wider than I anticipated when it began. We have heard speeches from both sides of the House, notably the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) which indicates that there is on the different sides of the coal industry a sufficient realisation of the seriousness of the position in which the industry stands at present, and sufficient goodwill between the two sides to avoid any disaster in the immediate future if there can be secured that co-operation for which the Secretary for Mines appealed. That is why I deplore, and I say it with all respect, the speech to which we have just listened. If ever there was a time—I speak as one who has spent his controversial life in the heart of the most politically conscious coalfield in the country, that of Durham—when we should refrain from provoking those who are responsible for the leadership of the men, the present is that time.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: If the hon. Member had listened to the sort of things that I have heard said recently in my constituency he would have been surprised that I was not provoked more.
    Mr. CURRY: I have no doubt that the hon. Member may have had that experience. I have spent the whole of my life in that experience, but public men must learn to have forbearance and to choose their moments, and I repeat that the present is not the time when we should seek to provoke those who are responsible for exercising restraint over a body of men whose loyalty is without equal in this country, and whose tenacity is also without equal. It may be a very easy thing to get men out, but it is a very difficult thing to get men back, and I should deplore any statement which would deny that presence of the spirit of co-operation which I feel to be the

    1929
    greatest essential in the difficult tasks that lie ahead of us in this industry.
    I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for the Mines Department. He brings to his Department a charm of personality which never fails. While I wish him every success in his own environment I would only express the hope that he will not bring to his new office that punctiliousness for procedure which he used sometimes to express from the back benches. Undoubtedly; besides that charm of personality to which I have referred he brings to his Department great tact and great ability, and the speech to which we listened to-day raises our hopes that his wonderful gifts will be applied to the great advantage of the mining industry. Those of us who represent mining areas but who are not actually engaged in the industry take part in these discussions with some disadvantage. I always feel at a disadvantage in discussing this industry because of my lack of experience in practical mining, but I have this advantage that I come from a mining home and have lived among miners all my life.
    We feel at the present time in Durham county that matters are not as we would like. We feel that there is a resurgence of discontent more vocal perhaps than it has been for 10 years. It springs obviously from the wearing out of the patience of very patient people. That is the realisation with which we must approach our problem, and I trust that we shall hear more of the spirit of the Noble Lord who spoke from the benches opposite, of the stretching out of the hand of fellowship, the common realisation of our difficulties nd the realisation of all that the miners have had to go through in the long and difficult years since the War.
    I should like to bring the Committee back to the consideration of the question of safety. I read the divisional inspector's report and I noticed that in his reference to accidents he expressed the opinion that 63 per cent. of the accidents which he had investigated, fatal and non-fatal, might have been avoided if everybody concerned had exercised the ordinary precautions which they ought to have done. I felt that that was an old story. We have been hearing that for some
    1930
    years and I have always wondered, as one outside the industry, why when that story is so repeatedly told effective steps are not taken to counteract this neglect. Therefore, I am delighted to learn of the growth of the movement to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) referred, the safety classes that are springing up. In Durham and Northumberland the safety class scheme is being well supported. There may appear to be a differentiation between the district from which I come and the Welsh area, but I believe—I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that steps were taken in Wales years ago to bring safety precaution treatment, training or teaching into the evening school curriculum. That will perhaps explain why there is an apparent differentiation.
    As an outsider I am thankful for the growth of that movement. I am glad to learn that in Durham almost every education authority in the county is taking its part in financing these classes, and that during last year something like 1,876 boys attended the courses and that out of that number 856 received their badge and certificate. The work is very important and we should express our thanks to those who are engaged in it. I should like to make a brief quotation from the report:
    "All the examiners are agreed that the training given in these classes has had the effect of reducing the number of accidents. One colliery manager said that before training in safety principles was adopted three out of every four boys in employment sustained some kind of accident before attaining the age of 16. The boys have become more observant and have proved their superiority over older boys who have not had the advantage of this training."
    That must be a great encouragement to those who have spent so much time and energy in promoting this movement, and I trust that they will be successful in constantly reducing the number of accidents. But while we can express our obligation to those who have done this for the boys we must remind the Minister that only he and his Department can see that the ordinary precautions are taken by those who are responsible for the control and management of the industry. With the co-operation of the two, I am sure that the story of accidents day after day will become less terrible than it has been in times past. There is one further point in regard to my own constituency. I am aware that we cannot touch upon

    1931
    anything which demands legislation, although some hon. Members have gone rather near the mark to-day. I want to remind the Secretary for Mines that on several occasions in important documents, in the Samuel Commission, reference has been made to the question of mining royalties, which is outside the scope of our discussion to-day. In my own constituency there are a number of collieries which are closed down. Formerly they employed numbers of people, and we have been informed by the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office in his report on the distressed area and also in the report of the Commissioner that these collieries cannot resume work unless mining royalities are unified in some way.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that would require legislation?
    Mr. CURRY: That is my difficulty. Perhaps the Secretary for Mines will suggest how it might be done. I desire to ask him, in view of the public interest which has been aroused in the area, whether he could call the various parties together in order to see if some arrangement might be arrived at in the district to get something done in the matter of a central pumping station without recourse to legislation. The same considerations apply to the question of wayleaves. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring his good offices to bear in this matter. Then there is the question of the organisation of selling agencies. Having regard to the condition of the industry to-day the Secretary for Mines must be alive to the great importance of expediting the trial of all schemes and appliances which may result in larger prices being obtained by the producing concerns, because it is only when larger prices are realised that there is any hope for an increase in wages. It is important that the hon. and gallant Member should endeavour to bring the various parties together on this point and get a discussion, which is always the prelude to wise action. We appreciate the efficiency of the Department over which the hon. and gallant Member has the honour to preside. The public generally appreciate the enthusiasm and the skill they bring to bear on their work, and the mining community realises that
    1932
    they desire to make the industry work efficiently and safely in the interests of all engaged in it.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. MILNE: I am sure that I am expressing the feeling of all Scottish Members who represent mining constituencies when I offer my felicitations to the new head of the Mines Department. The hon. and gallant Member has long been known, well and favourably known, to hon. Members, and after listening to his speech to-day I am confident that the interests of the mining industry could not be in better hands. I desire to direct his attention to a matter connected with the administration of his new Department. The United Kingdom, for mining purposes, is divided into districts and one of the districts is Scotland. The Scottish district is one, sui generis. We have our own difficulties and special problems, problems peculiar to Scotland. Although we have our own district in spectors the Mines Department has no home, no habitat, north of the border, no offices, no responsible official permantently stationed there. If you want information from the Mines Department or to discuss any matter with them you must seek your information and your discussions at Cromwell House, 400 miles from Scotland. We have in Edinburgh an independent Board of Agriculture, a Department of Education, a Fishery Board, and we are going to have a Herring Board, but the Mines Department, which is so intimately concerned with the lives of tens of thousands of Scotsmen, has no office, not even a branch office, in Scotland. The Scottish Office itself until quite recently was in the same predicament. It was only a few months ago that the Secretary of State opened in Edinburgh a branch office and placed it in charge of a responsible official. Anybody who has had occasion to do business in Drumsheugh Gardens will agree that its establishment has been triumphantly vindicated.
    During the reign of the hon. and gallant Member's predecessor the hardship and inconvenience of the situation was not so apparent because it was mitigated by a special circumstance. The late Secretary for Mines happens to be the Member for Leith, which is situated right in the centre of the mining area, the Fife coalfield to the north and the Lothian coalfield to the south. Moreover, Leith

    1933
    is not only the seaport of Edinburgh but is the principal port for the export of the Lothian coal and, therefore, the late Secretary for Mines had ever present in his mind the difficulties and vicissitudes of the Scottish export trade; they were forced upon his attention. We cannot expect that the Secretary for Mines should always be a member for a Scottish constituency. The present Minister has not that qualification, but that is his misfortune and not his fault. It is a defect, however, which he can remedy by sending north a deputy to represent him, and I undertake that that deputy will have a most warm welcome in Edinburgh and Scotland.
    It might be said, "But there would not be sufficient work for this special official." I hardly think that that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Overtime."] My hon. Friends speak of overtime, but I am speaking of conditions peculiar to Scotland. Scotland has its own special problems. Only the other day I was reading the report of Sir Arthur Rose, the Commissioner for the depressed areas of Scotland, who has been working hand-in-hand with the Scottish National Development Council and exploring the possibilities of extracting oil from Scottish coal. If, as we hope, these experiments are successful, how desperately inconvenient it will be for the Scottish National Development Council, Sir Arthur Rose, and all the rest of them to have to carry on their negotiations with London 400 miles away. I can assure the Minister that if he sends a deputy to Scotland there will be no difficulty about accommodation. Temporary accommodation could easily be found, and with regard to the future, plans have been sanctioned for palatial Government buildings on the Calton Hill.
    8.27 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I want to add my congratulations to the Secretary for Mines, although I feel that by this time he must be embarrassed by the number of congratulations he has received. He certainly made a most admirable survey, especially seeing that he has not held his office for long. I sincerely congratulate him on the way in which he presented his case to-day. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Nicholson) is not in his place, because he made a most provocative and violent attack on the miners' leaders. I gather that he is very seriously disturbed
    1934
    because he detects a more militant note in the speeches of the miners' leaders than he had found previously. I was indeed interested in his essay on leadership. I wonder whether he has familiarised himself with the history of the mining industry, because if he has he must know that the miners of this country have scarcely ever had anything that has been worth while unless they have fought and struggled for it. Nothing has ever been given to them gratuitously. As far as I am aware the mineowners have never been actuated merely by philanthropic motives, and the miners have had to struggle incessantly not merely to improve their conditions but to maintain the conditions which they had. If the hon. Member had still been in his place I would have pointed out to him that at any given moment, when the working classes have felt the pressure of economic circumstances, inevitably someone has voiced their feelings, and if the hon. Member detects in the speeches of the miners' leaders a more militant note, it is entirely due to the fact that patience is becoming exhausted and they are wondering if ever there is to be any improvement in their condition.
    This Debate has gone on for some hours, and although I would have liked to have made a number of observations on the general matters which arise on this Vote I will refrain from doing so and confine my remarks to a very few minutes. I particularly want to talk about my own county of Notts. That county at the moment occupies a unique position in more ways than one. I do not make the statement in disparagement of any other Mines Inspector's district, but the output per person in Notts is higher than that in any other part of the British coalfield. That is one respect in which we are unique. In another respect we are unique because most of our companies are making good profits. The Stanton Company, the Sherwood Company and others are all making good profits. It is because of those two unique circumstances that I want to call attention to the report of the Inspector of Mines for the North-Midland Division. In that report there are some alarming paragraphs. Not only are we unique in the two respects I have mentioned, but we have the highest fatality rate, from falls on the face, of any part of the coalfields of Great Britain. I cannot do better than

    1935
    quote one or two passages from the Inspector's report. He says on page 12:
    "This is a most unsatisfactory position and causes me deep concern. The number of persons killed by falls was in fact the highest that the Division has known, notwithstanding the yearly decline in the number of persons employed."
    He goes on:
    "In my last annual report I pointed out the unenviable position held by this Division as having the highest accident rate in the United Kingdom from falls of ground. Unfortunately this still remains true, as the following statement indicates."
    I do not propose to read the tabular statement which follows, but let me say a few words about the causes of this abnormal fatality rate in the county of Nottingham. Workers in any industry, and particularly in the mining industry, are given protection against bad working conditions in a variety of ways. First of all they have the protection of the law. If you have an efficient and energetic inspector and the laws are enforced, there may be some improvement in the miners' working conditions. Those two factors ought to operate effectively to improve the lot of the working miners. But I am very seriously perturbed, especially by the report that has come into our hands to-day in regard to the question of overtime. I want to relate the high accident rate in Nottinghamshire to the rapid growth of machine mining, and at the same time to assert that it is not unconnected with the working of overtime. I have, on more than one occasion, raised in the House questions of overtime in connection with the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I was anxious, if another inquiry was held after the Lancashire inquiry, that it should be in Nottinghamshire. The Miners' Federation and the Department however agreed—and I make no complaint about it—that the second inquiry should be in Scotland. I am not now going to ask for an inquiry in Nottinghamshire. I think we have had enough inquiries. I appreciate fully what the Minister said on the question this afternoon, and I only hope that his courageous words will be followed by swift and effective action. But I am seriously perturbed by the tone of the report on the working of overtime in Scotland. There are passages in which the inspectors speak rather strongly about it, but, taking the general tenor of the report, it appears really to be an
    1936
    attempt to explain and excuse the working of overtime. I do not think that anyone who has given it careful consideration could put any other construction on it. Referring to the regulations under the Act of 1908, which makes overtime permissible, I find this passage:
    "The terms of the Act are intentionally elastic, and, moreover, at the time the Act was drafted the conditions which obtain in the machine-mined pit to-day were not in contemplation."
    If the terms of the Act of 1908 are elastic, I am certain that the mineowners have stretched them to the utmost limit. I do not see why the inspectors who have made this investigation, should, more or less, seek to excuse and explain away rather than condemn the working of overtime. The inspector for the North Midlands Division in one passage refers to the number of complaints received by him about overtime as being very meagre. I wish he had my experience in regard to such complaints. I receive them incessantly from every part of the coalfield and sometimes one finds curious confirmation of the statements made in those complaints.
    Recently, I happened to be sitting on the bench in court when there was brought before us by the Ministry of Labour the case of a miner who was alleged by the Ministry to have signed on for unemployment benefit for a day on which he was at work. The Ministry called the deputy of the mine at which the man was employed to give evidence in support of the charge. The deputy read from the time-sheet the man's hours of employments on two given days. It appeared that on the first day in question he went to work on the afternoon shift at 3 p.m. and returned home at 6 o'clock next morning. The management kindly informed him that he need not go on the afternoon shift on the second day and that he could go on the night shift instead. He went on the night shift at 10 p.m. and returned home about 9 o'clock next morning. In the course of that week the man worked three and a-half shifts. Normally he should have worked those three and a-half shifts in a period of 96 hours. Actually he worked them in a period of 48 hours. As a matter of fact the man did not know whether he was on the afternoon shift or the night shift, and there was a dispute on that question.

    1937
    It may be said that that is an isolated case to which great importance need not be attached, but I use it as an illustration of verification from the books of a colliery, of complaints such as are repeatedly made about the working of overtime in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I feel certain that overtime and machine mining linked together, the rush, the hurry, the haste with which men have to work in mines where machines are used to-day, are responsible, in no small degree, for the high fatality rate in the county in which my constituency is situated. There is one other way besides legal protection by which the men can preserve their working conditions and improve their lot. I am more and more driven to the conclusion that if the Statutes which we enact are not more rigidly enforced by a more efficient and active inspectorate, if there is to be shown such an amount of consideration for the colliery owners and employers as is shown, then the only remedy for the men is to band themselves together in a real, vital, active trade union organisation. If the State fails to give them protection, and leaves them at the mercy of the owners whose primary consideration is the making of profits, then they will have to work out their own salvation.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. McKEAG: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) will forgive me if I do not traverse the ground which he has covered in his speech, because, owing to the exigencies of time, my remarks must be limited within a narrow space. This is the fifth occasion during the last week or two on which I have sat throughout a Debate in the hope of making some contribution to it, and my pockets are bulging with speeches which, for good or ill, or perhaps as a mercy to mankind, have not yet seen the light of day. I wish to add my voice to those which have already been raised in paying tribute to the new Minister for the excellent speech with which he introduced the Estimates. There was, if I may say so, a Shakespearean touch about it, but I was disappointed with one statement which he made. I had hoped for more detailed information from him on the steps which are being taken by his Department to encourage the increased use of coal. It is true that he dealt with the subject briefly, but, as this is a matter of great
    1938
    moment to the derelict mining areas, I would like more time to be devoted to it.
    We must face the fact that there is a great amount of leeway to be made up in this respect. Before the War, 97.3 per cent. of the British Mercantile Marine was run on coal. To-day only about 50 per cent. is run on coal. There is a drop of no less than 42.7 per cent. Before the War, the Navy used coal to the extent of 98 per cent. Now it is run almost entirely on oil. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us what loss that means actually in terms of tons of coal per annum to the mining industry, and what it means in terms of miners rendered unemployed. I have no doubt the figures would impress the Committee very much indeed.
    I do not despair. Old King Coal is not dead yet, and I submit that there is still a future for the coal industry of this country. In the Debate on the distressed areas last night, the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) referred to the strides which have been made in the hydrogenation and coal carbonisation processes at Billingham, and I am sure the whole Committee was very glad to hear from his lips the view that the Billingham process would in all likelihood prove successful. Science is active, and new methods are constantly being evolved, and it may interest the Committee to know that an entirely new process has been discovered which may yet revolutionise the production of oil from coal, a process whereby oil would be extracted and refined simultaneously by the same machine and at a cost far below the present prodigiously heavy expenditure which is entailed. I have devoted some little time to the investigation of this new method, and without wishing to overstate the position at all, I can say that there is every likelihood of the process being successful, with consequent benefit to the mining industry.
    It is essential that something should be done, not merely to increase the output of coal, but to increase the numbers of miners engaged in the work of winning that coal. I think the Secretary for Mines said there had been an increase in the production of coal in Durham County of 10.9 per cent. during the last 12 months, but what was the number of men employed? Was it more or less than previously? Had employment in Durham

    1939
    County been increased or reduced? I ask because the experience of recent years has been that employment has decreased in inverse ratio as production has increased. The experience in my own division bears that out. Only a few months ago over 1,300 miners were thrown out of work by the closing down of the Hetton Lyons and the Hazard collieries, and at least 1,000 of them are still displaced. The Committee will remember the figure which was given by the Secretary for Mines, when he said that the process at Billingham was likely to be so successful as to provide work for 1,300 miners, and yet by the closing down of two collieries alone in my own division over 1,300 miners were thrown out of work.
    I would like to have touched upon the question of safety in mines. Representing as I do a great mining constituency, it would not have been unfitting that I should have made some more detailed reference to those considerations, but I will confine myself to one observation. The hon. Gentleman in his speech referred to the great number of accidents in the nature of scratches and other injuries to the hands. I remember very well that in the Debate on this Vote last year I made special reference to the number of injuries caused to the hands of miners, and I mentioned that no fewer than 31,897 injuries in the mines were injuries to the hands of miners. I suggested the wearing of gloves, and I also suggested that there should be special helmets worn by the miners to prevent unnecessary injuries to the head. One hon. Member has to-day suggested that special boots might be worn in order that injuries to the foot might be obviated.
    The question arose as to who was going to pay the cost of the provision of these things, and I want to make this suggestion. A very large amount of money is paid away each year, either by coal-owners organisations or by insurance companies, in the payment of compensation for injuries sustained by miners. Then why should not those people provide the funds for the purchase of these materials? Surely it would be an excellent investment. Surely it would be infinitely better to provide a few pairs of gloves and boots and a few helmets than to have to pay away these large
    1940
    sums of money as compensation for injuries. One hon. Member referred to the question of compensation. I was recently in a hospital ward in Durham County Hospital, and I was called over to the bedside of a miner who was recovering from injuries to his leg. He told me that his wife and three children were living on 23s. a week compensation while he was lying there incapacitated. He was very bitter indeed about it and compared it with the amount that was being paid by way of relief and in other ways to other people, and the comparison was a very shocking one indeed.
    The Minister this afternoon ended his speech with a very fine peroration which was an eloquent plea for co-operation and understanding on both sides in the mining industry. I hope that that earnest plea will not fall upon deaf ears. On Saturday of this week a great gala of the Durham miners will he held in the city of Durham, a division of which I have the honour to represent in this House, and I believe that that great concourse of miners will be addressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and also by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I hope very much that the plea which was made by the Minister this afternoon will not fall upon deaf ears so far as the mineowners are concerned, and I equally hope that in the words of wisdom which the right hon. Gentleman opposite will address to that great gathering of miners in Durham city on Saturday he will not forget the earnest plea made by the Minister. The miners are a fine and brave body of men. Many hundreds of them in my division are my personal friends, and I hope with all my heart that every avenue will be explored peacfully and understandingly to secure that living wage which they so much deserve. For heaven's sake let us be spared a recurrence of the terrible and horrible tragedy of 1926.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. DAGGAR: The present Secretary for Mines has already been congratulated upon his appointment, and I have no wish to detract from or depreciate the sincerity of such praise as has been bestowed upon him, because, while it is the policy of all Governments—I am making no exception at all—to make these appointments without regard to

    1941
    experience or knowledge, I feel certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is as capable and has shown as great a capacity as any of his predecessors, some of whom, because of lack of knowledge and experience, were unable in this House to distinguish between a steel prop and a steel arch. But I must admit that upon his elevation I recalled to mind one of the speeches that he himself delivered in this House when the Coal Mines Bill was before it in 1930, when the constitution of the proposed National Board was under discussion. On that occasion he made this observation:
    "My point of view is quite definite, and it is that none of these people"—
    that is, those representing either the Federation of British Industries or the General Council of the Trades Union Congress—
    "should be the bodies from whom nominees are asked. We want to get some representation of the ordinary, common garden person who is not at all connected with the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February; col. 167, Vol. 235.]
    After the perusal of that utterance, I wondered in what terms the hon. and gallant Gentleman would describe himself. We know that he is not connected with the industry, but does he consider himself one of the "ordinary" or one of the "common garden" persons? Whichever he may be, I am certain that he has not secured his office upon his own personal recommendation. In any case, he can find consolation in the fact that, as far as we are concerned, we agree he has shown capacity this afternoon in the presentation of his case, equal, and in many respects superior to, that of his predecessors. Be that as it may, I hope that he will not be so foolish as the late Secretary of Mines who indulged in silly predictions, one of which was referred to by my hon. Friend who opened the Debate, with regard to explosions. On one occasion he made reference to the loss of 344 lives in the Lancashire disaster in 1910, and to no fewer than 430 lives in South Wales in 1913, and said:
    "Explosions of such magnitude are a thing of the past, now that the practice of stone-dusting the underground roadways of mines to prevent the coal dust propagating an explosion is universal and enforced by law."
    It is a strange fact that the article from which that extract was taken was written by the late Secretary for Mines
    1942
    in the "Liberal National Review" in September, 1934, and that the explosion at Gresford Colliery occurred in the same month, when 265 persons lost their lives in the worst explosion that has happened in this country for the last 22 years. What a tragic commentary on the prediction of a preacher turned politician. A politician who turns prophet is the most lamentable figure on earth. I know that the present Secretary for Mines will not be quite so flippant in his writings. On numerous occasions we on these benches have stressed the need for a new Mines Act. I am precluded from discussing the importance of that, but I am entitled to direct the attention of the Committee to an observation made by the late Secretary for Mines. He said,
    "Different hon. Members who have spoken have raised the question of a new Mines Act. I cannot deal with that question, because it would require new legislation, but I would say to the hon. Member for Abertillery—because he was the first in my tenure of office as Secretary for Mines to raise this question—that when he raised it originally his speech did not fall on deaf ears. I noted it and I am giving it most careful attention … I will give the most careful attention to what has been said about the matter. No one can apply his or her mind to a consideration of the problem of the mines at this time without realising that the coming of the machine has raised a great many problems and difficulties, in regard to some of which we are not quite sure what the correct solution may be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1934; col. 1668, Vol. 289.]
    The latter part of that statement constitutes a part of our case for a new Mines Act. The late Secretary said that he had given and would give special attention to what had been said about the subject. I am anxious to know what the present Secretary for Mines is going to do. Had the late Secretary devoted as much time and displayed as much enthusiasm for this demand as he did in passing a Bill to reduce the penny per ton welfare levy to one halfpenny, it would not have been necessary again to raise this question. We were assured on that occasion that our speeches had not fallen on deaf ears. We never thought that deafness was one of the afflictions of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is obvious that we placed the case into unwilling hands. The mine workers of Great Britain have discussed this question at a special conference. On the 16th April this year, the late

    1943
    Secretary was interviewed by the officials and representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation, and for some reason or another he asked for a memorandum setting forth in general terms the reason for asking for a new Mines Bill. He promised consideration of the memorandum and said he would give his decision as soon as possible. Since then he has been promoted. I am anxious to know what his successor proposes to do.
    The subject of accidents has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), but I desire to emphasise one or two particular aspects of this problem. I have always held that there is need for the compulsory stowing of waste, gobs or goaves. I have pressed this point before, and I shall continue to do so, because, as an ex-miner, I appreciate its importance. Captain Carey, who was head of the Inspectorate in South Wales, as far back as 1923 said:
    "Two explosions, due in my opinion to defective ventilation, have occurred in recent years in this division, and in both instances the packing of the waste had received but scant attention, enabling cavities to be formed which subsequently filled with fire."
    The late Secretary for Mines, quite unintentionally, admitted the case for the stowing of waste in his reference to the Bentley explosion on the last occasion when the subject was under discussion. He said:
    "The scheme of ventilation was as near perfect as it was humanly possible to make it, but the explosion was in the waste and not at the working place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1934; col. 1668, Vol. 289.]
    Such a thing could not have happened had there been compulsory stowing of what we call the gobs in the mines. The chief cause of accidents in mines is falls of ground, and we should never lose sight of the fact that that is the chief cause. The last report submitted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department makes it clear that in 1933, 454 persons were killed by falls of ground this year and 1,319 were seriously injured. The total number of persons injured as a result of falls of ground causing a loss of three days or more was no fewer than 44,068. This part of the report is signed by Sir Henry Walker, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, and he makes these observations:
    1944
    "In my report for 1924 I stated that I had no doubt that by lightly packing the goaf of longwall workings, and by methods of support which left the minimum of area of roof exposed, both in longwall and bord and pillar (stoop and room) workings, the accident rate from falls of grounds could be further reduced. I remain still of that opinion."
    Such statements are to be found in reports year after year, but little is done to enforce the introduction of the methods suggested. Listen to this from a similar report for 1923, over the signature of one of Sir Henry Walker's predecessors, Mr. Thomas H. Mottram:
    "In last year's report it was noted that the chief cause of accidents in mines is falls of ground and also that the difficulties in guarding against the risks of falls are well known both to managements and workers alike. Notwithstanding this knowledge, many accidents still occur which ought not to occur."
    In every year from 1922, to my knowledge, the reports of inspectors of mines contain repeated references to the need for stowing the waste, or "gob," as a means not only of preventing accumulations of gas, without which explosions are impossible, but of preventing accidents from falls of roof. Of what use is it for us to be continually raising these matters in this House if nothing is to be done? Scant consideration is given to the loss of life and to accidents in the mines of this country. What a contrast to the measure of safety enjoyed by the travelling public. Last year only one person was killed out of every 96,000,000 passengers carried on the railways, and one injured out of every 3,000,000. As an ex-miner I am convinced that two methods and two methods only exist for dealing with this problem. One is to demonstrate to the owners that to stow the waste will pay them, and the other is to compel them to stow it. I hope the new Secretary for Mines will not rely too much upon his advisers; not allow them to suggest what he should do but see that they do what he suggests; see that they execute and not instruct; endeavour to make his Ministry a movement and not, as it has been in many respects over the last 20 years, a monument.
    I want to raise another phase of this safety problem. It is by no means original, but I think it should again be emphasised. I refer to the right of workmen to appoint their own examiners. Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act of 1911 states:

    1945
    "The workmen employed in a mine may appoint two of their number to inspect the mine, and the persons so appointed shall be allowed once at least in every month to go to every part of the mine and to inspect the shafts, roads and levels."
    I deplore the fact that the number of such examinations shows a marked tendency to decrease. According to an answer given to a question in this House on 10th December last year, the number of such examinations in 1931 was 3,193, in 1932 2,902, and in 1933 2,880. That shows a reduction of no less than 313 in three years. Ninety per cent. of those were in three districts—Durham, Northumberland and South Wales. That leaves 10 per cent. only of these inspections undertaken in the larger part of the coal area of Great Britain.
    It is very significant that, according to a statement made by the manager of the Gresford Colliery where on 22nd September last year 265 men and boys were killed, there had been no examination or inspection on behalf of the workmen since 1921. We were told by the late Secretary for Mines that efforts are frequently made to emphasise the undoubted desirability of a much wider exercise of the workmen's rights under the Section I have quoted, and he said that he was glad to have the opportunity of expressing that view again. It would be interesting to know what efforts were made at this particular mine to emphasise the importance of such examinations. Although I question the reasonableness of Parliament in expecting workmen to pay for their own safety in an undertaking which belongs to other persons I hope they will continue to exercise that right.
    Next I want to deal with wages, to which references have been made by other hon. Members, some of whom who occupy, or at least adorn, these benches with us. We have been told, with the usual display of political pride, that the total wages paid in the mining industry in Great Britain were higher last year than in any year since 1931. The ex-Secretary for Mines, in order to justify the exalted position he now occupies, has been going about the country emphasising that fact. No one on these benches will dispute that statement; but those who apologise for the Government's inactivity in the matter of miners' wages never mention that that sum was £5,000,00 less than the wages paid in
    1946
    1931, and that as compared with 1930, a year that is never taken into consideration, it shows a, reduction of no less than £17,000,000, and as compared with 1929 a reduction of £27,000,000. While the average earnings in 1934 were £116 per man employed, that is, £4 more than in 1931, the sum was only £2 more than in 1930, but £2 less than in 1929.
    A similar position obtains in South Wales. The average annual cash earnings of mine workers in South Wales last year amounted to £119. That is £5 more than in 1933; as compared with 1931 it shows an increase of £4; as compared with 1930 an increase of £2; but as compared with 1929 it shows a decrease of no less than £10. But the total output per person employed in South Wales showed an increase in 1934, compared with 1931, of no less than 11 tons; as compared with 1932 an increase of no less than 16 tons; and as compared with 1933 an increase of no less than 12 tons. Those are facts which should be taken into consideration when the trumpeters of the Government go through the country advertising the prosperity, the unparalleled prosperity, of miners who get a miserable £116 for working 12 months.
    Yesterday we discussed the depressed areas. I submit that, in regard to the cause of the depression, which was not mentioned, no factor has had such an effect as the decrease in miners' wages. In 1920 the total wages paid amounted to £265,000,000 and in 1934 to £88,000,000, a reduction of no less than £177,00,000. In South Wales the total wages paid in 1920 amounted to £66,000,000 and in 1934—and this credit can be given to the Government, if credit they want—the total wage bill had fallen to £16,000,000, a reduction of £50,000,000. If anything has contributed to a continuance of the depression in those areas, it is the reduction of £50,000,000 during that year.
    Reference has been made to the output of coal last year as compared with 1933. We do not dispute or attempt to controvert the fact that the 1934 output in Great Britain was 221,000,000 tons and in the year 1933, 207,000,000 tons, which shows an increase of 14,00,000 tons. The Government are legitimately proud of that increase, but why compare 1934 with 1933 to the exclusion of any years previous to 1933? The reason is that if you compare the output of coal in Great

    1947
    Britain last year with that of 1929, it shows a decrease of 37,000,000 tons and, when compared with 1930, a reduction of 23,000,000. In 1934 there was a slight increase in the amount of coal produced in South Wales, less than 1,000,000 tons. That 14,000,000 tons benefited South Wales, but, as compared with 1929, it shows a reduction in South Wales and Monmouthshire of 13,000,000 tons, and compared with 1930 a reduction of 10,000,000 tons. The coal exports for 1934 were a little in excess of 39,600,000. They show a slight increase over 1933 of 591,954 tons, but compared with 1932, an increase of 761,000 tons. When the figure is compared with 1930, it shows a decrease of 15,000,000 tons in the amount of coal exported. Compared with the year when representatives of the party to which I belong were in office, it shows a decrease of 21,500,000 tons.
    The Secretary of Mines referred to the latest figures available, but there is no satisfaction in those. Hon. Members from depressed areas know that the latest figures show that for the first six months of this year, from January to June, we exported a little over 19,000,000 tons of coal. That is a decrease, compared with a similar period of last year of over 441,000 tons. While it is an increase of 46,739 tons compared with 1933, it is a decrease of 9,000,000 tons compared with 1930 and 9,000,000 tons compared with 1929. That strengthens our case, made yesterday afternoon and on previous occasions, that the position in South Wales and in the other depressed areas cannot be dealt with effectively unless, in some form or other, the coal industry is assisted to revive.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman also dealt with the prospects of the coal-mining industry. I hold the opinion which I have expressed on more than one occasion in this House, that unless you revive the mining industry, your depressed areas in every county will not only increase in numbers but will increase in size. The whole of South Wales shows signs at the present moment of becoming one complete, depressed area. That statement may be considered an exaggeration, but its reliability or unreliability is shared by Members of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in this House the week before last, made this statement:
    1948
    "If coal can be turned to liquid fuel, there is no doubt that it will regain a good deal of the custom which it has lost in recent years."
    He went on to say that a good deal of the shipping traffic was conducted almost entirely on oil. He said:
    "There are very few passenger vessels which burn anything but oil nowadays, and they are never likely to return to a demand for coal. The kind of oil which they use is just the sort of liquid fuel which can be produced from some classes of coal, and we hope that it may be one of the main uses to which coal may be put, even in the derelict areas, in future."
    There is no hope in the extraction of oil from coal unless the Government take a hand. It is a scandal that we should import into this country oil at the rate of 4,850,000,000 gallons. I understand that a ton of oil is equivalent to one and one-third tons of coal. In 1930 we imported only 1,280,000,000 gallons of oil, but in 1934 we imported 4,850,000,000 gallons. The Minister's figure of 60,000,000 gallons being extracted is very insignificant, compared with the total imports of oil into this country. The President of the Board of Trade also said that in spite of what the Government have done there were some districts in our great coal areas
    "that are never likely again to regain their foreign sales."
    He also said something which I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain. This observation is taken by the same speech:
    "Without assistance now from the Government, it is doubtful whether they"—the coal exporters—"will be able to retain the business which they still hold, and they certainly will be unlikely to obtain new business in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1935; col. 1250, Vol. 304.]
    What does the Mines Department think that statement meant? I ask the Secretary for Mines to explain it. It supports my contention that unless something be done in South Wales that area will fast become a totally depressed area. The solution is not to be found in the recommendations of the Commissioner for the depressed areas, but in the resuscitation in some form or another of the coal industry in that area. Throughout the report of the Commissioner for England and Wales, plenty of evidence can be obtained in support of my statement. In paragraph 184, he says:
    "Much improvement of the export trade for coal in the near future can hardly be looked for."

    1949
    He goes on to say that increased employment in the coal industry is unlikely to be experienced in the near future. Those facts, he said, had to be faced. In view of the statements which I have quoted from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and which are supported by the Commissioner whose report was under discussion yesterday, I am justified in making the observation, which is no exaggeration, that South Wales shows indications of becoming one complete depressed area unless a move is made by this Government. It is no use telling us that we should be content to extract oil from coal to the extent of a miserable 60,000,000 gallons while we import nearly 5,000,000,000 gallons. The low wages paid in the mining industry are a disgrace not only to the Government but to those who support them and the public in general. The accident figure reflects discredit upon the coalowners, the Mines Department and the Members of this House. The means to reduce them are being repeatedly stressed by mines inspectors and people who have had practical experience in the industry. We desire a new Mines Act, with stowing of empty places in the mine and rigid and persistent enforcement of entirely new regulations.
    9.26 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am really quite overcome by all the kind words that have been said about me to-day, and I must profoundly thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the very kind things they have said. I thought at the beginning of the Debate that it was likely during the succeeding five hours that a good many questions would be put to me that I should have to answer, and to-night on my way home I think I could quite truthfully whistle to myself:
    "Little man you've had a busy day."
    To review the Debate as a whole, the point on which most attention was, perhaps, focussed was the question of overtime, arising out of the report published yesterday, but so many other questions have been asked that I think the best procedure would be to try to deal with those specific questions. I appreciate the whole tone of the speech of the hon. Member who opened the Debate on behalf of the Opposition. He started by making a number of observations with regard to
    1950
    the fatality at Gresford. He expressed some surprise that I had not gone further into the matter. On reflection, I think he will see that this was not the occasion to go into it, if for no other reason than that Gresford was a unique disaster compared with anything we have had in recent years. It raises matters of such great importance that, although the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) has told me never to prophesy, I think I can go so far as to say that it is more than likely in due course—safeguarding the words—that we shall have to have special consideration of all the problems that arise out of Gresford.
    Mr. DAVID GREWELL: When will the report be published?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot say when the report will be available, but the disaster does raise such big issues that I think we had better wait to discuss them in due course.
    Mr. DAVID DAVIES: It is a plain issue. Ventilate the pits and you will have no more explosions.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Plain issues do not always turn out as simply as that. When the hon. Member asks me whether I would take the opportunity of convening a meeting of owners and men on the question of wages, the answer is emphatically, "Yes." The Government have always held the view that it was advantageous that such meetings should be held. As the hon. Gentleman also realises, it is one thing to invite people to meet, but it is very difficult to get them to do so. No efforts on my part will be spared in that direction, any more than they have been by my predecessor. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) asked whether the general policy of the Government was the same as when he held office. The answer is "Yes." Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say: "Why do not you do it now? Look at what the Labour party did in 1924. They succeeded in getting them together." But look what happened in 1929, when they tried to get them together. They did not succeed. The hon. Gentleman reminded me of one year 1924, but conveniently did not say anything about 1929. As he was Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time, he will know the circumstances of that occasion and how difficult it was. Thus,

    1951
    when I say the answer to the question is, "Yes," he will also be well aware of the difficulties the problem involves.
    Then he asked why, when the Minister of Labour was having his discussions on the subject of the 40-hour week, he did not consult the mineowners on the subject. There is no hidden mystery about it. The answer is that he was having various discussions and that if and when the Council of the Trades Union Congress decides to ask the Government to negotiate with individual industries, and as a result consultations take place with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, then obviously corresponding discussion would have to take place with the Mining Association. There is no hidden guile about the Government on that point. Then he asked whether, if the Miners' Federation of Great Britain asked for the findings of the National Board to be made binding, what would the Government reply. It is one thing not to prophesy, but it is a worse thing to answer hypothetical questions. I will wait until that question is put to me.
    Mr. BATEY: It has been put several times.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: And then it can be answered, but so far as I know at present the Miners' Federation has not made up its mind on that subject. At least if it has, it has not communicated it to me. If and when it does ask that arbitration shall be on compulsory grounds, then I shall be prepared to answer that question. I am sorry that these questions are not particularly inter-connected, but they were all raised in the speech that opened the Debate, and they are entitled to as good an answer as I can give. With regard to safety classes, again I want to pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House for the way they have supported this movement, and have gone about the different areas giving all the assistance that they could. When the hon. Member asked whether they are cramped in regard to financial considerations, the answer, so far as I know, is "No." We have not heard of any cases where that is the stumbling block. If the hon. Member knows of any and would like to talk to me about them, I shall be very happy.
    1952
    The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who was himself so interested in these problems of protective devices, asked why it was that in one mine everybody has a hat and in another no one has. It is like asking why does a miller wear a white hat, or why do I wear one? There are, I suppose, different species.
    Mr. LAWSON: It is a question of cost.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: That is in question. In a good many cases the men receive assistance from the employers. That is a question which opens up another problem. It may be that it is prejudice. It may be that the value of propaganda has not been appreciated.
    Mr. D. DAVIES: It may be temperature.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: It may be all sorts of reasons. If they are a really effective device, one would expect that everybody would be using them. I am reminded, in that respect, of what happened during the War. Any hon. and gallant Member who was in France at the time steel helmets were introduced will bear me out when I say that you saw a whole battalion that had been issued with steel helmets carrying them about because they hated wearing them. After a while they began to be worn. Some rather superior person who did not wear a helmet probably got knocked on the head, and then everybody wore them. I hope that in due course we shall find that not only this but all devices which research can find to help safety problems will be generally used. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having called attention to the matter of safety classes. He asks why there are such discrepancies between some parts of the country, where these classes have been successful, and other places where they have not been successful. There again I cannot give him an answer. I did call attention to this point in my opening speech with regard to the Swansea district. I think all we can do is for everyone in that part of the world—trade union leaders, work-people, employers, local education authorities, and anyone else who will help—to try to get that form of propaganda going there which has been so successful in other parts of the country.

    1953
    The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) asked two questions. In the first place he asked whether arrangements are in force in all districts for the pooling of quotas and the purchase of quotas. In all districts arrangements are in force for the transfer of quotas at the unfettered discretion of the coalowners, and in many districts, including the North Eastern coalfield, which he represents, there are arrangements for the pooling of surplus quotas. Then the hon. Member referred to the case which might well be described as the Consett case, about which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) also had something to say; and I observed out of the corner of my eye that the hon. Member for Consett during his speech was quoting from a document which I also received by post this morning, and which I daresay other Members have received.
    The position is that the Act of 1923, dealing with working facilities, was amended in 1926, and eventually a case was taken, both in Scotland and in this country, to the Railway and Canal Commission. The Railway and Canal Commission in both cases gave similar verdicts. In this country, however, the case was taken to the Court of Appeal, and the verdict was reversed, so that at the present moment there is one interpretation of the law in England and another in Scotland. Naturally, that calls for the very serious consideration of all of us, because it is a difficult case to decide. Apparently the Courts have not been able to decide exactly what was the intention of Parliament. I cannot to-day take the matter any further than to say that it is receiving the most active consideration of the Government, because we realise the difficulties which a position of that kind inevitably raises.
    The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), who spoke very kindly, asked about the control of small mines, and whether I have any power to prevent little mines, employing, as I think he suggested, about 30 men, from being started at all. I have no power to do that. The Department only comes in if there is going to be any question of danger or safety. If safety questions are involved, that, of course, brings the mine more within my province, but I cannot prevent it from being started. The hon. Member asked whether I could insist upon there
    1954
    being a certificated manager, and there again I think the answer is that generally speaking I cannot, but as soon as any question of safety arises the Divisional Inspector can insist that the manager should be certificated. Both of these questions, as is so often the case with matters dealt with by the Department, have their origin in the question of safety. The hon. Member rather belittled the value of the Trade Agreements, as did the hon. Member who spoke last, but I would remind them that, in the case of the countries with which we have made agreements, the exports have gone up by 3,000,000 tons, and I think it is, I will not say reasonable, but safe, to assume that, if there had been no agreements, the exports would certainly not have gone up by 3,000,000 tons.
    Mr. G. MACDONALD: I was very careful not to belittle the value of the agreements. I called attention to the danger of their having adverse effects.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I was thinking of the effect of the trade agreements, and of various negotiations that we have had, on the very district in which the hon. Member is interested, namely, Lancashire. An understanding was reached—it was not exactly a trade agreement in the same sense as the Scandinavian trade agreements—with the Irish Free State, which means an increase of exports from this country to the Free State of about 1,000,000 tons, or something like 40 per cent. in the case of Lancashire and North Wales, so that the fact that we have made an agreement in that case is certainly doing something to help. If 400,000 tons are going from Lancashire to the Irish Free State as a result of that agreement, it has done something to bring work to that district. I think the figure is about 1,500 or 1,600 men.
    Hon. Members opposite always keep going back to 1929 and 1930 when dealing with the output and export of coal, but the curve after 1929 went very steeply downwards until 1931, and they were responsible for the administration of this country during a considerable part of 1931. The drop then was very heavy, and, for all that I know, it may have been in the first part of the year. In 1929 the output was 257,000,000 tons. In the three following years it went down to 243,000,000, 208,000,000 and 207,000,000 tons respectively. Last year it went up to 221,000,000 tons, and this year it is also

    1955
    up. No doubt one could take any year to suit one's argument, but, if one takes five or six years, and sees the figure first going down and now, thank goodness—I am sure everyone is grateful for it—going up, if we find that that increase is a result of an increase in home consumption due to an improvement in productive industry through tariffs, and if we find also an improvement of 3,000,000 tons in the exports to countries with which we have made agreements, I think one is entitled to say on behalf of the Government that their policy on these lines has had some effect. I do not want to exaggerate anything, but the hon. Member must agree that it has had some effect.
    The Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) made a speech which I wish had been heard by a much fuller House. If all those concerned in the coal industry on the managerial side made speeches like that, I have no doubt that it would be much easier to get the co-operation which is really vital to the prosperity of the industry. I was interested in his praise of the 1930 Act. There is a point which was taken yesterday, but which was not taken to-day. I can quite see why the Opposition would not take it, because yesterday they were trying to beat the Government with the report of the Commissioner for the special areas. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tried!"] They only tried, because they did not get their Vote.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: You put up someone to talk it out, because you were afraid.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I will put it this way. Hon. Members opposite were using the Commissioner's report as a weapon in that Debate. They did not call attention to the fact that he says it is urgently necessary to review the possibility of reorganising the sales machinery. I said something in my opening speech about the effect of the Lancashire selling scheme, and expressed a hope that it would be used as a sort of precedent for other areas. I recognise that the conditions in Lancashire are not necessarily the same as in other districts; in fact, they are quite different, but that it was possible to get a selling scheme going at all, in my opinion, was due to the fact that Part I of the Act was on the Statute Book. The Commissioner
    1956
    says, "Yes, let us urgently review the possibility of reorganising the sales machinery," and then, if you please, reconsider the quota scheme, which he does not like. If you say that selling schemes are desirable, you cannot be so self contradictory as to say that the one thing that makes them possible should be abolished, and that is exactly what he said. When hon. Members were using his report to attack us they did not say anything about that.
    Mr. JOHN: Did not the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) use that argument?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: If he did, I apologise. I missed three minutes of his speech, and that is all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last night."] I come back to the Noble Lord because he says that in his opinion the existence on the Statute Book of Part I of the Act is desirable, and should continue. He knows just as much about the Durham distressed area, as he was able to show in his speech, as anyone. If, in his opinion, central selling is a good thing and is desirable, it is rather a pity that Part I should have been called in question at all now by the Commissioner.
    The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) deplored Sunday work. Obviously we all do that, but it is within the four corners of the law to-day, and the only way in which at the moment it can be lessened is by earnest people like himself, who feel strongly on the subject on religious and other grounds, doing all they can to try to discourage its spread. So far as the law is concerned, there is nothing that I can do. When speaking about overtime the hon. Member said that the only thing open to the inspectors was the overtime books, which might have been cooked, but he overlooked the fact that it is definitely stated in the report that the pay sheets were submitted to the inspectors. I know that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) deplored the fact that I was not Scotch, but I was assuming that Scottish workmen would probably see that they were correct.
    The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) asked how many pit ponies regularly worked double shifts. My information is that there are very few that do, and those only on light work. I certainly cannot accept, in view of the

    1957
    reports that I have on the subject, any general accusations of overwork or cruelty. There may, unfortunately, be isolated cases here and there and, when we hear of them, we try to prevent them. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked about the central dewatering scheme. The Commissioner for special areas said that that was still under consideration by the interests concerned and, that being so, we must leave it there. The hon. Member for West Fife, who wants me to have an office in Edinburgh, is very kind, but I have not heard of any previous demand of that kind. It would cost money, and there would have to be a very large demand for us to consider it. I would remind the Committee that the Mines Department is one of the few, if not the only one, whose expenditure is limited by Statute.
    The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) told me that he gets incessant complaints about overtime. We had a special inspection in Lancashire, and we have now had a special one in Scotland. I have already said that I am intending to consult both sides of the industry to see what can be done about reducing it. I should not like to say here and now what might be possible, because I recollect what happened on a previous occasion when my predecessor, Mr. Shinwell, raised this question. The proposal at that time was that it might be a good thing to have overtime committees on which both owners and workmen might interest themselves, and that complaints about overtime should be investigated by that committee before they went to the divisional inspector. I understand that Mr. Shinwell invited the owners and the men in Scotland to make this experiment. The owners agreed, but for some reason nothing happened on the part of the men. It is a pity because, if something could have been done then, we might have been spared all this now. However, it is a suggestion that might be worth reviving. I do not know the reason why the men did not come into it. [Interruption.] Even if it is not correct, the suggestion is, I think, a sensible one, and that is one of the ways in which we might explore this problem, because I really feel very strongly about it. When the hon. Member for Mansfield says he gets incessant complaints about it, as I said in reply to a question the other day, if anyone can bring me cases
    1958
    —not general allegations that there is a, lot of overtime but specific cases—I shall certainly see that they are carefully investigated. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, to get up in this House and say that he gets innumerable complaints does not take us very far.
    The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) asked me about employment and the outlook in Durham. As I said in my opening spech, part of the improvement of 13,000,000 tons in output last year as compared with 1933 was represented by a percentage increase throughout every district, and in Durham the percentage increase was 10.8. He asked what that represented in terms of output. The increase of 10.8 per cent. means 2,984,000 tons. In the case of the County of Durham I have not got the unemployment figures for last week, but in the week ended 18th December, 1933, the unemployment figure there was 40,345 or 27.9 per cent., and on 17th December, 1934, that is the year in which there was this increase, the unemployment figure was 30,844, 22.6 per cent., or a drop of just on 10,000.
    In the few minutes that remain—I am sorry to have left him until the last—I will deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery. He asks why there are not more workmen's inspections. I also wish there were more. I think they are extremely valuable. He asked me what about the stowing of waste, and said that it should be made compulsory. He probably knows that this is a matter upon which technical opinion differs very much—[An HON. MEMBER: "A question of economy."] I said technical opinion, not economy. Research is going on about roof control in general, and we may get some results from it. He said that it was a dreadful scandal that we had to import, so much oil. The increased consumption of oil both industrially anti for motive power on the road and in ships is, from the point of view of the coal mining industry, deplorable. It is platitudinous to say that, but as I explained when I was speaking earlier, the effect of the measures taken by the Government with regard to duties upon heavy oils imported into this country, the effect of the now very heavy duty on oil for road traffic purposes, has made it possible, which it was not before, for the question of the production

    1959
    of oil from British coal to be considered and placed upon a productive basis commercially. It was not so before. When he says that what Billing-ham, the low temperature carbonisation processes, coke ovens and the rest are doing is very little, I agree, but it is 3¾ per cent. of our consumption now.
    What the future holds, taking his advice, I am not going to say. He told me not to prophesy. But it is a good start, and, as in so many other things with regard to industry during the lifetime of this Government, we have brought about conditions within which it has been possible for industry to go ahead. This is a specific instance of that, and I look forward to the time when, in
    addition to Imperial Chemical Industries, who have been so forward in the matter, other concerns will find it also possible to develop and get to work on a productive basis. That is the answer to what the hon. Gentleman calls a scandal. For the rest, I would only repeat what I said at the beginning, that I am very much obliged to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for the way in which they have received me to-day, and I hope that the appeal for co-operation and good will which I made will not have fallen on deaf ears outside, as it has not done here.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £137,024, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 332.
    It being after Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith the
    1962
    Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army, and Air, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1935.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,490,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
    charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,
    1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

    £

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    376,200

    4.

    Fleet Air Arm

    1,873,000

    5.

    Educational Services

    195,100

    6.

    Scientific Services

    474,000

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    350,500

    8.

    Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

    Section I.—Personnel

    6,806,500

    Section II.—Matériel

    4,827,200

    Section III.—Contract Work

    10,723,600

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    4,800,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    626,750

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    1,130,000

    14.

    Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men

    5,137,000

    15.

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities

    1,171,000

    £38,490,850"

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 350; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 287.]

    AYES.

    [10.2 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Gibbins, J.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

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

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Healy, Cahir

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    John, William

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    West, F. R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Burghley, Lord

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Burnett, John George

    Curry, A. C.

    Assheton, Ralph

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Dickie, John P.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Balniel, Lord

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

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

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

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Eales, John Frederick

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

    Christie, James Archibald

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Clarke, Frank

    Edge, Sir William

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Blindell, James

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Boulton, W. W.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Cooke, Douglas

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Copeland, Ida

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Rickards, George William

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mabane, William

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Goff, Sir Park

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McKeag, William

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Granville, Edgar

    Magnay, Thomas

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Maitland, Adam

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

    Greene, William P. C.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Savery, Servington

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Selley, Harry R.

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

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Milne, Charles

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Soper, Richard

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

    Spens, William Patrick

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Munro, Patrick

    Stevenson, James

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Storey, Samuel

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    North, Edward T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nunn, William

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Thomson, Sir Douglas

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

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Peake, Osbert

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

    Janner, Barnett

    Pearson, William G.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Jennings, Roland

    Penny, Sir George

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Tree, Ronald

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Petherick, M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

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

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Pybus, Sir John

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Leckie, J. A.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rea, Sir Walter

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lewis, Oswald

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Sir Walter Womersley.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 288.]

    AYES.

    [10.17 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Jesson Major Thomas E.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Albery, Irving James

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

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

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

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

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

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Eales, John Frederick

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Edge, Sir William

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Balniel, Lord

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Leckie, J. A.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lees-Jones, John

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

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lewis, Oswald

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Blindell, James

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Mabane, William

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    McKeag, William

    Burghley, Lord

    Granville, Edgar

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Burnett, John George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Graves, Marjorie

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Greene, William P. C.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Maitland, Adam

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Manner, Geoffrey le M.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Martin, Thomas B.

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Mellor, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Clarke, Frank

    Harbord, Arthur

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Milne, Charles

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Copeland, Ida

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

    Munro, Patrick

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    North, Edward T.

    Cross, R. H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nunn, William

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Curry, A. C.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

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

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

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

    Jenner, Barnett

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Jennings, Roland

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    1970

    1971

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Peaks, Osbert

    Russell, Alexander Welt (Tynemouth)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Pearson, William G.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Peat, Charles U.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Penny, Sir George

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Thomson, Sir Douglas

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Petherick, M.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Pickering, Ernest H.

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

    Tree, Ronald

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Savery, Servington

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Pybus, Sir John

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Radford, E. A.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Rea, Sir Walter

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Soper, Richard

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Rhye, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Rickards, George William

    Stevenson, James

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Storey, Samuel

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Mr. James Sturt and Commander

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Southby.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Paling, Wilfred

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Healy, Cahir

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cleary, J. J.

    John, William

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Dobbie, William

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gibbins, J.

    McGovern, John

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    CLASS I.
    "That a sum not exceeding £1,287,776, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices.

    24,904

    2.

    House of Commons.

    221,878

    3.

    Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts

    170,000

    4.

    Treasury and Subordinate Department (including a Supplementary sum of £7,226)

    200,632

    5.

    Privy Council Office.

    8,125

    6.

    Privy Seal Office

    1,871

    7.

    Charity Commission.

    27,277

    8.

    Civil Service Commission

    14,580

    9.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    86,510

    10.

    Friendly Societies' Deficiency

    5,614

    11.

    Government Actuary

    20,271

    12.

    Government Chemist

    51,782

    13.

    Government Hospitality

    4,000

    14.

    Import Duties Advisory Committee

    38,843

    15.

    The Mint

    75,000

    16.

    National Debt Office

    2,209

    17.

    National Savings Committee

    72,148

    18.

    Public Record Office

    26,091

    19.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    90

    20.

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    43,852

    21.

    Royal Commissions, & c.

    20,600

    22.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    5,507

    23.

    Secret Service

    100,000

    24.

    Scottish Office

    58,806

    25.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    7,186

    £1,287,776"

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,595,004, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
    1964
    sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
    on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II
    of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Foreign Office (including a Supplementary sum of £7,660)

    116,560

    2.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    629,865

    3.

    League of Nations

    86,500

    4.

    Dominions Office

    35,133

    5.

    Dominion Services

    328,940

    6.

    Irish Free State Services

    1,148,543

    7.

    Oversea Settlement

    20,850

    10.

    Colonial Development Fund

    525,000

    11.

    India Services (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000)

    1,251,550

    12.

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    452,063

    £4,595,004"

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £9,323,455, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of
    the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Home Office

    396,253

    2.

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    46,859

    3.

    Police, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £230,000)

    5,807,041

    4.

    Prisons, England and Wales

    528,090

    5.

    Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

    218,150

    6.

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    90

    7.

    County Courts

    90

    8.

    Land Registry

    90

    9.

    Public Trustee

    90

    10.

    Law Charges

    80,061

    11.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    7,932

    Scotland.

    12.

    Police (including a Supplementary sum of £30,550)

    930,038

    13.

    Prisons Department

    72,694

    14.

    Approved Schools, etc.

    36,230

    15.

    Scottish Land Court

    5,204

    16.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    26,170

    17.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    90

    1965

    Ireland.

    £

    18.

    Northern Ireland Services

    2,914

    19.

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

    2,190

    20.

    Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

    1,163,179

    £9,323,455"

    CLASS IV.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £35,579,409, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of
    the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Board of Education, (including a Supplementary sum of £1,590,000)

    29,646,787

    2.

    British Museum

    99,604

    3.

    British Museum (Natural History)

    63,061

    4.

    Imperial War Museum

    7,540

    5.

    London Museum

    3,705

    6.

    National Gallery

    16,965

    7.

    National Maritime Museum

    5,258

    8.

    National Portrait Gallery

    5,737

    9.

    Wallace Collection

    6,880

    10.

    Scientific Investigation, &c.

    121,373

    11.

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

    942,000

    Scotland.

    12.

    Public Education (including a Supplementary sum of £217,800)

    4,653,193

    13.

    National Galleries

    5,684

    14.

    National Library

    1,622

    £35,579,409"

    CLASS V.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £101,022,244, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
    sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
    on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in. Class V
    of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Ministry of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £314,800)

    14,416,840

    2.

    Board of Control

    89,364

    3.

    Registrar-General's Office

    64,750

    4.

    National Insurance Audit Department

    110,705

    5.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    32,307

    6.

    Old Age Pensions

    28,219,000

    1966

    £

    7.

    Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

    8,000,000

    8.

    Ministry of Labour

    13,640,000

    9.

    Unemployment Assistance Allowances (including a Supplementary sum of £130,000)

    30,130,000

    10.

    Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

    2,800,000

    11.

    Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)

    90

    12.

    Unemployment Assistance Board

    1,400,000

    Scotland.

    13.

    Department of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £34,900)

    2,097,624

    14.

    Board of Control

    10,405

    15.

    Registrar-General's Office

    11,069

    16.

    Commissioner for Special Areas (Scotland)

    90

    £101,022,244"

    CLASS VI.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,503,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31et day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of
    the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Board of Trade

    160,912

    2.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    262,636

    3.

    Assistance to British Shipping

    999,000

    4.

    Department of Overseas Trade

    282,827

    5.

    Export Credits

    90

    7.

    Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

    23,100

    8.

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    1,189,987

    9.

    Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £2,788,000)

    2,788,100

    10.

    Milk (England and Wales and Northern Ireland)

    1,220,000

    11.

    Cattle Fund (including a Supplementary sum of £3,889,650)

    3,889,800

    12.

    Surveys of Great Britain

    107,160

    13.

    Forestry Commission

    300,000

    14.

    Ministry of Transport

    39,098

    15.

    Development Fund

    340,000

    16.

    Development Grants

    790,000

    17.

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    409,177

    18.

    State Management Districts

    90

    1967

    Scotland.

    £

    19.

    Department of Agriculture

    460,441

    20.

    Milk

    132,000

    21.

    Fishery Board

    74,127

    22.

    Herring Industry (including a Supplementary sum of £22,000)

    35,000

    £13,503,545"

    CLASS VII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,358,735, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of
    the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    257,130

    2.

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    75,065

    4.

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    101,605

    5.

    Osborne

    7,420

    6.

    Office of Works and Public Buildings

    353,403

    7.

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    747,200

    9.

    Royal Palaces

    56,085

    10.

    Revenue Buildings

    969,270

    11.

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    126,245

    12.

    Rates on Government Property

    922,212

    13.

    Stationery and Printing

    705,570

    14.

    Peterhead Harbour

    15,000

    15.

    Works and Buildings in Ireland

    22,530

    £4,358,735"

    CLASS VIII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,466,595, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII
    of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    193,679

    2.

    Ministry of Pensions

    26,400,000

    3.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc

    853,437

    4.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    1,019,479

    £28,466,595"

    Question put.

    CLASS IX.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,789,027, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class IX of
    the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1.

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    24,069,947

    2.

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

    3,719,080

    £27,789,027"

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1935.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £49,781,302, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
    necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the
    Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

    £

    1.

    Customs and Excise

    3,683,400

    2.

    Inland Revenue

    5,027,902

    3.

    Post Office

    41,070,000

    £49,781,302"

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1935.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,781,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Royal Ordnance Factories), namely:

    £

    2.

    Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

    4,991,000

    3.

    Medical Services

    950,000

    4.

    Educational Establishments

    903,000

    5.

    Quartering and Movements

    1,280,000

    £

    6.

    Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts

    4,055,000

    7.

    Clothing

    1,089,000

    8.

    General Stores

    1,549,000

    9.

    Warlike Stores

    5,115,000

    12.

    War Office

    849,000

    Royal Ordnance Factories

    100

    £20,781,100"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 354; Noes, 55.

    Division No. 289.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Leckie, J. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lewis, Oswald

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

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

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

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Blindell, James

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Mabane, William

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

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

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

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    McKeag, William

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Browns, Captain A. C.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Granville, Edgar

    Magnay, Thomas

    Burghley, Lord

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Maitland, Adam

    Burnett, John George

    Graves, Marjorie

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Greene, William P. C.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

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

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, Charles

    Christie, James Archibald

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Clarke, Frank

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Munro, Patrick

    Copeland, Ida

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Craven-Ellis, William

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

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

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    North, Edward T.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nunn, William

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cross, R. H.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Curry, A. C.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Patrick, Colin M.

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

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

    Peake, Osbert

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pearson, William G.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Janner, Barnett

    Peat, Charles U.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jennings, Roland

    Penny, Sir George

    Dickie, John P.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Petherick, M.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

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

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Eales, John Frederick

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Edge, Sir William

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Pybus, Sir John

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Radford, E. A.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    1974

    1975

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Thomson, Sir Douglas.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

    Rea, Sir Walter

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

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Tree, Ronald

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Rickards, George William

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Soper, Richard

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Spens, William Patrick

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stevenson, James

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Storey, Samuel

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Summereby, Charles H.

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

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Savery, Servington

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McGovern, John

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Milner, Major James

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cleary, J. J.

    Healy, Cahir

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    West, F. R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Gibbins, J.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1935.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,361,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:—

    £

    2.

    Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies and Transportation

    1,633,000

    5.

    Medical Services

    298,000

    6.

    Technical Training and Educational Services

    422,000

    7.

    Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

    470,000

    £

    9.

    Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

    381,000

    10.

    Air Ministry

    752,000

    11.

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

    405,000

    £4,361,000"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 357; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 290.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Assheton, Ralph

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Albery, Irving James

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Blindell, James

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mabane, William

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gault, Lieut.-Col, A. Hamilton

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    McKeag, William

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Burghley, Lord

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Burnett, John George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Maitland, Adam

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Graves, Marjorie

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Greene, William P. C.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Caine, G. R. Hall

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

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

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, Charles

    Chrlstie, James Archibald

    Harbord, Arthur

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chlsw'k)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Clarke, Frank

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Munro, Patrick

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Cooke, Douglas

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Copeland, Ida

    Holdsworth, Herbert

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    North, Edward T.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Cross, R. H.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Crossley, A. C.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

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

    Peake, Osbert

    Curry, A. C.

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pearson, William G.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Janner, Barnett

    Peat, Charles U.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jennings, Roland

    Penny, Sir George

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Petherick, M.

    Dickie, John P.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

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

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Eales, John Frederick

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Pybus, Sir John

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Radford, E. A.

    Edge, Sir William

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Elmley, Viscount

    Leckie, J. A.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rea, Sir Walter

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rhys, Hon Charles Arthur U.

    1978

    1979

    Rickards, George William

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

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

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Tree, Ronald

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Soper, Richard

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Spens, William Patrick

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stevenson, James

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Storey, Samuel

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Savery, Servington

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

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

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Major George Davies and Captain

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Thomson, Sir Douglas

    Hope.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McGovern, John

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Milner, Major James

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cleary, J. J.

    Healy, Cahir

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Lunn, William

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gibbins, J.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

    Question put, and agreed to.

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

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st Day of March, 1936, the sum of £349,067,746, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.
  Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919,
  1980
  this House do direct that the Farnham Castle Measure, 1935, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Motion.
  Resolved,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Farnham Castle Measure, 1935, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocese of Southwell (Transfer) Measure, 1935, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  Sir JOHN HASLAM: I beg to second the Motion.
  Resolved,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919,

  1981
  this House do direct that the Diocese of Southwell (Transfer) Measure, 1935, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

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

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (CHAIRMAN).
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (CHAIRMAN).
  AIR RAIDS (PRECAUTIONS).
  AIR RAIDS (PRECAUTIONS).
  LICENSED TRADE (STATISTICS).
  LICENSED TRADE (STATISTICS).
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (CHANNEL ISLANDS).
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (CHANNEL ISLANDS).
  PALESTINE (SCHOOLS).
  PALESTINE (SCHOOLS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (MILITARY TRAINING).
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (MILITARY TRAINING).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION, HACKNEY).
  DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION, HACKNEY).
  ISOLATION CASES, DENHAM.
  ISOLATION CASES, DENHAM.
  EXPLOSIONS.
  EXPLOSIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY (REVIEW OF SERVICE CONDITIONS).
  ROYAL NAVY (REVIEW OF SERVICE CONDITIONS).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD BLACKFORD.
Sir William James Peake Mason, Baronet, having been created Baron Blackford of Compton Pauncefoot in the County of Somerset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD RIVERDALE.
Sir Arthur Balfour, Baronet, K.B.E., having been created Baron Riverdale of Sheffield in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD MAY.
Sir George Ernest May, Baronet, K.B.E., having been created Baron May of Weybridge in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD KENNET.
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Hilton Young, G.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C., having been created Baron Kennet of the Dene in the County of Wilts—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
AYR COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BIIL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS CON SOLIDATION ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (CUDDINGTON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (EAST SURREY WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (HARPENDEN WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (MONKS AND PRINCES RISBOROUGH WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (RAINHAM WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH OX FORDSHIRE WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships that I have it in command from the King to signify to your Lordships' House that His Majesty has been graciously
782
pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Government of India Bill His Majesty's interest in the territorial and other revenues at the disposal of the Crown in India and in all other matters appertaining to the Government of India for which the Bill makes provision. I beg to move that the Bill be now react a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Motion as one who has had the honour to represent the constituency of Lancaster in another place and as one who has been deeply impressed by the weight of argument by which the noble Earl, Lord Derby, supported an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, claiming more consideration for the rights of Lancashire trade as representing the general ground upon which the trade of all England deserved more safeguarding and consideration. The Government's attitude in reply to that speech was, in the first place, that acceding to that Amendment would hurt sentiment in India; and in the second place, that there were adequate safeguards in the recondite and oracular clauses to be found in other parts of the Bill.
On the first point I ask your Lordships to consider whether sentiment in Lancashire and throughout industrial England is not as strong and as worthy of attention as sentiment in India. Moreover, when the Ottawa Agreements were accepted the Press announced that the Indian Government assented to the principles of the Ottawa Agreements. There may be persons connected with politics in India who will disagree with the principles of the Ottawa Agreement, but certainly the people of India as a whole cannot be bereft of gratitude to the people of England, and the vast majority of the people of India who pay taxes care little or nothing for politics and do not know the meaning of the expression "Dominion status." The argument of the Government based on safeguards in the Bill is entirely fallacious, inasmuch as the Bill itself and the clauses that purport to safeguard are very largely overridden by the Instruments of Instructions. The Instruments, of Instructions have been printed, but they have been read

783
by very few and their existence is almost unknown. In reference to this particular point concerning trade and concerning undue interference with trade, there is a most astounding provision to the effect that the Governor-General is instructed not to take action which is contrary to the views of his Ministers in regard to trade policy or the fostering of Indian commerce And trade interests.
What is their policy? Their policy is to take the trade of Lancashire and the trade of England unto themselves. In the Instruments of Instruction, which are now only in draft, the Governor-General is enjoined to support his Ministers in taking away the trade of Lancashire. It does not matter if in the body of the Bill there are safeguards which might be used by the Governor-General at his discretion in a contrary direction, but there are instructions that he should do just the contrary. He is instructed to follow a "yes and no" policy as regards trade and to pursue what I would call a "black and white" course of action. That is one of the reasons for which I trust that this Motion for the Third Reading will not be carried.
But there are reasons of even greater weight than that. The constitutional structure of the whole Bill is very regrettable, in particular because the Instruments of Instruction are prefaced by a paragraph across the front page in large type to the effect that they cannot be formally submitted to Parliament for approval until the Bill has become law. That is an invitation not to read them. But they are more important than the Bill itself, for they take away fundamentally a very large portion of the safeguards which lie in interpretation. We have sixteen Schedules to this Bill, and these Instructions should have been made a Seventeenth Schedule, in so far as they cover principles. Any deliberate judgment on the Bill by this House or the other House without a study of these Instruments of Instructions is necessarily fallacious. It is good political chess to throw away some moves of procedure in the political game, to arrange that one thing shall be done without people looking at it in order that afterwards another thing may be done whether it is liked or not. But here the rights of the Rulers and Princes of India are involved. With them we have Treaties, made with themselves and with their ancestors, which
784
are binding in honour, not merely on the Parliament of England but also on the Crown and on the traditions of the English people. We propose by this Bill to impair those sovereign rights.
We invite the Princes of India to join in a Federation. Is it a Federation, or is it a conglomeration? The Bill is to have no effect until a certain proportion of these Rulers have acceded and until both Houses of this Imperial Parliament have separately expressed adhesion to these Instruments of Instructions. But the Princes of India are also invited to propose Instruments of Accession, of varying tenour. One Prince may say: "I will join the Federation on these terms"; another that he will join on other terms; another just on something to show that he has not said "No", and another on a great deal, in order to make himself popular through having said everything that was wanted. Is that a Federation? Federations elsewhere, as with the States of Australia, have been based on a similarity of conditions.
But we also have what is much worse in this Bill. There is fortunately a very large section of India—I use that word "fortunately" from a Lancastrian point of view—under the Princes and so long as these territories are under the Princes we have every reason to hope that there will not be discrimination against the trade of Lancashire and England. The interests of the workers of this country coincide with those of the Princes, and we ought to support their interests and open their eyes to the political by-ways and dangers of acceding to this Federation. That is how we can help the trade of India, in the hope that in return England shall have by law the most-favoured-nation treatment, the least that can be hoped for from friends, and this should be assured to us.
Then, under the Rulers of India we have, if you please, one-man rule on paper. Seldom in the history of India has there been a better form of government. An intelligent despotism is there undoubtedly the best form of government, and we are enabled to ensure that that despotism is intelligent by means of the Residents. Perhaps the Princes were tempted at one time, before their eyes were opened, to think that it would be a very nice thing to get rid of all the Residents, but now they see that they must be very generous with their

785
Treasuries and have the advice, the very beat advice, that this country and other countries can give them to prevent their sovereignty from being undermined piecemeal and made to disappear. In fact, the, wording of the main point in the draft of the Bill, apart from the draft Instructions, is reminiscent, of the invitation:
" 'Will you come into my parlour?'
Said the spider to the fly;
'It's the prettiest little parlour
That ever you did spy.'"
It is also reminiscent of what happened in Ireland under Grattan's Irish Parliament. The non-success of that government is now a matter of universal regret to anybody who has read the history of Ireland and compares it with the events of the present day.
We are undermining the sovereignty of the Princes for another reason, apart from what is contained in the draft Instructions as to the relations of the Governor-General and the Governors of Provinces with their Ministers. Apart from the immense difficulty of selecting Ministers from legislative bodies partly nominated by the Princes and partly elected, Ministers will have to be chosen under the very great difficulty of having anybody as Prime Minister, a difficulty so far realised that in the structure of the Bill there is no mention of a Prime Minister and no mention of a Cabinet. In fact, we have mentioned that the Governor of a Province or the Governor-General can go and preside at meetings of Ministers. I ask your Lordships, are they Ministers when the Governor-General comes to preside at their deliberations? What is there to prevent their having little meetings of their own, when they like and where they like, and arranging their policy in a way which may not be altogether in keeping with the policy of the King's Representative?
Besides the difficulty of giving a substantial quid pro quo to the Princes through their nominees, and the appointment to Ministerial office of one or more of their nominees, we have Clauses 45 and, 93, whereby under certain conditions the Governor-General can assume all non-judicial functions—not merely the functions of the Legislature but all functions. I suppose that means the absorption of such portion of the sovereignty of the Princes as may have been transferred by the Instrument of Accession. That pro-
786
portion may be more or less, but there are measures for continuing to absorb their functions step by step. What is worse for the Princes, anyone familiar with the history of Constitutions knows that once the great fly-wheel of democracy is set in motion in this way there can only be one result.
We are embarking on this great experiment which we call a Federation, but it is not comparable with the Federation of Australia. There is no similarity between the two. We have a Federation in the Malay Straits, and there has been a Federation in the Leeward Islands. I am not referring to the Federation of to-day, but to the Federation of a hundred years ago. That did not work. It all disappeared, and this form of Federation which is suitable for Nordic nations, and which is being superseded by one man Government in Nordic nations, is not congenial to life in the tropics. And it is not only the Federation of the Leeward Islands which has had to be suppressed in a high-handed manner. We have had the Constitution of Malta twice suppressed in the last twenty years. I congratulate the Government, in regard to this Bill, that they have had the courage and straightforwardness to draft Clauses 45 and 93 without any ambiguity, but although those two clauses are very clear there are dozens of clauses in the Bill repeating the expression that the Governor-General is to act on his own discretion and on his own individual judgment, while in some others he is to act on both. One is bewildered to understand what those clauses mean, until you get hold of the draft instructions, and there you can see what the whole thing means. My Lords, as the price of this experiment annual sums variously estimated from £4,000,000 to £8,000,000—some people quote a much higher figure—are to be raised from the Indian people, who are still unable to pay all they ought to pay in taxation. That is the price of this experiment—this method of undermining the rights of the Indian Princes and making it difficult for successive Governments of England to stand by our treaties.
What would be the result of this expenditure? There will be more Ministerial posts, secretariats, and positions of all sorts, and for three or four years there will be an appearance of

787
peace and contentment, because it will take a little time to absorb that £4,000,000 to £8,000,000 a year. Therefore it will take a little time before there arises a new group of those who are asking for more status and a greater share in administration. It will be said that Dominion status is not mentioned once in this Bill. The majority of another House of Parliament does not appear to be in favour of the grant of Dominion status, and I am sure that 90 per cent. of the members of your Lordships' House would not vote for any clause in the Bill that mentioned Dominion status, but we have it hidden away in the draft Instrument of Instructions. On page 10 it is declared that Dominion status is the objective of the Bill. That is where we are driving, though whether the contemplated variety of Ministerial government would immediately set to work to obtain that end, or not, may be held in doubt.
Let me remind your Lordships of what happens when there is a divergence between a Governor and his Ministers, even when those Ministers are not selected by a Prime Minister but are selected and dismissed by a Governor. There are divergencies of opinion, there are talks and representations. A Governor may persuade them or he may not. If he does not persuade them two courses are open. Either the Governor agrees with his Ministers, and nobody hears anything about it, or he does not agree with them. In the latter case they may either submit or they may compel the Governor to look for other Ministers. If the result of a Dissolution is favourable to the policy of the Governor, the King's Representative remains, but if not he may go. We have had a magnificent example in New South Wales, where the Governor, Sir Philip Game, dismissed his Ministers. Public opinion was behind him. There was a Dissolution and the country was exceedingly grateful that the prerogative of the Governor had been exercised. When that principle was brought before His Majesty's Ministers in another place, and the question was asked whether the Governor of New South Wales had received instructions, it was said that he had not; that when a Governor was appointed he was a servant of the country and he had to exercise his own individual judgment in everything.
788
It may happen that he does receive instructions and he does not feel able to act in conformity with those instructions, as happened in New South Wales where I was not able to signify the Royal Assent to a Bill put forward by a Premier who had changed sides with three colleagues, in order to form a majority the other way, having been elected as a Labour Premier and wanting to prolong the life of Parliament as part of a Parliamentary bargain. The consequence of the disapproval of the Secretary of State was that I went home on leave with full pay to the end of my term of office. That is the prospect which this Bill holds out for Governors in India. A Governor, when he first goes out, if he is wise, does nothing for a year, he does a little the second year, and spends the last year in going away. How can you expect a Governor who has just arrived or who is going away to oppose his Ministers who desire to give a preference against Lancashire, when the millowners of Bombay are pressing for protection?
How can you expect a Governor in such circumstances to go against his Ministers when the vernacular Press in India is all on one side? Indeed, how can you have two Parties in the Legislature when there is only one Press manufacturing public opinion? If there is no provision by which a Governor can turn round and find somebody who would have the pluck to go to the country and stand the chances of a General Election, the Governor becomes the slave of his Ministers. And what is to happen if Clause 45 is put into operation and the Governor cannot find another Minister and we then have Martial Law? Under Clause 45 a Governor can perform any and every function except as regards the Judiciary. For every function that he has to perform we have Martial Law established under a Statute of this Imperial Parliament.
I feel that I have gone far enough in discussing constitutional points, and I may be asked what should be done. If your Lordships' House is to maintain its ancient prestige, the duty we owe to our ancestors and to our country and to our opportunities is that of an effective "House of Review." I appeal to your Lordships not to waste all the work that has been put into this. Bill to improve it. If it goes down to another place, in forty-eight hours or less it will be rushed through,

789
and all the Amendments will either be rejected or adopted in toto. Certainly they cannot be considered. Few have time to study the new reprint of the Bill in the time available, and to see whether the fundamental Amendments made by your Lordships do or do not fit in. I think the members of your Lordships' House who are absent have a right to receive all the necessary Papers by post and to make up their minds whether they should come here or not and vote against the Bill, knowing what they are dealing with. Let there be time to turn out the best Bill that this Parliament can turn out, with due deliberation, and let the Bill come back with the Instruments of Instructions embodied in a Schedule thereto, so that we may know what we are driving at.
What is said against this Bill to-day is justified not only in the interests of Lancashire but also in the hope that the Indian Princes and the leaders of thought in India will reflect that perhaps it may be better for India to go on for a little time as it is. Enactment depends upon the Princes. Why should this burden of unpopularity, with the danger which it means to their dynasties, be put upon their shoulders by us We ought also to have a model of the Instrument of Accession to Federation—at all events there should be no large margin of dissimilarity. And it is to be honed, further, that when the Instruments of Accession and the fixing of a date, come before your Lordships' House we shall have an opportunity to discuss thoroughly whether the time is ripe for trying this expensive experiment, and that we shall not be asked to vote for the adoption or rejection of these Instruments en bloc. Now we are being asked to swallow documents without even having had time to read them.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my very great astonishment at the distrust implied by the noble Lord who has just sat down in the safeguards embodied in this Bill, because we mush all realise that it is only owing to the extreme effectiveness of certain safeguards embodied in the Maltese Constitution that we have the privilege of listening to the noble Lord this afternoon. If these safeguards had not been effective he
790
would no doubt be usefully and fruitfully employing himself in quite a different island. I should have thought that when the noble Lord talks about a Governor being the, slave of his Ministers, no one could testify with greater sincerity than the noble Lord himself as to the power of a Governor to carry on his Government, even when faced with recalcitrant and obstinate Ministers, backed up with such eloquence and intelligence as we have heard this afternoon.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, for more than four and a-half years I have had daily contact with this problem, and now that the end of a long and sometimes weary journey is in sight I find myself not full of joy, but with a certain sense of melancholy, because I am going to be very lonely without, this Bill when it is passed. We have helped on the Joint Select Committee to bring this Bill to life, but personally my paternal pride in it is not one of blind adoration. From my point of view the Bill has serious defects of limb and vitality, but now that it is born I can only hope for the best in its future career. What useful and appropriate things can any of your Lordships say about this Bill at this time? I find myself greatly tempted to re-state many of our old criticisms, to lament the policy of the Government in rejecting all our suggestions, and I could speak at length and with great feeling of the thrifty discrimination of the Government, which led them to accept without acknowledgment all our acts of co-operation whilst refusing to give us one single thing in return. I will only say that we have tried in our discussions of this measure to be co-operative, but no plea that we have made has been successful, and no grievance that we have stated has been removed. We have had to suffer grief silently whilst the Bill has been passing through your Lordships' House. Conscious of the obedient battalions behind them, the Government adopted a spirit of haughty non-co-operation; but we did at least gain one victory over His Majesty's Government in that we showed ourselves more generous and more co-operative than themselves.
Our main complaint about this Bill has not been in regard to the details of the political structure, but in regard to the way in which it touches, or fails to touch, the social and economic problems of the

791
Indian people. We have sought to put first things first, and, as we see this Bill, it ignores the conditions which afflict the Indian workers. It shows concern for the landlords and the merchants and the Princes, all of whom are abundantly able to look after themselves, but the attention that is paid to the future welfare of the millions of Indian workers is meagre, if not entirely non-existent. I said that we had tried to put first things first. What are first things as we see them? First, will this Bill make happier and enlarge the life of the millions of hapless people who now earn their meagre bread in India? Will it secure good will and co-operation in that degree which will make India a satisfied and eager partner in the great British Commonwealth of Nations? Will it give the conditions of progress which will secure to them increasing social improvement?
Our appeals in this regard, I restate, have been mostly ignored, and it has sometimes seemed to us as though we lived in an entirely different mental world. We have not approached this matter from the standpoint of Party. I say for my Party that we should have been ashamed to make Party capital out of a measure of this magnitude and importance. But we do look with alarm at the future economic and social relationships which are to be established in India in the future. As we see it, we are providing the Eastern world with all the apparatus of cheap production. We are placing in the hands of the Indian capitalists power to exploit the already economically impoverished workers of India, and to flood the world markets with goods produced by workers at an incredibly low level. This Bill seems to us to hand the future of the Indian worker over to those people, to whom we are also giving special privileges.
I do not know what your Lordships expect to happen from such conditions. We, for our part, foresee the gradual exclusion of Western goods, not only from India but from Asia. We see the cementing of Eastern opinion against the Western world, discrimination not against England but against, as I say, the Western world. If your Lordships are going to rely upon communal differences in India to overcome that problem I believe you are living in a fool's paradise. When that issue confronts the
792
Indian people there will be no differences in India. They will stand solidly together against the Western world. Does any one suppose that the interests which are being pampered and protected in this Bill will reward your generosity in the way that you expect? Why do the mill owners of Bombay and Allahabad supply funds for Congress agitation? Not to protect and preserve markets for Lancashire, but to bait the swim for a golden catch of their own at some future period. It is to the avarice of these people that you are handing over, unprotected, the workers of India. We have stated many times, and we now state for the last time, that we will have no part in that transaction, and we warn you, if we may, of its consequences.
As we look at this problem, the way out appears to be clear. It should be approached, not from the standpoint of the needs of the manufacturers and the landlords, but from the standpoint of the needs of the workers. Secure to them higher wages and better housing conditions, give to them increased purchasing power, and you will have a real barrier erected which will be the greatest possible safeguard against cheap production by semi-slave labour. That would be the very best safeguard that could be erected; but, until organisation is possible for the Indian workers, some adequate protection should be given to them in the legislative sphere. They should be dealt with generously in the matter of reserved seats, not for their sakes merely, but for the sake of that good relationship which we all desire to sec grow between India and ourselves. All this seems to us to be sun-clear, and yet, when we mention it, the looks on your Lordships' faces suggest a belief that we ought to be certified and put under some kind of restraint.
That is our last grumble about this Bill, a grumble that we do not expect to be effective. But, looking at the future, there are two appeals that I make without the slightest hope that they will be accorded. First of all, I think it is immensely important that this great, experiment in India should start with the good will of the Indian people, and that to gain that it is worth sacrificing pride or anything else. I therefore feel that the Bill would have the very best chance if it were accompanied by a gaol delivery of such political prisoners in India as may still be interned. Secondly, I look with

793
alarm at the position of the Scheduled Castes and also of the organised workers of India, not only in regard to their economic position, but in regard to their equipment for the work they will have to face. A vast responsibility will depend upon those organisers and workers, and, personally, I should like to see it made possible for a few selected persons from the Scheduled Castes and the organised workers to visit this country just to see how our democracy works, how a trade union is run, how municipal bodies operate, how we in this Parliament hold fierce contests on matters of principle and yet retain private friendships and continued good will. If we could give them a glimpse of these methods it would be some basis upon which to build, and I think it would repay us a thousandfold. I hope that some effort will be made to early that into effect, not by any Party or by the Government but in some sort of way that may enable it to be clone. If nothing else can be done, I shall try to persuade the Trade Union. Congress itself to take the matter up.
I would like to conclude on another note, a note of hesitating advice to the Indian people that they, with all their differences and hesitations about this Bill, should yet accept it and work it to the full. I would ask them, in their disappointment, to reflect upon the history of the Party with which I have the honour to be connected. We, too, began in a hopeless minority. We had not the slightest chance of carrying one of our propositions. We suffered defeat and we endured calumny, but we waited cheerfully. We never fell to the temptation of non-co-operation or violence, and at this day the record of our Party is not tainted by a drop of human blood. You get what you want by equipment and diligence and efficiency and not by non-co-operation, and I hope the workers of India will set their faces like flint against any temptation to non-co-operation and violence, for, my Lords, non-co-operation in a democracy is the sin of sins. Democracy is the one form of Government in which neither a man nor a group of men may loaf or sulk without dishonour. The working faith of a reformer, as I understand it, is: Get what you can, work what you get, and wait until you can get what you have not at present got. Therefore I think that the Indian people would
794
do well to receive this Bill, without any enthusiasm it may be, but at the same time in the full determination to work it for what it will give.
Finally, I venture to bespeak for them the sympathy, the toleration and the understanding of people in this country. We have a thousand years of experience behind us. Democracy fits us like a well-cut garment. But they start at the beginning. They have to tread the pathway of trial and error. They are undertaking a task that will make a demand upon all their powers. They will have to possess faith and caution, industry and self-mastery, and, above all, infinite patience. If they find critics as no doubt they will who hide their achievements and exaggerate their mistakes, they will also find ardent friends in England, I believe in all Parties of this country. I speak for my own because I cannot speak for any other; yet I feel that in this I could speak for all. We at any rate shall be ready at all times to place at their disposal any helpful experience of our own. So, my Lords, in parting with this Bill, I can only say that we send it to them as a certificate of their right to nationhood, with affectionate regard and complete good will, and we wish them good speed in the inauguration and conduct of the latest and the most interesting of the new Parliaments of the world.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a very few words in parting with this Bill. I am sure all of us echo what fell from the noble Lord opposite in the last sentences he has used in regard to our position now and our position in the future. My noble friend Lord Strickland, as I understood him, made the suggestion that it would be a good thing if further discussion on this Bill could be postponed to a future date. I did not observe that that suggestion met with any great enthusiasm. At the same time I am hound to say, speaking for myself, that I should be very glad from one point of view if the suggestion could be adopted, because I feel strongly that the more this Bill is discussed, the more we become acquainted with its details, the less popular it becomes, and I regret very much that further time cannot be allowed to it from that point of view alone.
I recognise that we have got to accept facts. This is not, a time to go into de-

795
tails of the Bill. Personally, I am convinced, using such little judgment as I possess, that this Bill will not be a success. The Government have embarked on a measure far too large, far too involved to be found workable. I none the less hope that I may be wrong. I sincerely hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and those of us who have supported him in opposing this Bill, may find ourselves in the position in the future of not being justified in our opposition. I am not one who is ambitious to adopt the rôle of "I told you so." This matter is one that is far too serious and far too dangerous to be taken lightly from that point of view. None the less I gravely fear that the future result of the passing of this Bill is going to be very detrimental not only to India but also to this country. I should like to say one word in recognition of the way my noble friend below me (the Marquess of Zetland) has conducted this Bill.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: If I may say so, I think he has shown most excellent temper and great perseverance, and, so far as I am concerned, I thank him warmly for such concessions as he has found it possible to give us. At the same time, lest he should be puffed up by such eulogy, let me hasten to add that I do not think he has been over generous in the number of his concessions, and, personally, I am inclined to think that the day will come when he will regret not having listened to some of the proposals that have come from these Benches.
In conclusion I only want to say that this has been a very difficult and a very trying time for many of us who have felt it our duty to separate ourselves from our friends in opposing this Bill. But I feel that both they and we have a just right to congratulate ourselves that we have done it with so little loss of temper and with nothing like a serious split in our Party. I look forward now when this fight is over to our being all united once more ready to take up the cudgels on behalf of the policies we represent.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, during the many discussions which have taken place with regard to India, I have not hitherto, except for a few words in Committee,
796
spoken on the subject. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me, therefore, for a very few moments if I speak on the last stage of this Bill. I venture to think that the debates in this House have shown, despite a good deal of difference of opinion, an extremely friendly spirit, and they have been conducted on a high plane. I think all the Amendments which have been introduced from both sides, however much we may have differed about them, have been introduced with a really serious object. May not this be a hopeful sign for the future, that the spirit which has been shown in this House, and which if I may venture to say so was shown in the words of my noble friend who has just spoken, may continue to exist after this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book?
As has been said before, I believe that the differences between us have been differences of degree rather than of principle. There has not been that definite cleavage between Parties which sometimes exists, as, for instance, there might have been if there had been no other justification for this Bill than that it had been introduced to satisfy various theories rather than a sequence of preceding events. When I went to India in 1924, if there had been in existence in India a form of government which had seemed satisfactory, a form of government which had implemented the object for which it was designed, and a form of government which would seem to have been growing stronger and stronger as time went on, no theories, no ideas of democracy, no desire for change, which sometimes affects all kinds of administrators, would have caused me to support this Bill. But I did not find that state of affairs. I found something entirely different, and I could not obtain any evidence that there was likely to be any improvement as time went on in that system of government which was having, as I believed, such unfortunate effects alike upon the Ministers, the electors, and the people.
Therefore, I have supported all the way through this Bill because I believed it to be the only alternative, because I believed it to be a workable alternative and an alternative which would not perpetuate the worst faults of the old system of dyarchy in the Provinces and weakness in the Centre. The measure of co-operation and of non-co-operation

797
which attends any Constitution is surely in the long run to be the measure of its success or of its failure. May we not hope that all those who are concerned and interested in India, and the wider public which during these last few years has been taking so much greater and deeper and so much more knowledgeable an interest in India will give us the measure of that co-operation?
We must expect disappointments in the future—that is inevitable—and we must meet them with patience. For when a greater liberty is given to people either in public life or in private life, they are perhaps at first, before they sober down, more concerned with the enjoyment of their emancipation than with the responsibilities which it entails. I believe that in the future we shall see more and more Indian gentlemen who have a stake in the country corning forward to bear a responsibility which they will believe to be a real one. I believe that that will be of the greatest value to India in the future. In the past histories of the two countries I think we shall agree that each has given much that is good to the other. May we not, then, now hope that India will accept this measure in the spirit in which it is offered to her, and that when the dust of controversy dies down all Parties in both countries will do their best to make the Constitution, upon which so much examination and so much consideration have been spent, a really workable one and, as I hope it will prove, a durable one for the great problems which we have to meet?
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, it is nigh on twelve years since I ventured to address your Lordships' House. I do so now for two or three minutes with the greatest diffidence and trepidation, because I am fully aware of the high offices that noble Lords have held in India, and also in this country with regard to Indian affairs, and of the fact that they have spent long periods in India and therefore have great experience and knowledge with which I cannot hope to compete. But I feel, as a member of your Lordships' House, that I cannot divest myself of my individual responsibility in a matter of such vital importance as this, nor can I hand over my conscience to the care of someone else however much, greater his experience may be than mine.
I am certain that there are noble Lords in this House who feel as I do, and I am
798
absolutely convinced that all over the country there are hundreds and thousands of supporters of the present Government who feel misgivings in their minds and unhappiness in their hearts because, to put it at the best, they are doubtful of the results of this great experiment. I have tried to find arguments from those who supported tile Bill that would convert me to its merits, but I was entirely unconverted by such arguments as that we should have to do something, and that the clock could not be' put back. Clocks very often ought to be put back, if they are wrong! I should like to ask the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill one question which I think would satisfy many supporters of the Government in the country, and perhaps while I do so I might with the greatest humility congratulate him on the extreme ability with which he has conducted this Bill through the House and the spirit of conciliation which he has shown towards the Amendments which have been brought forward. The question I should like to ask him is this: Is this country in honour bound by anything other than or beyond the words of the preamble to the Act of 1919—that is, the desirability of establishing and possibly of modifying or restricting responsible government in India? If it could be clearly answered that this country is not bound by any pledges other than that, then I think this Bill could be considered on its own merits.
If this country is bound to give some further measure of responsible government, I suggest that there are five prerequisites or postulates which should be in any measure that is passed. The first is that it should be acceptable to the majority of the peoples of the country to whom it is given. The second is that there should be some reasonable assurance that authority would be maintained by the new Constitution and that administration would be more efficient than it has been in the past. The third is that there should also be some reasonable prospect that there would be greater material benefits to the working millions of India, material benefits in the way of health, productivity of the land or protection by the law. The fourth is that there should be some reasonable probability that the various nations, religions, castes, and communities of India would work together harmoniously and with good will to try to carry out the new

799
Constitution. The fifth—and perhaps this is as important as any of the others—is there should be an absolute certainty of budgetary stability, so that any Government that might be formed could have a reasonable chance of carrying out its duties without being restricted as to resources.
Those five pre-requisites are absent from the Bill. As the time is short, I will only touch on them. Of the first I ask, is there any one who thinks that the Princes have given anything other than a very mild acquiescence to the Federation? What is their position? They are protected autocrats; they have their rights which have been granted to them and which we are bound to respect and keep. They are going into a Federation in which they would be in a minority. They would pitted there against the best brains of Indians, who would naturally be jealous of their privileges and rights and would be likely to see whether those privileges and rights at some future time could be taken away from them. They have therefore nothing to gain.
Let us turn for one moment to another and an entirely different class, the intelligentsia. Talking of the intelligentsia, I understand that they can be numbered at something like 2,000,000, against the 350,000,000 in the whole of India. Very often, when reference is made to hurting the feelings of India and touching the susceptibilities of Indians, it really means, not the susceptibilities or feelings of India, but those of this minute fraction of the intelligentsia. What is their view? We know that the most violent portion of the Congress Party, which is, I suppose, the most organised and the only organised Party there, say at once that if they work this new Constitution it will be worked, not for what it is, but in order to get further concessions in the future. They admit that their ultimate aim is to get away entirely from British rule, to exterminate British rule and to have done entirely with British domination. Even they do not care about the Bill.
Now I come to the most important class of all, to the working millions to whom the noble Lord, Lord Snell, referred and in whom he naturally and rightly takes a great interest. What I ask—and perhaps the noble Marquess would tell us this—
800
is whether there is any evidence at all to show that these working millions think that they will get any better deal, any advantages, by being administered by educated Indians—educated Hindus. What extra advantages will they get? Will they get a better deal through the administration they will get under this Bill than they have had under the British domination under which they have been hitherto? All the evidence that I have been able to get shows that they hold up their hands in horror—the agricultural labourer especially—at the idea that they are not going to be administered in the future by British administrators. Therefore I say that it would reassure all those of us who dislike having to take a different view from the Government if we thought that any substantial evidence could be brought forward to show that these working millions, the agricultural millions, will do any better under this Bill than they have done in the past.
I will pass, only for about a moment, to the members of the Indian Civil Service, Too little has been heard about their views. After all, they have administered India in the past and we owe an incalculable debt of gratitude to them for what they have done in India. Surely, their opinions should be worth listening to on the effect which they think the Constitution will have. There is therefore no class at all in India to whom this new Constitution is acceptable.
Now I come to my second point, and that is that there ought to be some reasonable assurance that, under the new Constitution, authority will be maintained and administration will be more efficient. You perhaps might say: "Well, what assurance could you have that that will be so?" Sufficient attention has not been paid in the framing of this Bill to the experience and the wisdom of the statesmen of the East. There have been great experiments in electoral Governments in Asia among Eastern peoples of late times. What happened to the electoral institutions of Turkey will be fresh in your Lordships' memories. They started in the last century, somewhere about 1876. That experiment was a complete failure. They tried again at the beginning of this century, again without success, and now, at the present time, Turkey is governed by a Dictator, though the forms of constitutional government

801
exist, and the names of deputies have to be submitted to the Dictator before they are elected. In Persia the same thing happened. Under our influence constitutional government was set up. It was a, total failure, and for twenty years after there was more disorder, trouble and bloodshed in Persia than before. It was one of the darkest periods of Persian history. So also in China was the attempt a failure.
I suggest that if recourse had been had to the experience of the East of these electoral institutions, it would have been found that in every case what started as an electoral institution came in the end to be an autocracy or a dictatorship, and -that, while some of the forms of constitutional government might remain, that was the net result. I say that so far as the experience of Governments in Eastern countries is concerned no assurance is to be gained from it that this Bill will have a stable formation, and that there will be a reasonable chance of upholding authority.
I am sorry to detain your Lordships so long, but I would ask what material benefits the millions of India are going to get under this Bill. Is it likely that they are going to get any increased productivity of the soil, or that under this responsible government more scientific methods will be employed, or that their Medical Services will be improved, or, above all, that the efficacy of the Police will be as good as it has been? The Police in India, up to now, have had the support of the Government behind them. Will they have that same support in future? In England the Police have the support of the general public, but we must remember that the millions of India are more dependent upon the Police than we can imagine in this country. It is a very vital thing to them that they should have the unbiased support of the Police, and that the Police should feel that they are at liberty to do what they think right, apart from differences of caste, religion or race. I think that under this new Constitution there will be a terrible strain put upon the Police, and that the result will be to damage the position of the working millions in India.
Then I come to the question of what chance there is of these antagonistic races, warlike and unwarlike, of these opposing religions and clean-cut divisions
802
of caste, running this new Constitution amicably and well. Lord Snell spoke in a very moving way about the co-operation which he hoped might occur between all classes in India in carrying out this new Constitution, but I suggest to your Lordships that it is quite impossible for us who breathe the serene air of this Chamber to understand the bitterness and strife, the inconceivable bitterness, that exists between Hindu and Moslem. We know that bloodshedding may be taking place even at this moment, and are we to suppose that these cleavages of race, caste and community can at once settle down together in amity and work a new Constitution? With regard to budgetary stability, I know that a Commission is going to sit. I only trust that a Report will come from that Commission which will be absolutely clear and convincing, that for the Provinces and the Federation there will be ample funds to carry out the provisions of this Bill, and also an ample reserve fund for any contingent liability, such as war, or famine or earthquake, or any other contingency that may arise.
I have been most anxious ever since the provisions of this Bill were promulgated to be converted. I have been an anxious inquirer. I will tell your Lordships why I have been anxious to be converted. It is because I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that the motives which have actuated the Government in bringing forward this Bill have been motives of righteousness, altruism and unselfishness, and I do not think we can imagine any other nation in the world who, having administered an Empire, as this Empire has been administered by the British—having administered it with undoubted benefits to the people governed, and with great unselfishness—would be willing of its own free will to hand over the power into the hands of others. I say "with great unselfishness" because if we look at France, for instance, which has a great Moslem Empire in Morocco, Tunis and Algeria, we see that all French goods go into those countries without any tax whatever, whereas we allow the governed country of India to tax our goods up to the hilt. I had hoped that I might have been converted. I am sorry to think that the outcome of this great measure of righteousness may be very

803
terrible. Indeed I see before me disorder and disturbance and, possibly, bloodshed and the greatest catastrophes. I hate the garment and the rôle of Cassandra, and my only prayer is that my anticipations may be as entirely incorrect about the future as my convictions are sincere.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, without pretending to be an expert on the subject of Indian history, I believe that it is generally accepted that all the widely differing nations of this sub-continent, with their no less widely differing religions, languages and customs, have never shown the slightest sign of any ability or desire to coalesce on their own account. The history of India, so far as the native races are concerned, is one long story of dissension and disorder which has been checked only during the periods in which some foreign conqueror has established his sway over greater or lesser areas of the country and has been in a position to maintain order by means of physical force. There is not in Indian history the faintest suggestion that order can be kept throughout India by any native administration, or in any manner except by physical force controlled by a despot or an oligarchy. British rule in India has up to the present been conducted strictly on these lines. It has rested absolutely upon the presence in India of an irresistible British Army, and, from the moment that system was introduced up to the present time, such has been its success that almost unbroken peace has continued for nearly two hundred years.
Meanwhile there has suddenly appeared in the Western world the phenomenon of modern democracy. In Great Britain modern democracy is exactly sixty-seven years old. In many other countries it is much less. In so far as the theory of modern democracy rests on anything, it rests on the idea that all human beings are equal—an assumption that is obviously false. It has been extremely unsuccessful in practice, so much so that, in spite of every kind of advantage which it has enjoyed owing to the spread of knowledge and the use of mechanical power, there is not a single democratically-governed country to-day that is not growing steadily poorer, from that besetting sin of democracy, living on capital. It has already provoked violent
804
reactions in many important countries, and, where it survives, is everywhere engaged in a frantic attempt to make the poor rich by encouraging them to consume the sources from which wealth comes. This is the sacred political gospel that is to supersede the reign of peace in India that has for so long been maintained by the British Army.
A completely new system, everywhere in process of collapse from its own inherent defects, is voluntarily to be entrusted by Great Britain to certain arbitrarily chosen blocks of Indians, most of them of very doubtful loyalty to this country. These people are, in theory, to have almost absolute powers to do exactly what they like, but in practice they will have no power to do anything at all without the permission of the British Government, because the irresistible British Army is to remain in India. Among the powers nominally to be handed over to Indian democracy is that of penalising British trade with India. Barriers may be set up against British trade from which the trade of other countries is free. This is (nominally again) quite definite. His Majesty's Government have in so many words refused to accept an Amendment designed to remove this power, and as, of late years, Indian politicians have already been allowed on various pretexts to impose tariffs which have reduced British imports by more than half, it can only be supposed that His Majesty's Government are prepared to swallow any fiscal measures that Indian democracy may see fit to take.
The excuse for all this and a lot more is that everything must be done to preserve Indian good will. There is not, and there never has been to the ordinary observer, the slightest trace of good will towards this country on the part of any considerable number of Indian politicians. Anybody believing this is simply deceiving himself, and deserves no pity. It is our old acquaintance the confidence trick in its most blatant and bloated form. Democracy in the hands of Indian politicians, who must be utterly helpless to overcome any serious resistance to such laws as they may be permitted to pass unless they can secure the support of a foreign Army over which they have themselves no control, is a contradiction in terms of so preposterous a nature that it is hardly possible to discuss it with a grave face.

805
I will content myself with putting to your Lordships one or two cases that occur to me as practically certain to arise. One of the first things that an Indian Legislature will do will be to introduce immensely expensive Social Services, the only means of paying for which, even temporarily, will be by repudiating their debts to this country. The Indians will point out, quite justly, that they are merely following our example in introducing subsidised wages, widows' pensions, housing subsidies, higher education for the masses, etc., etc., and what is good for Great Britain must be even better for India, as India is poorer and therefore in greater need. What is this country going to do about that? Again, fighting is bound shortly to break out between Hindus disloyal to this country and Moslems loyal to this country. The Moslems, being fighting men, will certainly win, but the Hindus, being in the majority, will have the law behind them. The disloyal will ask for the help of the British Army to defeat the loyal. We all know what happened last time the British Army was ordered to fight against loyalists in support of rebels. The whole business of governing India has indeed developed into the priceless muddle that was inevitable from the moment the politicians began to ignore facts in favour of their own theories.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, at this stage I do not propose to go into the merits of the Bill itself, but there are a few things that I think it is necessary to say. In the first place, let me reiterate the witness that another noble Lord has given to the courtesy and patience with which the noble Marquess has conducted these debates. Now the infliction of irritation and boredom is an inseparable accident of any sustained opposition to a big Bill, and we may imagine many a Minister who would have reacted to this ordeal in a manner very different from that of my noble friend. But I think, on the other hand, he may give us—I mean the Opposition to this Bill—a certain credit. When you consider the magnitude of this Bill, the 400 to 500 clauses and the sixteen Schedules, and when you consider the opportunities that are open to an Opposition, owing to the licentious procedure of your Lordships' House, it may be imagined what we might have done; and I think the
806
noble Marquess ought to give us credit for having restrained our natural desire to enter (to use a transatlantic phrase) into the glorious filibuster that was open to us. Lord Clive has played a most worthy part in organising opposition to this Bill, and I think he might well say, in the words of the first Lord Clive: "I am astounded at my own moderation."
The Bill is now in its last stage. All I can say in its favour is that it is far better than the White Paper, and I believe that the noble Marquess himself and others who represented what I may call the central view on the Committee, are at any rate entitled to take credit for that. But having said that, I can say little more. There seems a strange notion in a certain school of Liberal politicians who are not represented in this Chamber at this moment, that all ills may be cured by the grant of franchise and polling booths. They regard them as having what I suppose may be termed some pan-therapeutic property. I am afraid I cannot share what I believe to be a delusion. The modern franchise may work well in a homogeneous community like our own, with the long experience of its working; but to apply it suddenly in the belief that it will appease the traditional passions, the racial divisions, and the lasting antagonisms of a diverse Continent is in my belief to hope for too much. We are told that there might be grave trouble in India if we do not consult Indian opinion. I am afraid it is only too probable that there may be grave trouble in India whether we pass this Bill or any Bill or no Bill. But we shall not avert it by the illusion that by passing this Bill, with all its anomalies and contradictions, we are able to prevent what we fear we may have to grapple with, but which in our present procedure we can do nothing to avert.
Speaking for myself, not since I did what I could to help my noble friend Lord Carson in 1912 have I opposed any Bill with such zest and satisfaction as the present. And, while I am mentioning his name, I most deeply regret that that great man is not now with us, owing to age and infirmity, to attack this Bill with that pungency peculiarly his own. I know he detests this measure hardly less than that measure of twenty-odd years ago which he so strenuously opposed and which, in great part, he was able to destroy. But the Bill is now passing.

807
Three things I think have helped it. In the first place there was a suspicion that the opposition to it cloaked certain private plans and designs on which I need not expatiate. There was that suspicion in many people's minds. Secondly, it was greatly helped by the opposition of the Socialist Party. Many a man in both Houses said to himself: "When this Bill is opposed by the Socialist Party it cannot be such a very bad one." When they have seen, to take two examples, Mr. Lansbury and Sir Stafford Cripps going into the Lobby against it, they have been very chary of bearing them company. In the third place, I believe the Bill has been helped by its own complexity. Many a man in both Houses has said, seeing this enormous document: "It is impossible that I can master this. I must trust someone. On the whole I like the Government, not without cause in other regards, and therefore I must trust them." Owing to the enormous weight of this Bill it has been impossible in either House really to thrash it out so that its true provisions have been known. These three things, I believe, have been powerful aids in the passage of the Bill.
What should now be the attitude of those who oppose it? I take no pleasure in fighting my own friends, but on a matter of this sort it is inevitable. I imagine that, if you meet your best friend on the other side in battle, you kill him if you can, but if you both survive you dine together auspice Baccho—after the peace—and that is the proper social and ethical attitude. I quite agree that after this Bill has passed we must not make things harder for those who will have to administer it. That nasty German word Schadenfreude must have no place in our vocabulary. Another noble Lord has said that to use the words "I told you so" is unworthy of any patriot. After all, we have common enemies to fight, and we may have to fight them in no distant space of time. When this issue is for the moment—only for the moment—out of the way, I know of nothing that need divide the Government from its friends except one thing, and that is if they still neglect to face the constitutional issue at home. But, as regards the administration of this Bill, I think we who have fought them hardest should do nothing to allow it to be said, either in respect of the Secretary of State
808
or of whoever may be the next Governor-General of India, that we made his hard task an impossible one.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I rise for two or three minutes after the vigorous and varied denunciations to which we have listened from noble Lords who have come before us, to say only a very few words in general support of the Bill. My noble friend Lord FitzAlan told us he was not at all satisfied with the discussions, and wanted them to be prolonged. I do not know that I have his insatiable passion for discussion because I am inclined to think—indeed I know—that there is no Bill that has ever been before Parliament since the days of Simon de Montfort which has been submitted to so close an examination, which has been so much considered and reconsidered, and every clause of which has been submitted to the most minute and unremitting examination. I only want to say, if I may, one word about what the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has said, because he gave us a most vigorous denunciation of the Bill. He told us, I think in so many words, that by the Bill we were handing over to the capitalists the exploitation of the workers of India. I was very much alarmed by those phrases, but I was rather consoled by the reflection that if the noble Lord was so seriously disturbed by the Bill he would have voted against it, and I do not think he has done that and that, perhaps, lessens the fears which he expressed.
May I say, without patronage or arrogance, that I have listened to the attacks and criticisms delivered upon this Bill by my noble friends in this House, and having been a member of, and sat through, all the Round-Table Conferences, the Joint Select Committee, and everything else, I confess to a feeling of admiration for the skill with which they have not left one single point unprobed or unexamined. My noble friend Lord Rankeillour said he had no sentiment of irritation against those who had opposed him. I suppose some people have. I never can enjoy those feelings. I am so fond myself of political controversy that I am only too grateful to those who give one the opportunity of raising it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think my noble friend has misinterpreted me. What I did say was that it was an unavoidable infliction of irritation and bore-

809
dom on my noble friends in the course of this struggle, but it could not be helped.
EARL PEEL: I can only say, as one of the noble Lord's friends, that I have been neither bored nor irritated by his interpositions. What more than that can I say? I listened, again, to a very vigorous interpolation by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. I do not think I heard his eloquent voice in your Lordships' House during the earlier stages of this Bid. I do not think I heard him on Second Reading or during the long discussions in Committee, and I rather regret that he should have reserved his vigorous and general condemnation of the Bill for the last stage when, of course, it is obviously difficult for myself and others, always open to conviction, to change our minds. But may I say that every one of the points that the noble Lord has mentioned—and I am not going to attempt to reply to them to-night—has been discussed and' dealt with. My noble friend Lord Lloyd might say has been "replied to." I was going to use the other word "answered," but, surrounded by so many noble Lords Who are opposed to the Bill, I hardly dare use that word. The points have been discussed over and over again, and the noble Lord must not think, because we are not now replying to them all, that they are not readily susceptible of discussion and answer.
Having listened to all these denunciations, having heard this Bill criticised and condemned by some of the most skilful debaters both in this House and in another place, and having had the pleasure of listening to my noble friend Lord Salisbury in constant and vigorous criticisms, I ask this question: Is it not rather a remarkable thing—and after all we have been told that we are the only people who understand democratic Government and have been at it for a thousand years, which is a little exaggeration but I am not on the historical point for a moment—that after all these tremendous denunciations, the majorities in both Houses have been overwhelming in favour of this Bill? I know there is a natural suspicion of majorities among minorities, but I think it is worth remembering by noble Lords who put forward all these objections that the most silent members of both Houses, who have come not so much to speak but to listen, and who have listened to the arguments
810
on both sides and must be considered not to have been committed but to have formed a well trained jury for the consideration of these matters, gave all these tremendous majorities to the decision that this Bill should pass.
I should like for a moment, if I might; to get away from that general atmosphere of gloom and depression and of prophesied evil. I have been a good many years in public affairs, and have heard a great many denunciations of Bills as they have passed. I think it is the common experience that those who have taken a more cheerful view of the future are just as likely—I will not put it higher—to be right as those who talk of failure and of gloom. I feel that under this Bill there must be and there is bound to be a rather critical attitude in India, but I am one of those who believe that when, in spite of safeguards and limitations and all these things which look rather large in a Bill even of 500 clauses, it is found what opportunities and wide a field for administration and legislation are open to them, these opportunities will not only absorb their energies but will give them a totally different outlook towards the Bill when they come to work, administer and manage it. Sometimes I feel that we are perhaps a little arrogant in assuming that we are the only people who can manage democratic institutions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Where else are they managed?
EARL PEEL: I was just going to finish the sentence if I may. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is, I think, a most determined critic of democratic institutions in other countries. Sometimes I think, from his criticisms, that he is rather doubtful about the success of democratic government even in this country. But I will not deal with that at the moment. I do not think that we should assume that we in this country have the sole monopoly, because we have been at it so many hundreds of years, of working these institutions. Business is not done in that way. There is a certain freedom, a kind of free trade as it were in ideas and practices, and I think it is a little unwise to assume when these great increases of authority and administrative power are being granted, that they necessarily are going to be misused. I must admit that all through

811
these long discussions I have been very much influenced by all the statements, pledges and promises contained in Acts of Parliament and so on which have been given as regards India. With many of these, I confess, at, the time I have not always been in full agreement, but I have always recognised that once they have been put into Acts of Parliament or in solemn pronouncements of State they become, as it were, the common law of the attitude of the Government of this country towards India, and that the very worst thing that could be said against this country—a thing which certainly, so far as I am concerned, I will never countenance—is that there should be a legitimate opportunity for India or any other country to say that we have been untrue to those pledges which we have so solemnly affirmed and reaffirmed on many occasions.
I say this as far as one's own political conscience is concerned, that I believe this Bill, with all its limitations and compromises (necessary in so large a matter) is the fulfilment of all those pledges and that we can feel we have in every way discharged our trust. As regards what is to happen afterwards in administration, that really casts a great responsibility upon the Indians themselves. They have these large duties thrown upon them. I think it is a pity that at this stage we should fill the air with lamentations of the ill success with which this measure is going to meet in India. I would rather send this Bill forward on its Third Reading with the hope that we shall be tolerant, perhaps, of the way in which this measure is carried out; that we shall give credit to the Indians of desiring to carry out these proposals in the spirit in which they are offered to them; and that we shall wish it at least that measure of success which is the utmost thing we can wish to any human institution.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the closing passages of my noble friend's speech might have been taken almost verbatim from a similar occasion on the Irish Bill when we were all enjoined to be jolly and happy and glad and let all recriminations cease, because all was going to be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
EARL PEEL: I never suggested that. I thought I was expressing myself in
812
much more careful language. I never suggested anything about the best of all possible worlds. I simply said that here we had fulfilled pledges which were given to the Indians and that we hoped everything would be for the best.
LORD LLOYD: I did not mean to quote the noble Earl textually. I was trying to give a general idea of what he was suggesting—that we should all be cheery and not gloomy about the suture of the Bill which is about to be passed into law. All I was trying to do was to suggest that just the same arguments were used in respect of the Irish Bill in the debates upon it. I am sorry if I in any way exaggerated, but I think that I have now at any rate given a fair description of what the noble Earl said. Having said so much, I shall try at this last stage of the measure to emulate the brevity of previous speakers, and I should not like to be an exception or fail to pay the same compliments which my noble friends have paid to the Secretary of State for his conduct of the Bill. I think we all agree that he has most agreeably solved the problem of how to show the maximum of conciliation with the minimum of concession.
I cannot get away—I am sorry if I offend my noble friend here—from a feeling of deep drama and tragedy as to what is happening in this House to-day. The whole history of 150 years of our rule is being despatched in a few speeches. After all that has been said and done in this long controversy, what does it amount to? Either India is fit for self-government or she is not. If she is fit for self-government then surely it was madness on the Government's part to hedge their proposals round with manifold restrictions which were as ineffective as they are irritating. If, on the other hand, India is not fit for self-government then the Government have done a grave and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, pointed out, an irretrievable mischief to the Indian peoples that may adversely affect the lives and fortunes of millions of people for a hundred years to come. Perhaps you will say that there is a third alternative and that India is partly, but not fully, ready for self-government. That probably is more near to the truth. If that is so, then it was the Government's bounden duty to retain a firm hold of the Centre

813
so that they could resume their power swiftly to rescue and restore a situation of chaos if it occurred.
The Government have done none of these things. They have acted now so that in the future there can be neither good government nor self-government. Where security reigned fear shall now step in. Where a million people lived in the protective shade of an absolutely impartial rule millions must now crouch under the shadow of a hostile majority in many a Province of India. And in the innermost counsels of the Government and holding in their hand the key to the whole of Britain's strategic position in the East will be the Congress Party, avowedly and quite openly the enemies of this country and pledged, openly pledged, to overthrow our rule even more fully than the present rulers of Ireland when we made the Treaty. Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute.
The Government can have only one defence to urge for flying in the face of those facts. They could say, as they have said, that responsibility will change all these things. I well remember my noble friend the Secretary of State once in the proud full sail of a peroration saying: "Give them responsibility and then Ministers will behave responsibly." I hope lie will forgive me for reminding him of my reply. I said it was not true; that it was very easy and pretty to say those things, but that it had been proved untrue of Ireland, of Egypt, of Malta, of Ceylon, and of almost anywhere in the East virtually. You cannot say that. They were all given responsibility and they did not behave responsibly. Nor will they in India, for this is a form of self-government entirely exotic and foreign to all the history and traditions and temperaments of the peoples of the East. It is no reflection on their ability to say that they have not reacted to responsibility, but I am absolutely confident that they will not become responsible people in the sense in which the Government use that expression.
I believe this Bill will do grave hurt to the people of British India, and I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who made an eloquent appeal for India, and his Party had shown a less tepid opposition to the Bill if they actually thought it was so terribly harmful to the
814
people of India as we think it is. It is largely because I believe the Bill will bring untold misery to the masses of the people that I have put up such opposition as I could offer. I believe the Bill is bad for the masses of the people of India, and I believe that we have no right morally to abandon the peoples of India and hand them over to their enemies, to people not competent to govern them. I believe that is a wrong thing to do.
I say that if it is bad for the people of India it is also gravely harmful to the Princes of India. I believe that if the Princes of India enter the Federation—I say this advisedly and with some considerable experience of Native State administration—it will definitely be the end of their order. I have never been blind, and no one who has been in India can be blind, to certain evils inherent in Native State rule, but I have always recognised that there are great virtues and values as well in that rule—a rule that is very often extremely good and has the great advantage that it is buttressed by tradition, understood of the people and even, I think, generally supported by love and affection for the personality of the Ruler. Those are great things in government. But with the disappearance of that order or its enfeeblement, which I believe to be bound to come, I think we shall have gravely damaged the whole structure of efficient government in India.
I have only one thing to add. If I think this Bill is bad for the peoples and the Princes of India—though very possibly quite advantageous, temporarily, to professional politicians in India—I believe it is also going to do tragic hurt to the wage-earners of this country. We urged your Lordships, and we urged the Government, in the Committee stage to accept an Amendment to incorporate the principle of Imperial preference in the Bill. We were amazed at your refusal to insert so obviously just a condition, a condition that was accepted at Ottawa even by Indians themselves. You refused to have anything to do with it. What followed? What followed was even worse. On Report we introduced an Amendment asking only that goods made by British workers should not be treated worse than those made by foreigners. It is almost incredible that any British Government should have rejected an Amendment of that kind. The plight of

815
Lancashire and of the derelict areas to-day makes it incredible that the Government should definitely refuse an Amendment to the effect that our wage-earners should not be treated worse than foreign wage-earners.
We can only assume this system whereby a duty can be put on British goods where none is put on foreign goods to be part of a definite plan. I say it is utterly indefensible not only because of our past record in India, or because of our actual present rights in India, but also because of the free access to our great Crown Colony markets which we give to Indian goods and Indian traders. I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Derby, voted for our Amendment, but I hope he will forgive me if I say that it seemed to me to be an act of death-bed repentance to Lancashire workers. My noble friend's great and justly deserved popularity and influence in Lancashire have done more, I feel, to carry this Bill through than probably anything else. But I for one—I say it in no critical sense of my noble friend—do not envy him the responsibility which he has incurred with the wage-earning people of Lancashire.
That, as your Lordships will be glad to hear, is the last I have to say. I cannot get away from the feeling of grave tragedy which surrounds us to-day. Nobody who has read the history of India, as your Lordships all have, can easily get into the galloping, easy satisfaction which we have been urged to assume in this House to-day. I, for one, believe that you are delivering India and its peoples over to a sour cross indeed, and I, for one, am glad that I have had nothing whatever to do with it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of these Benches, to add our testimony to the way in which the Secretary of State has conducted this Bill through your Lordships' House. He was obviously confronted with a very difficult task. He became Secretary of State, I think, on the very day of the First Reading of this Bill in this House, and I am glad to feel that your Lordships, at any rate, share our gratitude to him for the skill, the courage and the ability with which he has piloted what we believe to be a great and good Bill through this House.
816
Your Lordships have listened, and perhaps inevitably listened on the Third Reading of the Bill, to what in another place was called, I believe, "inspissated gloom" about the effects of this Bill when it comes into operation. It was my good fortune to be in the deliberations of which this Bill is the final result for no less than five years. I have looked up some of the records of the views which were expressed about other similar Constitutions before they were enacted: the American, the Canadian, the South African and the Australian Constitutions; and one and all were accompanied by the kind of prophecies to which we have listened this afternoon. In many cases there was the very gravest doubt whether, the opposition to them being so formidable, they would ever be enacted into law at all. I am not going to pretend that you can argue directly from the conditions in the Dominions and the United States to the conditions, so very different, in India, but I venture to think that the fact that there is no great enthusiasm for this Bill to-day, either here or in India, is on the whole a good omen. We have seen many Constitutions created since the war, representing the theory or the triumphant ideas of a single class or Party, and most of those Constitutions have crumbled into ruins. The Constitutions which have survived have been the Constitutions which have represented long and careful compromise, on the basis of fact, interest and opinion in the countries with which they were concerned; and I do not think that anybody can say that the framers of any Constitution ever weighed more carefully all the interests, all the dangers, and all the forces which are involved in the Indian Constitution than the framers of this Bill. Therefore, I venture to think that the very fact that there is no great enthusiasm is in itself an omen that what has been worked out with so much care and thought will endure far longer, and endure far more successfully, than some of your Lordships have prophesied to-day.
The noble Lords for whom I am speaking to-day have consistently supported the main principles of this Bill since the day when its really vital principles—Federation, Indian responsibility in the Centre and the Provinces, and adequate safeguards—were adopted as its foundation. There are many matters of detail in which we could have wished for other

817
solutions, but we have never wavered in our support of the Bill based on those fundamental principles, and we are not going to waver to-day. We are going to give a whole-hearted vote in support of the Bill. Why have we taken this view? I think, if I may summarise it briefly, that we have taken it for this reason. What has been the fundamental difficulty about Indian Government in the last fifteen years? Nobody can pretend that the problems of Indian Government since the War have been anything like comparable with the problems that confronted this country in India before the 'War. There is a fundamentally new situation with which we have had to deal, and that situation has arisen fundmentally from one fact: tae rapid rise of a politically-minded class in India.
The reason why the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms did not succeed in enlisting the support of the politically-minded classes in India behind good government, law and order and social reform in India in the way in which it was hoped, was that they did not transfer real responsibility for Indian Government to Indian shoulders. Not only was the Government of India itself, the Executive, wholly responsible to Parliament here and quite irresponsible to the Indian Legislature, but in the Provinces the Governor was responsible for the two vital functions of finance and of law and order. Therefore we are still, under the Constitution of to-day, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, quite truly said, responsible for all aspects of Indian Government in effect, because the transferred powers were limited by the amount of finance which the Governor and the Executive Councillors felt able to divert to them. Therefore I was a little surprised when the noble Lord, having said some of the things he said this afternoon, was apparently prepared to hand over to certain personages who, to my astonishment, he described as the enemies of their country, the control, the immense and vital control, of the Indian masses which inevitably belongs to Indians themselves.
LORD LLOYD: I said "of this country "not" of their country".
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then I withdraw my remark; I misunderstood the noble Lord. The central fact in
818
India during the last fifteen years has been, not the decline, but the rise of the politically-minded classes in India. That is not a phenomenon which is to be found in India alone, it is a world-wide phenomenon. It existed first of all in the Dominions, it has developed in every country in Europe, and it is passing with immense rapidity from one end of Asia to another. It is symbolised in my mind most clearly by the central fact that there are hundreds of thousands of students in Indian Universities to-day, quite as many as there are in the Universities ill this country, practically every one of whom is turned out by those Universities demanding that Indians shall take the responsibility for Indian affairs on their own shoulders. Those men and women are going to be the leaders of India to-morrow, if they are not the leaders of India to-day. Now, how are you going to get the support and the co-operation of the politically-minded classes?—a minority, if you like, but the kind of minority which in every country in the world controls politics. How are you going to get the support of those classes for good government in India? That is the essential issue as I see it to-day. In my view, and I have never altered that view, there is only one way of securing that support, and that is by giving them a primary share of responsibility for government in India.
During the last fifteen years this class on the whole, or in very large numbers, have created difficulty in India. They have contributed nothing; they have obstructed; they have thrown their weight against social reform. If you give them responsibility there is good hope, and I believe certain hope, that they—even they—will put their weight behind law and order, behind social reform, behind economic progress, and behind the development of good government in India instead of obstructing it. It is in that hope and expectation that we on these Benches support this Bill. Secondly, if you do not enlist the support of the political classes, you are going inevitably to be driven into repressing them. You cannot go on with the Government machinery which exists in India to-day unless you adopt the major principles of this Bill and put the primary responsibility for good government inside India on Indian shoulders, while Great Britain maintains responsibility for the defence of India

819
against external attack, and maintains the special safeguards which enable us here to intervene in the event of a grave menace to the tranquillity and peace of India, and so on. In those respects you are inevitably going to be driven to follow the line of the dictatorships in Europe, and repress every form of political activity; to close the Universities, suppress the Press, and introduce in India the kind of dictatorship which exists in Europe. That, I think you will agree, is not only contrary to all our principles but could not possibly survive, for the reason that this country itself is a democracy, and inevitably in a few years is going to get a form of Government which would refuse to maintain that system.
Those are the basic reasons why we, on these Benches, feel that difficult as the situation is going to be, dangerous in many respects as it is going to be, the central effect of this Bill is that it holds out a probability, and in my view a certainty, that the political classes in India will in future assume their share of responsibility for good government in India, instead of making it more difficult. And if that happens the problems of the future are going to be entirely different from the problems of the past. I sometimes feel, when I listen to some of the speeches made by noble Lords who oppose the Bill, that the difference between us is as to the degree of confidence that we have in the ability and public spirit of the political classes in India. In my view there is an immense fund of ability and an immense quantity of public spirit in India which are only waiting to be mobilised in support of good government, once you do the essential thing of placing upon those shoulders responsibility for government instead of leaving them to obstruct the powers that they want to get rid of because they want to assume responsibility themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, criticised the Bill, with some justification I think, on the ground that 'it did not give adequate representation to the working masses. I think that in so far as it is reactionary in any sense of the word it is due to changes made in the Bill by the increase of the Second Chambers and the substituting of indirect election for direct election, but I would venture to remind him that some 43 per cent. of the adult male population of India is to be enfranchised, and that means that a great
820
deal of power will be in the hands of the ryot, the villager and of the population of the towns, in proportion as they learn to use it. They will probably have the same struggle to make to secure their rights as did the masses in this country. This Bill will not go forward without putting into the hands of the masses of the people of India very considerable levers with which to protect and promote their interests. While I support what he said with regard to the need of training members of the Depressed Classes and trade union leaders in the Parliamentary arts I do not think that this Bill is quite as reactionary as he would lead your Lordships to believe because, if it were, I do not think that we on these Benches could support it with the consistency that we have done.
Finally, one last question which, as in the case of Lord Snell, I feel inclined to address perhaps more to some of my friends in India than to noble Lords in this House. Does this Bill meet what I believe is the fundamental spiritual feelings in India? Does it transfer real responsibility for their own affairs on to Indian shoulders? Does it make possible the ending of that barren strife between British and Indian as to where responsibility should lie? Does it make possible steady movement towards full self-government in proportion as the Legislatures show their capacity to discharge that responsibility? I believe it does these things. The question of the speed with which India will develop towards that Dominion status which, as has been said repeatedly, is the natural issue of Parliament's declaration of 1920, will in the future fundamentally rest upon the Indian Legislatures themselves. If the Indian electorates return Legislatures containing stable majorities capable of maintaining in office competent Ministries, there will be no need for intervention by the Viceroy or the Governors under the special responsibility clauses, and there will be steady and inevitable progress towards full responsibility in India, exactly as there has been in the Dominions.
If, as I hope, that proves to be the case, it will be because the new Ministers will have at their disposal an independent, competent and experienced Civil Service, protected in their rights, on which they will be able confidently to rely both for advice and the execution of the policy upon which they

821
decide. If, as has happened in more than one country in the last fifteen years, partly owing to economic breakdown and partly owing to external danger, which does not exist in India, the Legislatures become dominated by Party faction or communal feeling, or become corrupt through the pressure of financial and sectional interests, and the unity, good government and financial stability become grossly in danger, I believe that Indian opinion itself, as in other countries, will thank heaven for the safeguards, will demand that they shall be put into effect, and will support the Viceroy and Governors in putting them into effect. This Bill in my view puts opportunity and responsibility into India's hands. It now rests with India to say how that opportunity is to be taken, and how that responsibility is to be discharged.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope I shall confine my remarks to a very limited period of time this evening, for there is a very large measure of unreality about the present discussion. We all know that this Bill is going to pass into law. All the arguments that we have stressed have been stated over and over again in both Houses of Parliament. We have been defeated, and now there is nothing for it except, of course, to accept the situation. I do not think we need even trouble your Lordships to divide this evening on this Bill. I am not surprised, of course, at the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. He likes the Bill. The Bill is a Liberal Bill. Of course he likes a Liberal Bill. It has every note of Liberalism about it. Of course he believes in it. He was sanguine that these Liberal nostrums of the nineteenth century will still have effect. I do not think myself that contemporary history justifies it. He even—I almost used a stronger word—had the boldness to quote other Federations in support of this Bill. Federations are breaking down all over the world. Does he think the Federation of the United States is a success? He must be a very sanguine man if he thinks so.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly it is not breaking down.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not coining to an end, if that is what he means by breaking down; but if he
822
means it is an exhibition of good government, he takes a very different view from that which I take. Wherever the Federal system exists it works with the greatest difficulty, even where it is applied to the white race, mostly of our own blood, well trained in political knowledge And experience, with tradition and knowledge behind it; and you are going to hand this system of Federation in India to a conglomeration of nations with forty-two different languages and two or three different faiths, with no sympathy whatever as between one anal the other. My noble friend Lord Lothian hopes for the best. Well, of course, so do I. I reecho every word that was so well said this afternoon by my noble friend Lord FitzAlan. For us who are, I hope, public-spirited it must be a matter of the deepest hope that all the evils that we have prophesied will not come true. We may be wrong. I speak with great humility. Undoubtedly the vast majority of both Houses disagree with us, and my noble friend Lord Peel, who I think is no longer in his place, thought that that settled the question. He thought that all these majorities must be right. My noble friend voted in the majority when the present Irish system was established. He was quite as sanguine then as he is now of what the result would be. And just east your eyes across the Irish Channel and see the result of what the majority of that day did. I take no credit to myself, but I was then in a minority. I am not ashamed of the votes I gave during that crisis. My noble friend Lord Lloyd and myself and others are now again in the minority. Well, we may be wrong. I speak with all due humility and diffidence, but it does not follow that because you are in a minority you are wrong.
I see no enthusiasm for this Bill anywhere. My noble friend Lord Lothian grasped that nettle. He said: "What an excellent thing it is—this Bill is unpopular everywhere, unpopular in India and unpopular in this country." I think he said: "It is more likely to be right than if it had been popular." That is a fine robust humour. But, for people who set out to meet and satisfy the aspirations of the Indian people I think it is rather a curious point of view to take, and I think a recent point of view as far as my noble friend is concerned. A very short time ago he would have been

823
very proud if he could have said that the Bill had been well received in India. He said that the great change in India was the appearance of the politically-minded classes. It is a change, but a change which I should have thought would have indicated to any man of experience the necessity for caution. They are very dangerous, these sudden emergences of politically-minded classes. They are quite inexperienced, they know nothing from experience about constitutional tradition. They never worked it, and they do not understand it. And of course they require more guidance than the people who are not politically-minded. My noble friend sees no danger. He says: "Oh, throw upon them responsibility," quite sure that if they have responsibility they will answer to it. Why do people go on saying things like that when the whole world shows responsible government to be failing in one country after the other, with no sense of duty developed because of the responsibility thrown upon them? Why should my noble friend think that India will do better in that respect than the countries of Europe we see around us What ground has he for that claim? Of course, I quite admit he is a Liberal, but still even Liberals learn sometimes. For my part I have the example of Ireland before me, and I know what happened there.
We have no responsibility, those few of us who vote against this Bill: that rests upon Parliament. It would be impertinent if I made any complaint at the attitude of your Lordships. You have acted as you thought right; I have nothing to say against you. But my noble friend Lord Rankeillour was fully justified in saying that one of the main reasons is that it was impossible for your Lordships to grasp the full import of this Bill. I am quite sure that a great many of those I am addressing and a great many more outside in the country say: "We do not understand the Bill. We cannot understand it. We had better trust the Government, and above all we had better trust the Indian administrators, the ex-Viceroys and ex-Governors who sit in either House of Parliament, and who have told us that on the whole it is the best course."In that I am not surprised, and therefore the major responsibility does rest upon those ex-Viceroys and those ex-Governors. They are the people
824
who have to answer hereafter in history for what happens. If I felt quite certain that they were convinced that they were advising Parliament to-day what was for the real benefit of the Indian people I should be happier; but I am afraid it is a sort of conviction of the impotence of the British people any longer to say what they think to be right and to insist upon what they think to be right. Who can think that it is wise to have this wide measure of responsibility in the Provinces and in the Federation all created at the same time? Who can think that it can be anything except grossly imprudent. But these ex-Viceroys and ex-Governors have told your Lordships that it is the right thing. I should be sorry to be in their shoes.
That is all I have to say. As I have said, this discussion is unreal, but this is the end. As for the noble Lord, Lord Snell, may I say that I almost agree with every word of his speech except this, that he did not oppose the Bill—I mean not except in his speech: he did not oppose it in his votes. But for the rest there has been no thought for the welfare of the masses in the passage of this Bill. None of the Government speakers have ever addressed themselves to that aspect of the question. I quite understand the noble Lord's view. But for us we have finished. We have no quarrel with my noble friend, of course. We have no quarrel with the Government—nothing but gratitude for the courtesy with which they have treated us and admiration for the ability which they have shown. We are very, very much obliged to them. We do not agree with them, but we hope for the best. That is all that we have to say upon the India Bill.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I make just one remark in reference to what the noble Marquess said about Federation? In this case you will have as head of the Government under Federation somebody appointed by the Crown in this country, supported by 60,000 troops in India. There is no comparison with federation in the United States, with an elected President. That ought to be borne clearly in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, my first words in bringing this debate to a close must certainly be words

825
of gratitude to noble Lords in all quarters of the House for the patient and the courteous manner in which they have treated me throughout these prolonged discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, suggested, I think, that adequate recognition had not been shown of the part that the Party with which lie is associated had played in shaping this Bill. If that indeed be so, let me take this opportunity of making good that omission. I recognise to the full the part which has been played by the Party led by the noble Lord opposite, both in the proceedings of the Round-Table Conferences and as members of the Joint Select Committee, as well as during the discussions in Parliament since. Though I know that in many respects they consider this Bill falls far short of what they themselves would like to be offering to India at the present time, I am grateful to them for the helpful attitude they have adopted towards its passage. I am equally grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and to those who are associated with them for the restraint and patience they have shown during these long debates; and perhaps I may say I am grateful, above all, to those many noble Lords who, I know, at great inconvenience to themselves, have come down to your Lordships' House time after time, only too anxious, I feel well assured, to make their contributions to the debates in support of the measure before your Lordships, but who have refrained from doing so because they thought that by so doing they were best easing the passage of the Bill. I am indeed deeply grateful to them.
May I finally say how much I appreciate the courtesy which has been shown to me by those with whom on this question I confess I profoundly differ? We have had great differences of opinion, sincerely held on both sides. I have never denied the sincerity with which noble Lords hold the opinions that have driven them to fight the Government on this issue. They, I know, have allowed me, and those of my friends who have supported this measure, an equal sincerity in the views which we have put forward. My task, though by no means an easy one, has for this reason been far from an unpleasant one. I appreciated very greatly the words of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, amongst others, and the
826
noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour; and may I say, with regard to the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, made this afternoon, that I think I have never listened to a more generous speech, or to a more valuable speech from the point of view on which I am about to appeal to your Lordships—namely, from the point of view of brushing aside those misunderstandings in India with regard to the attitude of this country towards their aspirations. I shall have more to say on that aspect of the case before I sit down. May I say, pleasant though my task has been, owing to the courteous treatment which I have received from all quarters of your Lordships' House, that I did feel a shudder pass through my frame when the noble Lord who opened this debate suggested that we should now take further time to consider at our leisure the provisions of this Bill. I think it was Calvin who once said that a study of the Apocalypse either found a man mad or left him so. I feel perfectly convinced that if the suggestion of the noble. Lord were now to be adopted, and we were to begin de novo and go through all the discussions of this immense measure again, I should be running a serious risk of undergoing the fate which Calvin predicated in the circumstances to which I have referred.
In the course of the speeches which were delivered this afternoon certain questions were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, asked me whether I could assure him that the country was not bound by anything but the preamble of the Act of 1919. If the noble Lord will turn to the earliest pages of the Report of the Joint Select Committee, he will find that it was there laid down that they considered that the policy of this country towards India had been laid down, once and for all, by the preamble to the Act of 1919, and that it was not therefore necessary for them to take into account any glosses which might have been placed upon the words of that preamble at any time since it was first promulgated. But when the noble Lord asks me, as I think he did, whether other pledges had beer given which should be honoured by the people and Parliament of this country, I must say to the noble Lord that he must be his own judge. If he listened to the debates which took place with regard to the Communal Award in the course of our discussions

827
last week, and perhaps earlier, he would realise that many noble Lords regard the Communal Award as being a solemn pledge.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A pledge by the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: It may be a pledge by the Government, and of course it is for any noble Lord to decide to what extent he may hold himself bound by a solemn pledge given by the Government or not. As I said, that is a matter for the noble Lord's own conscience. Then the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, twitted me with regard to some peroration which I apparently rashly made in connection with this matter, in which I said: "If you wish to see people acting in a responsible manner, you must give them responsibility." As a general proposition I absolutely adhere to the truth of that suggestion. The noble Lord himself, if I may say so, seemed to me to indulge in a peroration this afternoon, though it came at the beginning of his speech and therefore might more properly be described as a prologue. He told us that he felt he was living in an atmosphere of deep drama and depression. I regret that the noble Lord should find himself in so pessimistic a frame of mind. The noble Lord was the very embodiment of pessimism in everything he said, and I could not help recalling a saying by the late Lord Cromer with regard to one of the races of mankind which is generally assumed to be of a pessimistic nature, the Slavonic race, when he said: "It must be a singularly unpleasant thing to pass through life feeling all the time it would have been better that you had not been born." I am really afraid that is the kind of frame of mind which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has worked himself into over this Bill, and I hope that the more optimistic forecast, with which I myself entirely agree, of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, will prove to be the correct forecast and that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will in time find it possible to shed this garment of pessimism in which he is at present arrayed.
But let me refer to another observation; I think it was made both by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. They are convinced that this Bill is going to be a disaster from the point of view of the
828
masses of India. I do not doubt for a moment that they are perfectly sincere in holding that view; but may I remind your Lordships that they are not the only spokesmen of the masses of India? The masses of India have spokesmen of their own, and at the Round-Table Conference and at the sittings of the Joint Select Committee the spokesmen of the masses of India, in the form of Mr. Joshi and Dr. Ambedkar and others, had some very strong things to say with regard to the position of the masses of India under the existing Constitution. If noble Lords are sufficiently interested in this aspect of the case I would beg of them to read the speech which was made by Dr. Ambedkar, the representative of the Depressed Classes in India, at the beginning of the very first session of the First Round-Table Conference in this country.
What did Dr. Ambedkar say? He said that they in India, and those whom he represented, the masses of India, the Depressed Classes, the downtrodden, appreciated the justice of British rule, but, with all the British desire to see justice done to them, the British were disabled, particularly in the matter of social reform, from giving to them the justice which they desired to give, and for this reason. Social reform in India is inevitably bound up with religious practice, religious customs, religious traditions, and for that very reason, the British Government in India, feeling compelled to adopt an attitude of strict neutrality in all matters of religion, were disabled from effecting those measures of justice in the matter of social reform so far as the Depressed Classes in India are concerned. And what did he add? He said: "Give us the vote"—the vote which noble Lords hold is a foolish thing to give the people of India—" and we will see that we get justice in all these matters in respect of which during so many years and so many generations we have been suffering."
The hour is late and I do not wish to detain your Lordships at greater length, but I must in conclusion make an appeal, more particularly to the Indian people. It is very easy, and indeed I think it is almost inevitable, that the peoples in India should misunderstand the attitude of the people of this country towards them in connection with a measure of this kind. It is inevitable that those who oppose

829
the Bill should figure far more prominently before the public than those who support it. Their oratory is greatly out of all proportion to their numbers. That is inevitable, and the debates which we have enjoyed in this House both on the Report stage and on the Committee stage of this Bill have been a very good illustration of that. It has been inevitable that by far the greater number of the speeches that have been made should have been made by those who are critics of the Bill. Now Indians are very liable to misunderstand that. They think we must be lukewarm in the offer which we are making to them of this, as I think, great measure along the road towards the goal which the people of this country have set up as the object of their policy towards India. I would beg of them not to be misled. There is, I believe, behind this Bill a great measure of good will on the part of the people of this country to the people of India.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Let the Indians realise that that is so. I believe myself that in the provisions of this Bill, though they may not realise it at the present moment, there is that which will test to the full their capacity for administration and for government, but in my view what is actually contained in the Bill is really of less importance than the spirit in which the Bill is offered to them. Let us try and create in both countries a will to rend aside this veil of misunderstanding which is embittering the relations between the two peoples. After all, why should we not live in amity together? India has a great contribution to make to the advancement of mankind. Why cannot we co-operate with them and secure by our co-operation a synthesis of all that is best both in East and in West? That, my Lords, is the ideal which I set before myself, and which I am sure your Lordships would wish to support, and may I suggest to my Indian friends, in one last sentence, that there is a wealth of wisdom in a proverb of their own which is to be found in the Dharma Pad or Path of Right, the Buddhist Book of Proverbs, which runs as follows:
"Enmity never comes to an end through enmity here below; it comes to an end through non enmity. This has been the rule from all eternity."
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 47:
Provisions as to Berar.
Now, therefore,—
(1) While any such agreement is in force—
(c) any provision made under this Act with respect to the qualifications of the voters for the Provincial Legislature of the Central Provinces and Berar shall be such as to give effect to any provisions With respeect to those matters contained in the agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph (c), after "Berar," to insert "or the voters for the Council of State." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to secure to the people of Berar, which under the new Constitution will for the purposes of sending representatives to the Legislature be treated as part of the Central Provinces, their right to vote for a member of the Council of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 9, after ("Berar") insert ("or the voters for the Council of State").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83:
Provisions with respect to certain educational grants.
83.—(1) If in the last complete financial year before the commencement of this Part of this Act a grant for the benefit of the Anglo-Indian and European communities: or either of them was included in the grants made in any Province for education, then in each subsequent financial year, not being a year in which the Provincial Legislative Assembly otherwise resolve by a majority which includes at least three-fourths of the members of the Assembly, a grant shall be made for the benefit of the said community or communities not less in amount than the average of the grants made for its or their benefit in the ten financial years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three:
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (1), after "them," to insert" as defined in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained the object of this Amendment quite fully to your Lordships on the Report stage, and I do not want to repeat more than one or two of the arguments. The Government were, not able to accept the Amendment and I think the gist of

831
their argument against it was that whilst we say that the children of Indian fathers and European mothers are not Anglo-Indians the Government say they are. I failed to convince my noble friend the other day, but I think we are right, and at any rate we have a great deal of evidence on our side which has not been disputed. I know that the Government want the definition of an Anglo-Indian as the son of an English father and an Indian mother to be accepted only for franchise purposes. I have tried to show that this definition is not only a franchise definition. It is a definition which is applied in every walk of life.
I told my noble friend the other day that for legal purposes the same definition applies. He will find in the Criminal Procedure Code that the definition of an Anglo-Indian depends on male parentage. He will find that for military purposes in the Indian auxiliary forces the definition is "a British subject of European descent in the male line." My noble friend Earl Winterton, when Under-Secretary of State, made the matter quite clear in another place when in answer to questions he said:
"For purposes of employment under Government and inclusion in schemes of Indianisation, members of the Anglo-Indian and domiciled European community are statutory natives of India. For purposes of education and internal security, their status, in so far as it admits of definition, approximates to that of European British subjects."
—which, of course, is European father or grandfather and legitimate issue. For all these purposes, therefore, we have the same definition, and in the Government of India Blue-book he will find them classified in just the same way for employment. In fact, it is the absolutely universal law that the child traces his parentage and nationality through the male and not the female line.
I pointed out that there are grave disadvantages if this rule is not applied in this case. I pointed out that where you have an Indian father and a European mother you may get introduced into the European and Anglo-Indian schools religious differences because a child assumes normally the religion of his father and all the native customs that ensue. I have had some discussion with my noble friend since the last debate and I am afraid he is going to resist this Amendment, but I would appeal to him,
832
if he cannot accept the Amendment, to do the next best thing and to say across the floor of your Lordships' House something to this effect, that he would give directions to Governors of Provinces that the educational grants in aid of European and Anglo-Indian communities would not be prejudiced by the admission of these children. I am aware that there are these children in the schools already and little or no objection is taken to the children being in the schools. But Anglo-Indians object, and rightly, and Europeans also object to their being admitted as Anglo-Indians. They fear that, with the financial stringency that may occur, if these children come in ever increasing numbers into the schools that will make less the share of the money for all concerned and thereby Anglo-Indians will be prejudiced. I hope my noble friend can say as much as this, because I am certain that it is the intention of the Government that the schools should be for Anglo-Indians and Europeans, and I am equally sure the Government could not possibly desire that these children should in fact be prejudiced by the admission of these non-Anglo-Indian children.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 39, after ("them") insert ("as defined in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, as the noble Lord has informed your Lordships I have had some discussion with him and I have also been in consultation with the Government of India in regard to this matter. The Government of India are most anxious that the present position should be safeguarded as it is by the clause as it stands. What the Government of India attach importance to is this: That in these cases, and some of them are after all meritorious, as in other cases in which the child of a white mother is brought up on English standards, it should be entitled, as it is at present, to the advantage of attending these schools.
The noble Lord asked me whether I could say across the floor of your Lordships' House anything that would make it clear that in the main it was intended that the schools should be for Europeans and for the children of European fathers and Indian mothers. No doubt in the main that is so, but it is not wholly so.

833
There are at present quite a number of children who are the offspring of Indian fathers and European mothers who are attending these schools, and I should be very sorry to see anything inserted in this Bill which would make that impossible in the future. Undoubtedly it is the duty of the Governor-General and of the Governors of the Provinces to see under their special responsibility for protecting the interests of minorities that the financial provision made for these schools is not endangered in so far as the offspring of European fathers and Indian mothers is concerned, and I think the noble Lord may rest assured that the Governor-General and the Governors will see that their duties in that respect are duly discharged. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he has said. Perhaps I am a little greedy and I wish he had gone further, but I am grateful for his assurance. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89:
Power of Governor to promulgate ordinances at any tone with respect to certain subjects.
(4) if and so far a; an ordinance under this section makes any provision which would not be valid if enacted in an Act of the Provincial Legislature, it shall be void:
Provided that for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the effect of an Act of a Provincial Legislature which is repugnant to an Act of the Federal Legislature, an ordinance promulgated under this section shall, until disallowed by the Governor-General, be deemed to be an Act of the Provincial Legislature which has been reserved for his consideration and assented to by him.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in the proviso in subsection (4), to leave out "until disallowed by the Governor-General." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is to put right a small mistake which has occurred in Clause 89. The Governor-General is actually given no authority to disallow an Act; it is only the King who can disallow an Act. Of course, the Governor-General can refuse his assent to a Bill, but that is a very different thing, and it is ire order to put that right that I move this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 25, leave out ("until disallowed by the Governor-General").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 27, leave out ("his consideration") and insert ("the consideration of the Governor-General").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 129, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) The Governor-General in the exercise of his individual judgment shall make regulations controlling the exhibition of cinematograph films in British India and any expenses incurred in respect of the snaking of such regulations and the enforcement thereof shall be charged on the revenues of the Federation.
(2) If any provision of a Federal or Provincial law is repugnant to any such regulation the regulation shall prevail and the Federal or Provincial law shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers conferred on the Governor-General under this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish only to detain your Lordships for a very short time on this Amendment, because the issue is clear-cut and the Amendment itself is self-explanatory. The point is, as I mentioned on the Report stage, that some of the cinematograph films have a very bad influence socially, morally and politically, and there should be some sort of uniform control. When I raised the point and made an appeal to the noble Marquess to put down an Amendment himself, he said:
"I do not think that any addition to the Bill is necessary to deal with this matter. Cinemas and other kindred subjects are subjects for legislation by the Provincial Governments, and they will be dealt with in the future precisely as they are at the present time."
How does the noble Marquess know that they will be dealt with precisely as they are now, and what guarantee is there that they will be so dealt with? My noble friend Lord Mount Temple asked:
"Do I understand that any powers that may be vested in the Governments are not

835
in any way infringed or diminished owing to this Bill? Do the same powers remain as heretofore?"
The noble Marquess, in reply, very frankly admitted that he did not think so. He said:
"No, I do not think that that can be exactly the position, because the character of the Government will be somewhat altered. In future the Government will be a responsible Government, and the legislation will be passed by the responsible Government in the Provinces if they wish to alter existing laws."
So the fact remains that weak laws may still further be weakened. In reply to my appeal he also said:
"Legislation, if I remember rightly, already exists in the Provinces."
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that "there have been complaints of a number of films." If there is room under the present system for complaints, are the Government satisfied, and are your Lordships satisfied, that this should remain so? In my view the law wants some strengthening, and I think that uniformity is the best way of bringing that about. Then I have one further argument in support of this Amendment in favour of films being under the control of the Governor-General: that the matter is to some extent akin to defence, and should on that account be co-ordinated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 129, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I can quite understand the feelings of the noble Viscount in this matter, but I am afraid that it will be quite impossible for me to accept the new clause which he now proposes. To do so would, in effect, be at the last hour to impose another special responsibility upon the Governor-General, the special responsibility of dealing with cinematograph films. If the noble Viscount would look at the Seventh Schedule of the Bill, which deals with these matters, he would see that ample provision is made. Legislation with regard to cinemas, theatres and kindred subjects will be found as item No. 35 in List II, which sets out the subjects which are to be dealt with by the Provincial Legislatures. The noble Viscount will also see that there is a note to this effect "but not including the sanction of cinematograph films for exhibition." Now, if the noble Viscount
836
will look into the Concurrent Legislative List of subjects, List III, Part II, item 33, he will find that this matter is dealt with not only by the Provinces but also by the Federal Government, so that the Federal Government have power to pass legislation with regard to matters of that kind—that is, the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition. The noble Viscount referred to some remarks of mine in which I said that it was possible that the position in the future would not be exactly the same as it was at present. All I was referring to was an alteration in the actual nature of the Governments, as he very rightly said. But it is really very improbable that existing legislation which is already there will be repealed, either by a Provincial Government or by a Federal Government, in a case of this kind.
To make the matter quite clear, let me just remind noble Lords of the control which is exercised under the existing law, which will continue to be the law until it is repealed. Under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, it is provided that any Provincial Government authorised by the Governor-General in Council may constitute Boards for the purposes of examining and certifying films suitable for public exhibition. In the Act there is an appeal from the decision of the Board to the Provincial Government. A certificate granted by any Board of Censors is valid throughout India. There are, however, the following safeguards—and I would ask the noble Viscount's attention to these safeguards. In the first place, a District Magistrate, or in a Presidency town or Rangoon the Commissioner of Police, is empowered to suspend at any time the certificate of any film pending the orders of the Provincial Government, and that Government can then declare that the film is deemed to be uncertified.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask the noble Marquess whether that is after it has been shown in public?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, that would be after it has been shown in public. Presumably the Board of Censors would see the film first. It is to be examined by a Board of Censors, and the Board of Censors would, no doubt, if they were in doubt, ask for advice. Those are the powers given to District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police, and

837
there are other safeguards with which I need not trouble your Lordships. I really think that the position is as safe as it can be under the existing law, and that there is no probability that the new Government are going to repeal a law of that kind. It would be no more in the interest of a Government of the future than it is of a Government of the present day, that they should have undesirable films shown within their jurisdiction. As I reminded the noble Viscount, the other clay, in the event of the display of a film affecting any of the special responsibilities of the Governor or the Governor-General, he would then be entitled at once to step in.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think that perhaps the matter is met. Perhaps it was owing to my negligence in not having read the Bill more often than I did, or perhaps it was owing to the fear of the terrible effect which reading the Apocalypse seems to have on some people, that I did not grasp the situation. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 242:
Application of preceding section to railway services, and officials of courts.
242.—(1) In its application to appointments to, and to persons serving in, the railway services of the Federation, the last preceding section shall have effect as if for any reference to the Governor-General in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and in subsection (5) there were substituted a reference to the Federal Railway Authority.
(2) In framing rules for the regulation of recruitment to superior railway posts the Federal Railway Authority shall consult the Federal Public Service Commission, and in the recruitment of officers generally shall give effect to any instructions which may be issued by the Governor-General for the purpose of securing, so far as practicable to each community in India a fair representation in the railway services of the Federation, but, save as aforesaid, it shall not be obligatory on the Authority to consult with, or otherwise avail themselves of the services of, the Federal Public Service Commission.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the recruitment of officers generally" and insert "recruitment to such posts and in recruitment generally for railway purposes shall have due regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with railway
838
services in India, and particularly to the specific class, character and numerical percentages of the posts hitherto held by members of that community and the remuneration attaching to such posts, and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have some reason to hope, after a consultation with my noble friend, that he will feel able to accept the amended terms of my Amendment as it appears on the Paper. You will remember that there was a shorter Amendment originally put down. That has now been amplified to meet more specifically the anxieties of the Anglo-Indian community. One of their anxieties concerned the percentage of posts to be kept for them, and the other was not only that they were to have the percentage of posts, but were to be kept employed in the same classes and character of employment as they had hitherto enjoyed. They had very good reason for anxiety over this.
There has also been added the word "remuneration," which is very important to them, because the scales of pay have deteriorated so terribly in recent times, and I might tell your Lordships that a European or Anglo-Indian boy fireman only gets ten rupees a month for the first few years. You will realise how impossible it is for anybody to live on that pay. These are matters which I believe are being enquired into. They are all very grave and therefore I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing the word "remuneration" to come into the Amendment, as well as for his sympathy and assistance about it. There is only one thing which I am not very happy about. I have already put it to my noble friend. I am not going to press it, but I wish very much that there could have been incorporated in the Statute the agreed percentages of the Government of India Resolution of July, 1934. Nowhere in the Statute are those percentages mentioned. The Anglo-Indian community were admitted to have 8.8 per cent. of the railway official appointments, and they are given only 8 per cent., which means a loss of 1,000 posts in a small community. They have also suffered greatly by retrenchment, and so I feel that if in some manner or other lily noble friend could either across the floor of the House or in an Amendment give some specific assurance about the percentages, it would be a very good thing.
I would just like to remind the House of the many pledges that have been given to the Anglo-Indians. In every single case from the Montagu-Chelmsford Report onwards, for the last fifteen years, the same claims have been put forward by the Anglo-Indian community, and have met with the same sympathy and the same acknowledgment in each one of those Reports. Added to that, when his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales came out to India on his memorable tour, he used these words:
"I shall watch the progress of your community with the closest attention. You may be confident that Great Britain and the Empire will not forget your community, who are so united in their devotion to the King-Emperor, and who gave such unmistakable tokens of their attachment to the Empire by their great sacrifices in the War."
Those are notable words, of which any community might well be proud, and I believe they have been very well earned. The other day, when I ventured to bring the claims of this community before your Lordships, I think there was scarcely a single ex-administrator, whether an ex-Viceroy or an ex-Governor of India, who was not strongly in sympathy with my proposal. I do hope therefore that my noble friend will conclude his good work for the Anglo-Indians—and I would like to assure him of my gratitude in that respect—by giving to them an assurance about percentages. I will only add that I believe the Anglo-Indian community are satisfied with the position in the Customs, but I assume that the general terms in the Amendment, which deals with posts in the Postal and Telegraph Services, and railways, will, if accepted, apply also in general terms to the Customs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 147, line 25, leave out ("the recruitment of officers generally") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, when the noble Lord raised this question a few days ago I promised him I would look into the matter and see whether this was the best way of safeguarding the interests of the Anglo-Indian community. I said at the time that I was a little doubtful whether it was really wise to put words of this kind into the Bill, since I thought it might create prejudice against a community specially selected for mention in this way.
840
I am still not at all sure that in that opinion I am not right, but I realise the fact that the noble Lord himself, and I dare say many other noble Lords, disagree with me in my judgment on that point, and I am not therefore going to resist the Amendment if the noble Lord thinks this is the best way of dealing with the matter. I must, however, make it clear that of course these words are purely declaratory. As he would be the first to admit, they do not bind anyone to anything, but merely state in the Statute what is the intention of Parliament with regard to this particular community. I must make it clear also that the words which have been added to the Amendment with regard to remuneration cannot be held in any way to be a promise that special rates of pay will be provided at any time for particular communities.
Having said that, let me add, and I think he pressed me on this point, that it is the intention of the Government that the existing policy in this matter—that is to say, the policy laid down under the Government of India's Resolution of July, 1934—is the policy which they intend should be pursued, and if he asks me for an assurance on that point I am perfectly willing to give it to him. That is our intention and, more than that, the draft Instrument of Instructions proposes to instruct the Governor-General and the Governors that in the matter of securing "a due proportion of appointments in Our Services to the several communities" they shall be "guided in this respect by the accepted policy prevailing before the issue of these Our Instructions," unless they are "fully satisfied that modification of that policy is essential in the interests of the communities affected or of the welfare of the public." I may add that it is my intention to inform the Government of India that the Resolution of July, 1934, is to be regarded by them as the "accepted policy," in those words in the Instructions from now onwards, and I hope that with those words the noble Lord will be satisfied that we are doing as much as is possible to safeguard the interests of this very meritorious and deserving community.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I in the fewest possible words express my warm thanks to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken, and for meeting these claims? I know it will give the greatest

841
happiness and satisfaction to people who are anxious about the matter in India.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) In framing the rules for the regulation of recruitments to posts in the Postal and Telegraph Services, the Governor-General or person authorised by him in that behalf shall have clue regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with the said Services, and particularly to the specific class, character and numerical percentages of the posts previously held in the said Services by members of the said community and to the remuneration attaching to such posts."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 147, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 261:
Secretary of State to act with approval of his advisers.
261. The powers conferred by this Chapter on the Secretary of State shall not be exercisable by him except with the concurrence of his advisers.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to leave out "Chapter" and insert "and the subsequent Chapters of this Part of this Act." The noble Marquess said My Lords, this Amendment is to ensure that in various matters affecting the Services in India the Secretary of State shall act with his advisers. Under the Bill as originally drafted this provision ought to have been made clear, but owing to what was little more than a drafting error it was not made clear. The sole object of this Amendment and of one on Clause 436 is to make it clear that in these matters the Secretary of State acts with the advice of his advisers.
Amendment moved—
Page 161, line 2, leave out ("Chapter") and insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 436:
Secretary of State to act with approval of his advisers.
436. The powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this Chapter on the Secretary of State (other than powers in relation to Defence Services) shall not be exercisable by him except with the con-
842
currence of his advisers and the advisers of the Secretary of State appointed under the provisions of this Act relating to India.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to leave out "foregoing." The noble Marquess said: This is merely a repetition in the case of Burma of the Amendment which I have just, moved in the case of India.
Amendment moved—
Page 277, line 12; leave out ("foregoing").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Marquess of Zealand.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CREDITING OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved to resolve, That it be an instruction to the House of Lords Offices Committee to consider the provision for this Chamber of an up-to-date air conditioning plant. The noble Marquess said: I shall not at this hour and in this atmosphere detain the House for more than a moment in moving a Resolution which will, I am sure, commend itself to all your Lordships. The progress of science is constantly extending man's command over his physical environment. Thus, the temperature and, quality of the air in confined spaces, including its moisture content, are now within control. In the United States, dwelling houses are supplied, at reasonable cost, with appliances which keep them warm in winter and cool in summer; and in that country you may travel in the transcontinental expresses in perfect comfort in the hottest weather. Air conditioning is rapidly coming to be regarded as indispensable for ordinary comfort. We in this country are behind the times.

843
True, we do what we can for inanimate things. Bananas travel to this country in perfect comfort; the mortal remains of South American cattle are spared the slightest inconvenience during their passage through tropical seas; while we are accustomed to supply the Antipodean apple in transit with an atmosphere which protects it absolutely from the deleterious effects of a long voyage, so that it is able to appear upon our table sound, fragrant, and rosy! To ourselves we are less kind, and it is within the experience of all of your Lordships that attendance during three days' debate in this House induces in the Peers of this Realm symptoms of that decay, that 'pallor, and that loss of condition from which, by scientific devices, we save the chilled banana, the frozen joint of beef, or the gassed apple.
It is really a scandal that your Lordships should have to suffer a severe headache because you are so public spirited as to leave the fresh airs of your country homes to do your duty in this House. Yet that, to my certain knowledge, is the experience of not a few Peers. Recently, in connection with the ventilation of two extensive buildings used for commercial purposes, both of which contain very large rooms, it has been my duty to make myself familiar with modern practice in this direction. I will not weary the House with technical matters, but content myself with the definite assurance to your Lordships that any one of the several British firms catering for this class of work is to-day easily capable of supplying apparatus which will enable this House to prosecute its labours in conditions both healthy and entirely comfortable, whatever the climatic conditions outside. This is one of those cases Where everyone grumbles but nobody does anything to remove the thing complained of. I submit that the time has come to end this nuisance, and I can think of no more suitable beginning than that your Lordships should pass the Resolution that stands upon the Paper in my name. Thereafter I hope that the appropriate Committees of the House may set about the business in a spirit of thoroughness and resolution. If they will do this, they will prolong the existence of this generation and even earn the gratitude of those to come who, though haply they may wait a little longer for their patrimony, will, in the fulness of time,
844
be able to discharge their legislative duties in conditions of reasonable physical comfort and normal bodily efficiency.
Moved to resolve, That it be an instruction to the House of Lords Offices Committee to consider the provision for this Chamber of an up-to-date air conditioning plant.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, when I saw this Motion on the Paper I thought that your Lordships would no doubt agree with my noble friend who has put his case before you so forcibly, And that possibly your Lordships' experience may have led you in the same direction. But all that the Offices Committee could do in the initial stage would be to refer the matter to the Office of Works, the Department of the Government which has charge of the conveniences and amenities of your Lordships' House. So I ventured to communicate with the Office of Works and to ask that the representative of the Government who is in charge of that Department might give the noble Marquess an answer in regard to the matter. When we hear from the Office of Works what the state of affairs is it will be possible for the Offices Committee, if your Lordships should consider it necessary to refer it to them, to go further into the matter. I think that the Offices Committee will not meet again until after the Recess, and it would save time if it were referred to the Office of Works forthwith rather than wait until it had passed into the hands of the Offices Committee.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the present precautions which are already taken in your Lordships' House for the ventilation of the House are as follows: The air is drawn in at a low level from one of the courtyards, and if the atmospheric conditions outside render it desirable it is passed through water sprays. It then goes through canvas screens with the object of eliminating excess moisture and impurities and a certain amount of fog. The vitiated air in the Chamber is withdrawn by a fan in the roof. This installation is in advance of what is done in any except the most modern luxury buildings, cinemas, theatres, etc., where of course the conditions of occupation are undoubtedly more congested than in your Lordships' House. The objects of

845
air conditioning are two-fold: first, to ensure control of temperature and humidity; and, secondly, by a thorough washing of the air to ensure the maximum degree of purity. During the summer months, when the outside temperature is higher than that required in the interior, a certain amount of cooling is arranged for by means of the sprays, provided the windows are kept shut, but on the opening of windows and the admission of warm external air in quantities very much greater than that required to prevent vitiation, the temperature approaches that of outside. For instance, yesterday, when the external temperature was 71 degrees Fahrenheit at 4 p.m., it would have been possible by means of the sprays to keep the interior temperature at 68 degrees, but as the windows were opened the temperature was 71 degrees, which was the outside temperature; and I think it was the noble Marquess himself who asked that the windows should be opened.
As regards washing the air to ensure purity, this aspect of the problem has been dealt with in the Chamber of the House of Commons where, as the result of very careful investigation by the Government Chemist, he reported that "we can find no indications of impurities in the air of the House." There is no reason to suppose that the air in your Lordships' House falls below this standard. A modern air conditioning plant, having regard to the nature of the building, would be very costly to instal, and great care would have to be exercised on the grounds of noise, but its design presents no engineering difficulties. It would, however, mean the replacing of the existing system, and the cost would amount to several thousands of pounds for this House alone. I would make this suggestion to the noble Marquess—namely, to ask my right honourable friend the First Commissioner of Works to request the Government Chemist to conduct an investigation similar to that which he conducted in another place, and this re-
846
port, when received, would be submitted to the House of Lords Offices Committee for their consideration, and their Report would ultimately come before your Lordships' House with their suggestions and recommendations.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I am very greatly obliged to both noble Earls who have spoken. I have been interested to learn what the Office of Works do with the air after they take it in. I am bound to say, although they do their best, by the time it arrives in this House it may be described by the word "beastly." I agree entirely that an open window becomes unnecessary where you have a satisfactory air-conditioning plant. We have to get the windows open here because we have not got a satisfactory air-conditioning plant. I contend that the atmosphere has been greatly improved since the air came through the windows instead of being drawn through the paraphernalia described by the noble Earl for which the Office of Works is responsible. I am very anxious, if I can, to get this matter put right and to make any contribution I can in that direction, because we should all be grateful if the air in this Chamber could be made reasonably breathable. I fully appreciate the suggestion of my noble friend that we should short-circuit this matter and go straight to the Office of Works. I note with interest and approval his suggestion that the First Commissioner of Works should be invited to send the Government Chemist to examine the state of the air here. I think that is an admirable scheme. I have not the slightest doubt that the officer in question is a very valuable servant of the Government, and I hope that the only gas-mask which, I believe, is in possession of the Government, will be placed at his disposal, and that he will wear it on that day.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (FINANCE) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
The Bill was endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
BOSTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.