House Of Commons
Thursday, 4th March, 1920.
[OFFICIAL REPORT.]
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.
South Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill.
Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham Gas Bill.
London United Tramways Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
London Electric Railway Companies (Pares, &c.) Bill (by Order),
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Oral Answers To Questions
Naval And Military Pensions And Grants
Medical Officers' Salaries
1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if the salaries of medical officers attached to the Ministry of Pensions hospitals are in some cases much in arrears; and if there is any reason why they should not be paid up to date?
I have made inquiries, and am informed that the salaries of all medical officers who have been duly appointed to the staff of the Ministry are punctually paid at the end of each month. In some cases there has been delay in the formal appointment of medical officers who have taken up duty in advance of appointment, and are thus left temporarily without pay. I am inquiring into this.
Alternative Pensions
3.
asked the Pensions Minister if he has received com plaints of overlapping as between the Alternative Pensions Department and the Flat Rate Pensions Department, and in particular that soldiers to whom alternative pensions have been awarded are compelled to fill up forms and undergo medical inspections by both Departments at one and the same time; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that a man to whom an alternative pension has been awarded should be struck off the list of the Flat Rate Pensions Department until such time as the alternative pension has lapsed?
No, Sir. I have not received any such complaints. There is no overlapping as between the two branches referred to. During the continuance of an alternative pension all necessary action, with regard to medical boarding or otherwise, is taken by the Alternative Pension Branch, and as that Branch holds the man's papers no action can be taken by the Soldiers' Awards Branch while alternative pension continues to be payable.
Select Committee (Second Report)
4.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he can now make any announcement as to the acceptance of the recommendations of the Second Re port of the Select Committee on Pensions?
7.
asked the Pensions Minister whether the Government have now been able to consider the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions; and if he can state whether the recommendations contained in that Report will be carried out?
Yes, Sir. The Government have considered the Second Report of the Select Committee.
It would be impossible, within the limits of an oral answer, to announce the decisions reached with regard to the several recommendations made by the Committee, and I am, therefore, circulating a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Hon. Members will, however, be glad to learn at once that the majority of the 49 recommendations made by the Select Committee have been accepted. In particular, it has been found possible to accept the whole of the recommendations as to the disability scales of pay of regular and temporary officers which are contained in Paragraphs 16 to 27 of the Report. The recommendations with regard to officers' widows' pensions, the pensions and allowances in respect of children and the loading up of pre-War earnings for the assessment of alternative pensions have also been accepted with slight modifications. With regard to the recommendations concerning the dependants of non-commissioned officers and other ranks the Government have accepted the proposals to increase the limits of pre-War dependants' pension and the special need pension to 20s. a week, and are prepared to give the Special Grants Committee discretion to deal with certain cases of special hardship as recommended by the Select Committee. The Government are, however, unable to accept the Committee's recommendation that all pre-War dependency and special need pensions should be scaled up by an extra 13 per cent., but hard cases will be met partly by a revision of the existing need scale and partly, as I have pointed out, by the Special Grants Committee. The estimated cost of the recommendations made by the Committee, including the continuance of the 20 per cent. bonus, is £3,000,000. The estimated cost of the improvements accepted by the Government is £1,900,000. I hope that note will be taken of the fact that officers and their dependants need not apply to the Ministry for the increased rates of retired pay or pension due to them. The work of re-assessment will be carried through as rapidly as possible and payment will be made as from April 1st, with arrears from that date. I must also ask for some indulgence on behalf of the Special Grants Committee on whom a great amount of extra work will fall by reason of the many recommendations as to discretionary grants which the Government have accepted. In the case of discretionary grants, application by the individual concerned is, of course, necessary, but the Special Grants Committee, who must largely increase their staff, are not at the moment in the position to receive such applications. As soon as the terms of their new Regulations are settled and they are in a position to consider applications, an announcement will be made. On behalf of the Government I wish to thank the hon. Member for South Salford and his colleagues on the Select Committee for the care and thoroughness with which they examined the many difficult problems connected with the pensions and pension administration.Following is the detailed statement containing the decisions of the Government with regard to the recommendations contained in the Second Special Report of the Select Committee:—
Part I—Dependants' Pensions (Men)
Paragraph 6 (1)— Parents' Flat Bate Pension (5s.),—As recommended, the flat-rate pension will be retained, but without increase.
Paragraph 10— Parents' Pre-War Dependence and Special Pensions.—As recommended, the maximum limit of parents' pre-War dependence, and special pensions will be raised from 18s. ( i.e., 15s. plus 20 per cent. bonus) to 20s., but the Government have not been able to accept the recommendation that lower amounts should be raised 33 per cent. in proportion, i.e., 13 per cent. beyond the 20 per cent. addition which has now been made a substantive part of the pension. Account has had to be taken of the fact that the support given by the son before the War, which forms the basis of the dependence pension, was extremely insecure, and, apart from other eventualities, such as loss of employment, would almost certainly have been withdrawn or; materially reduced on the son's marriage. To have exchanged this hazardous support for a State pension is considered to be more than sufficient compensation for; the depreciation of the purchasing power of money in excess of the 20 per cent. for which provision is already made.
The pensions, therefore, will not be generally raised, but in addition to the increase of the maximum limit it is proposed to meet the Select Committee with regard to such special cases as are instanced in (II), (IV) and (V) of their recommendations under this paragraph. (The recommendation at (III) states the existing practice.) Already the Special Grants Committee can give some effect to these recommendations, and by an amendment of their existing Regulations they will be enabled to deal with all cases of special hardship on the basis suggested by the Select Committee, namely, "reasonable expectation of what the son would have contributed had he lived." The precise wording of the amended Regulation is at present under consideration.
With regard to the Select Committee's recommendation that "in the case of two parents, provided need is proved, the limit should be raised to 40s.," the Special Grants Committee can already supplement parents' pensions, limited by the Warrant to 20s., by a further 10s., which will now be increased to 15s.
General Review of Parents' Pensions.—This proposal has been examined and is found to be impracticable.
Paragraph II (B)— Pensions of other dependants.—The Select Committee recommend raising the maximum to 18s. 4d. Following the principle on which the rate was originally fixed, it is proposed to raise the maximum to 20s., that being the amount of the minimum widows' pension.
Paragraph II (B)— Adoption of Sliding Scale.—The Committee recommend for dependants' pensions the adoption of the Sliding Scale introduced into the Warrant as the result of their First Re-port, "subject to the present rates under the 'Hodge' Warrant being the minimum." The Sliding Scale will be adopted, but it should be observed that the minimum must be the "Hodge" Warrant rates plus the 20 per cent. bonus, where this is now payable. The bonus is made a substantive part of the pension in the new Warrant, and no provision is made for its ultimate withdrawal.
Part Ii—Officers' Pensions
Paragraph 14— Statutory right to pension for widows and dependants of officers and men.—The statutory right will be extended to widows and motherless children (who already have the right
of appeal to the new Pensions Appeal Tribunal) on the same terms as it is given to officers and men by the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919—that is, that the right is in each case to the pension awarded, subject to the conditions of the Warrant.
It is proposed to extend this statutory right to pension to dependants, because the grant of a pension to them is determined, not alone by the circumstances of the man's death, but on other factors, such as pre-War dependence, need, incapacity for work and age. Moreover, to give dependants a statutory right to pension would necessarily involve the further right of appeal; but even if an appeal succeeded on the question of attributability, the claimant might still find himself ineligible for pension on other grounds.
The recommendation as to administrative improvements in the last sentence-of paragraph 14 has been anticipated and in future officers will have the same advantages in the matters referred to as have men.
Paragraphs 16–27— Officers' Disability Scales.—The recommendations relating to retired pay of officers in paragraphs 16–27 will be followed, except that the variable element in the disablement addition referred to in Paragraph 23 will be 20 per cent. instead of £20.
Paragraphs 28–30— Temporary Officers promoted from the ranks.—It has been decided to adopt the proposal of the Committee, ensuring that the man who would have attained to a permanent pension if he had remained in the ranks and had been pensioned as a soldier shall not forfeit that benefit because he took a temporary commission and was disabled as an officer.
Paragraph 31— Wound pensions.—Effect will be given to the recommendation that the present unsatisfactory system of wound pension should be reconsidered, for the future by the Departments concerned.
The proposal of the Committee that in all wound-pension cases the bonus should be calculated on the scale of disablement for sickness, though it has much to recommend it in theory, would involve a reduction of amounts actually being received by many officers. It is felt that in all the circumstances the proposal should not be adopted.
Paragraph 32— Wixes' Allowances.—The Government share the view of the Committee that provision should be made in proper cases in respect of the wives of disabled officers, and they agree with the Committee that it is undesirable to pay allowances to those who do not need them. It has therefore been decided to empower the Special Grants Committee to grant wives' allowances up to a maximum of £50 a year additional to the retired pay, where need is shown, irrespective of the degree of disablement of the officer.
Paragraph 34— Children's Allowances.—The recommendations of the Committee with regard to these allowances are accepted.
Paragraph 35— Alternative retired pay.— The Committee's proposal that the pre-war earnings of officers be "loaded up" by 60 per cent. is accepted, but their suggestion to alter the present limits of earnings on which the retired pay may be based is not considered to be justified. There is reason to think that salaries above £300 a year have not increased in the same proportion as wages of lower amount. It has therefore been decided to retain the present system by which full earnings are reckoned up to £300 a year and one-half of the earnings between £300 and £600.
At (iii) of paragraph 35 it is recommended that service retired pay and service pension of which an officer or man was in receipt before the War should be reckoned as part of his pre-War earnings, being in the nature of deferred pay, and not as income only. This recommendation cannot be accepted.
Legal opinion is against regarding service retired pay as current earnings, and the change, if made in regard to officers, would have to be applied to their widows and to men of non-commisioned rank and their widows. The proposal would not in all cases benefit the officer, and would be actually to the direct disadvantage of the man, because, if the service pension formerly payable is to be regarded as pre-War earnings, the higher rate of service pension now payable must be regarded as present earnings and the alternative pension must be reduced accordingly. On the other hand, it is recognised that there are eases where a Regular officer lived before the War on his retired pay and having been killed in the War leaves a widow materially reduced in circumstances, and it is proposed that these cases should be met by allowing the Special Grants Committee to supplement the flat-rate pension up to £200 in the case of widows of Regular officers who were drawing service retired pay before the War.
Paragraph 38— Widows' pensions.—The Committee partially apply the plan adopted for men's widows of assessing at two thirds of the maximum disability rate. They also propose to amalgamate the widows on the "highest" and "intermediate" scales if over 40, or having children, but to leave them differentiated if under 40 and without children. It has been decided, as a more Consistent scheme, to modify the proposal slightly, as follows:—
Highest pension—
Over 40 or with children; Two-thirds of disability rate (£140).
Under 40 and without children: present highest rate, plus 20 per cent. (£120).
Intermediate pension—
Over 40 or with children: Present highest rate plus 20 per cent. (£120).
Under 40 and without children: Present intermediate rate plus 20 per cent. (£90).
(The figures in brackets show what the pension would be for the widow of a captain or subaltern).
Paragraph 39— Children of deceased Officers.—The proposals at A ( a) and ( b) are accepted. The proposal at ( c) is already in operation. The recommendation at B (top of p. 14) to give a rather wider limit for supplementation by the Special Grants Committee where there are children is also accepted.
Paragraph 40— Widows' alternative pensions.—The recommendations as to loading up pre-war earnings by 60 per cent., and enabling the widow with children to choose the class of pension more favourable to her, will be adopted.
Paragraph 41— Motherless Children.—The Committee have proposed in paragraph 33 to raise the normal rate of child's allowance from £24 plus bonus of £4 16s. (= £28 16s.) to £30 plus bonus of £6 (= £36). The corresponding increase
for motherless children should be from £40 plus bonus of £3 to £60, plus bonus of ¨10 (= £60). It has been decided therefore to make this new rate £60.
The proposal to allow the Special Grants Committee to give allowances up to £40 a year to motherless children of officers not eligible for pensions under the Warrant is approved.
It has been decided further that the Special Grants Committee should be empowered to supplement an existing pension of a motherless child up to the limit of an additional £25 a year in suitable cases (as e.g., where the mother would have been entitled, if she had survived, to a substantial alternative pension, or survives and dies when in receipt of such pension).
Paragraph 42— Relatives of Officers.—The first recommendation (third subparagraph) will be carried out administratively.
With regard to this second recommendation (fourth sub-paragraph) as to the limit of pension, it ought not to be possible for the parent to receive a higher pension than the widow (the two-thirds rate not being proposed for all widows). It is therefore proposed that the limit for the parents' pension should be that proposed to be taken for the widow without children, i.e., present highest rate plus 20 per cent., or present intermediate rate plus 20 per cent.
The third recommendation (last sentence on p, 14) is now fully met by a change in the regulations.
The fourth recommendation (top of p. 15) as to admitting a sister, if otherwise qualified, on death of a pensioned parent, is approved.
Paragraph 44— Seniority of Naval Warrant Officers.—This has already been taken up by the Admiralty, and has been conceded.
Paragraph 45— Disabled Naval Warrant Officers.—The Committee propose no change for the temporary Warrant Officers; but the bonus will be definitely added to the pension.
For Regular Warrant Officers, the much-increased service rates provide for the increased cost of living, but the Committee propose that the disablement additions should be slightly increased. This is agreed on the understanding that the rates so arrived at will be subject to' adjustment according to cost of living, with the present rates as a minimum.
Although the Committee have made no proposal on the point, it has been decided to grant Allowances for wives of Naval Warrant Officers on the same basis of need as in case of Officers under para. 32, with the maximum limit of £40 for a Commissioned Warrant Officer and £30 for Warrant Officer.
Paragraph 46— Widows and Children of Naval Warrant Officers.—The Committee recommend that the widow of the Commissioned Naval Warrant Officer over 40 or with children be granted £102, and of the Warrant Officer £90.
Rates reducible by 20 per cent. are preferable, and therefore rates of £l05 and £90 will be approved.
The scheme will then be:—
Widow of Commissioned Naval Warrant Officer—
| Over 40 or with children | £105 |
| Under 40 and without children | £90 |
Widow of Naval Warrant Officer—
| Over 40 or with children | £90 |
| Under 40 and without children | £75 |
The improved scale of allowances for the children of Naval Warrant Officers suggested by the Select Committee is agreed to.
Paragraph 48— Nurses.—The suggested increases for matrons and nurses are approved.
Paragraph 49— Nurses' dependants.—Proposals made to the Treasury by the Ministry on behalf of the Special Grants Committee have now been sanctioned.
Paragraph 50— Civilian nurses.—Most of these are already dealt with under the Dispensing Warrant, but if existing powers are found to be insufficient, further consideration will be given to cases of hardship.
Paragraph 51— General Service Section V.A.D.—These are not nurses, but women engaged on ancillary duties. The question whether compensation can be provided for them will be considered by the War Office.
Paragraph 52— Limits of bonus and pension.—The Committee's recommendations are approved.
Paragraph 53— Regular Officers in India.—This subject is' under consideration between the Departments concerned.
Paragraph 54— Income Tax exemption.—This matter has been dealt with in the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question, put to him on the 18th ultimo by the hon. Member for Wellingborough.
Paragraph 55— Children's advancement allowances.—The provision being made for children by way of maintenance and education allowances is liberal, and the expense of this proposal for grants for advancement which would probably have to be extended also to soldiers' children would be extremely serious. It is regretted, therefore, that it cannot be adopted.
Paragraph 56— Payment of children's allowances.—This recommendation will be acted on in suitable cases.
Paragraph 57— Re-employed Naval Officers.—This is under the consideration of the Admiralty.
Paragraph 58— Constant attendant allowances.—The increase of the maximum rate of £100 is approved.
Paragraph 59–61— Training.—The Ministry of Labour are considering these paragraphs of the Report.
Paragraphs 62–63— Previous wars.—As far as is considered practicable, and with the exception referred to below, "the improved rates granted to officers and men and their dependants in the present War," have already been conceded to previous-war pensioners. At present, however, the widow of a non-commissioned officer killed in a former war receives the pension of a private's widow of the present war, although the officer's widow of a former war is pensioned according to rank, as are both disabled officers and disabled men. In view of the Select Committee's recommendations, it has been decided that the widow of a noncommissioned officer killed in a former war shall receive the pension appropriate to her late husband's rank under the Warrants relating to the late War.
Arising out of that answer, which the House is glad to receive, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can make quite clear one point: that is, in regard to dependants' allowances to men and officers, as well as the general revision which the Committee recommended, or, at any rate, hoped it might be found possible to undertake —whether or not that is part of the scheme accepted by the Government?
My hon. Friend will find that I am dealing with that in the statement I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPOET, but I may say at once that I cannot accept it because the suggestions made by the Committee are administratively impossible.
Will an opportunity be given to this House at an early date to discuss these very important proposals?
My hon. and gallant Friend knows that it is no use addressing that question to me.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members of the Committee signed this Report only on the understanding that this general revision of the dependants' allowances would be carried out, and in view of that statement would he approach the Leader of the House, and ask that a date shall be given for discussion?
I shall be very delighted if a discussion can be arranged, because then I hope to convince my hon. and gallant Friend that the proposals of the Committee in that particular respect is not capable of being carried out.
Comittees (Handbook)
6.
asked the Pensions Minister whether the handbook he has had prepared for the use of local war pensions committees has now been issued; and, if so, whether copies will be made available for the use of Members of this House who are interested in pension matters?
The Local War Pensions Committees' Handbook has now been issued. Copies have already been forwarded to committees for the use of their principal officers, and a further distribution is now proceeding. I am having a number of copies sent over to the Vote Office for the use of any hon. Members who may be interested.
Ireland
Rent Restrictions Act
9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that very many shopkeepers in Ireland to whom the Rent Restrictions Act does not apply are being evicted from their premises by landlords selling the premises at excessive prices; and if he will take any and, if so, what steps to protect these shopkeepers?
I am not aware of any shopkeepers of this class being evicted in the circumstances stated. I will be glad to make enquiries into any specific cases to which my hon. Friend calls my attention.
Royal Irish Constabulary (Sir Joseph Byrne)
11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the representative body of head-constables, sergeants, and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary protesting against the dismissal of General Sir Joseph Byrne from the Inspector-Generalship; whether a similar resolution was received from the Leinster representative body of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether since the dismissal of General Byrne dissatisfaction has existed all over Ireland and especially throughout the police force; and whether he is prepared to take steps to restore Inspector-General Byrne to his position?
I have seen the Resolution mentioned in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the last two parts is in the negative.
Has the right hon. Gentleman received a similar Resolution from the Ulster representatives of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
No, I think the only two I received are mentioned.
Was there not a meeting held at Omagh comprising all the police sergeants and constables in Ulster, including Belfast, and did they not join unanimously with the rest of Ireland in protesting against the dismissal of Sir Joseph Byrne?
No, I cannot say I have seen that. I will make inquiries.
Has not this inspector-general a right to have some form of inquiry into the cause of his dismissal?
I do not think so.
Defence Of The Realm Act (Dublin)
12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the recent order under the Defence of the Realm Act in Dublin, whereby citizens are prohibited from being out of doors between 11.30 p.m. and 5 a.m., is inflicting serious hardship on the population, especially the poorer section in cases requiring medical and hospital attention; whether the nurses in many of the Dublin hospitals have declined to attend calls, and, as a consequence, maternity and other hospital cases are without the services of nurses and medical practitioners; and whether, in view of the grave consequences to which innocent and suffering people are being subjected, he is prepared to take steps to suspend the order?
No complaints have reached me in this matter. From enquiry at the Dublin hospitals I have ascertained that in no case has there been a refusal to send out nurses in maternity cases. In two cases (Coombe Hospital) where nurses (permits not yet having been obtained) were required during prohibited hours, the police escorted the nurses to their destination. The hospital authorities have since applied for permits for doctors and nurses. I believe as a result of the enquiries made at hospitals that the new Regulations are rather welcome than otherwise to the staffs. There is a greater sense of protection when called out at night, and the only real inconvenience is that caused by the action of the corporation in extinguishing the street lamps at 11.30 p.m., thus leaving the city in complete darkness at night.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the matrons of all the principal hospitals in Dublin, including the Maternity Hospital in Holies Street, and the Coombe Hospital, have stated publicly through the Press that they will refuse to allow any of their nurses out between 12 midnight and 5 a.m.?
I cannot add anything to the answer I have given, one short sentence of which says: "The hospital authorities have since applied for permits for doctors and nurses."
Is it not a fact that some poor women in a very advanced stage of pregnancy were not able to reach the hospital owing to these iniquitous restrictions?
I am not aware of that. I am convinced of this, that in cases of that kind the Government would be prepared to do everything to assist.
Public Libraries Act, 1919
13.
asked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a short Bill applying the provisions of the Public Libraries Act, 1919, to Ireland?
I was not aware that there was any general demand for the extension of this Act to Ireland. If, however, there is a general desire, I am quite prepared to consider a limited extension of the existing rating power.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Irish Libraries find it impossible to carry on owing to the rate limitation?
I am not aware of that, but I am quite willing to consider any representations.
Revolutionary Aliens
14.
asked the Chief Secretary if he has any information to the effect that a number of revolutionary aliens have recently found their way into Ireland, and are actively engaged in promoting armed conflicts with the authorities; and what steps are being taken to arrest and punish any such alien disturbers?
No, Sir. I have no information to this effect. Repeated rumours have proved to be unfounded.
Education Rate
24.
asked the President of the Board of Education if the Board of Education will consent to pay the local authority the three-fifths share of salaries-which the Government grant includes in the current year instead of the following year, and thus save the local authority from having to increase the education rate very considerably to find the money which will be repaid the next year?
The suggestion made in the hon. and gallant Member's question has been carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. We have come to the conclusion that no sufficient case has been made out for a revision of the present system of grants for elementary education in the direction suggested.
Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the ratepayers who have to find this money, and are very hardly hit, and why is this incubus to be placed upon them?
There is no local authority in the country which receives leas than 50 per cent. of its approved expenditure on elementary education.
Why should the ratepayers find the money which will eventually have to be paid back in the following year by the local authorities?
The Treasury is finding nine-tenths of the increased cost of elementary education.
Summer Time Act
8.
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the numerous complaints of farmers in Ireland as to the effect of the Summer Time Act on the agricultural industry; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter this year?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware that opinion as to summer time in Ireland is divided, and that some farmers dislike the change. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which considered the subject and had all the facts before them, no distinction will be made between Ireland and the rest of the country.
Russia
Kouban Armistice
15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Provisional Government of the Kouban has asked for peace and recognition; whether it has approached His Majesty's Government with a request for its good offices to arrange an armistice between the Kouban and the Soviet Government of Russia; and, if so, what answer has been returned?
The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative; the third part does not, therefore, arise. According to our latest information the Kouban is now in revolt against General Denikin.
International Commission
38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the composition of the International Commission which is to proceed to Soviet Russia to examine the state of affairs; and on what date it is hoped that the Commission will proceed thither?
The composition of this Commission will be decided by the Council of the League of Nations which, I understand, is meeting in Paris next week in order to complete its plans and decide the date of its departure.
Has the Soviet Government intimated its willingness to allow this Commission to enter Russia?
Small Republics
39.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Supreme Council have taken any steps to prevent the armies of General Denikin from molesting the small republics in which his forces are situated; and, if not, will he take early steps to put forward recommendations that General Denikin's army should evacuate the territory of the Kuban republic where they are causing distress to the population?
General Denikin has recognised Georgia and Azerbaijan and there is no reason to anticipate that he will not act in accordance with this recognition. If, however, the question refers to other areas they should be more precisely specified. With regard to the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government have no information that the population of the Kuban desire the evacuation of General Denikin's army. On the contrary, they seem to be supporting him in the struggle.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in answer to Question 15 the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that they were in revolt against General Denikin's army?
Am I to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that ho would take into consideration the wishes of the population of the Kuban in regard to the withdrawal of the army of occupation?
Anti Bolshevik Newspapers (State Murdered)
45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the murder of the members of the staffs of anti-Bolshevik papers, in which Bolshevik troops are reported to be implicated; and whether His Majesty's Government will ask for a special report on this matter, and, if found true, will protest to the Bolshevik Government and will intimate that recognition will be refused to any Government until acts of terrorism are effectively put an end to?
I have not seen the report referred to, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement, issued by the Supreme Council on February 24th, in which it was declared that "the Allies cannot enter into diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government … until they have arrived at the conviction that Bolshevik horrors have come to an end and that the Government of Moscow is ready to conform its methods, and diplomatic conduct to those of all civilised Governments."
Are we to understand that the Government has definitely decided to recognise Bolshevik rule?
My answer is perfectly clear. The Allies are not pre pared to recognise the Bolshevik Government until they are satisfied that these horrors have come to an end.
Is this Government prepared to recognise the men who are responsible for these outrages directly they say they shall cease—Lenin and Trotsky? Are you prepared to recognise them as the leaders of the Russian nation, yes or no?
We are not satisfied at present that they have ceased.
In the event of their ceasing, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do so?
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to adopt the same conditions with regard to the recognition of the Government of Hungary?
May I ask for a reply?
I have explained very fully, not merely by question and answer, but what is much more satisfactory, by discussion in this House, and I do not think I could usefully, in reply to a supplementary question, enter again into the whole of these considerations.
Consuls And Vice-Consuls (Scale Of Pay)
16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that anxiety is being caused by the delay in announcing the Government's decision regarding the new scale of pay for consuls and vice-consuls; and whether he can say when a decision regarding this can be given?
I am fully aware of the anxiety felt by members of the Consular Service in this connection. In my reply to the hon. Member for the East Division of Cardiff on the 9th of December, I gave full details of the new rates of pay and allowances already approved, and indicated one or two outstanding points which were still under discussion. I hope that these outstanding questions will be settled very shortly.
British Socialist Delegates (Detention In France)
17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Messrs. Albert Inkpin and Deer, delegates of the British Socialist party, proceeded to France on 24th February to attend the conference at Strasbourg; whether their passports were endorsed by the British Foreign Office, who were aware of the business for which they were proceeding; whether on arrival at Boulogne they were detained by the French authorities and their property confiscated; whether he has made inquiries of the French authorities to ascertain the reasons for this action; and if ho can give the House an assurance that on future occasions British subjects will not be subjected to similar treatment by our late Allies?
I understand that these gentlemen were detained for a short time at Boulogne by the French authorities, and were then permitted to continue their journey to Strasbourg with all their luggage. In these circumstances I do not consider that any special inquiries are called for.
Is it usual for British subjects to be detained by the French authorities when entering their country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "]
It is not usual for all British subjects to be so detained.
Is it not because these two men have repudiated their nationality altogether, and why should we interfere?
I am not aware of any repudiation of their nationaltiy by these two men. They are legally British subjects.
Turkish Prisoners
18.
asked whether certain Turks have been deported from Constantinople, Smyrna, and other places and held in captivity at Malta for 15 months; and whether it is proposed to bring them to trial?
No Turks were deported to Malta fifteen months ago. Two were interned there on 29th March, 1919; fifty-four on 2nd June; two on 23rd July; three on 28th July; five on 5th August; twelve on 21st September. The large majority are charged with being implicated in massacres and the ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. The question of their trial is under consideration.
Is it not a fact that those interned Turks include the late commander of Smyrna, who was well known throughout the country for his considerate treatment of the British regiments in Smyrna?
I have had no notice of any particular prisoner, but my general answer stands.
Is it contemplated to bring these Turks to trial?
It is.
Is there to be one rule for a Turk and another for an Irishman?
Is no distinction to be made between those who treated us badly during the War and those who treated us well?
Any Turk who can show that he has treated any British prisoners of war well will receive the gratitude of all of us.
Are those Turks to be tried by a Turkish court at Constantinople?
The last sentence of my answer was, "The question of their trial is under consideration."
French Buildings (Foreign Office Officials)
19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what buildings are occupied in Paris by officials of the Foreign Office; what number of officials are engaged; what is the monthly rental; and are the buildings all fully occupied?
I am afraid I must apologise to the House for the length of this answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate."] Then I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Will the hon. Baronet deal with the point as to whether these buildings which are retained at such a great cost in Paris are fully occupied?
They are retained, as the answer will show when it is circulated, but not to any great extent. The staff is small and the rooms are required in their entirety except during the brief period when a portion of the staff is attending the Supreme Council in London.
The following is the information referred to:
The only accommodation at present occupied by officials of the Foreign Office (apart from the Embassy staff, for whom it had been necessary to secure temporary additional office accommodation in a house near by) consists of certain rooms at the Hotel Campbell, which are required for the purpose of the British Delegation to the Turkish Peace Conference.
The number of rooms is 26, and they were taken at the beginning of January. They had been retained during the temporary transfer of the negotiations to London, in view of the impossibility of securing other rooms at short notice on the resumption of proceedings in Paris.
The Delegation and staff numbered 64 in January, including representatives of the War Office, Admiralty, Board of Trade, and India Office. This number also included typists and office servants.
The cost of the rooms in question was:
Frs. 1,200 a day in January.
Frs. 1,100 a day in February.
Frs. 1,000 a day from 1st March.
When the Conference was temporarily adjourned to London, all but eleven of the staff were withdrawn. Those persons (including two office servants and two security officers) are required to look after the important archives respecting Turkish affairs which are still retained in Paris, and to furnish papers, as required, for the use of the Conference in London.
Ex-Kaiser (Liability For Debts)
20 and 21.
asked (1) whether, in the provisions of the Treaty of Peace entitling creditors to claim pre-War debts due from German subjects, it is intended that the ex-Kaiser of Germany is to be regarded as a German subject from whom debts may be claimed;
(2) whether the fact that the ex-Kaiser of Germany was not resident in Germany at the date of ratification of the Treaty of Peace precludes British creditors from claiming through the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) Department of the Board of Trade pre-War debts due from the ex-Kaiser?
I have been asked to answer these questions. I am advised that whilst the ex-Kaiser of Germany may be regarded as a German national, it may not be possible to prefer a claim against him through the Clearing Office owing to the fact that he was not resident in German territory at the date when the Treaty of Peace with Germany was ratified.
Has this question been put before the League of Nations, and would it not be better to leave them to bring pressure to bear on a neutral country which does not fall in with the wishes of the Allies?
I cannot answer that question without notice.
22.
asked whether under Clause 25 of the Annex to Article 296 of the Treaty of Peace creditors of the ex-Kaiser of Germany can prosecute a claim for pre-War debts before a court of law; and, if so, whether before the Courts of this country or of Germany or of Holland?
I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, the nature and terms of the contract under which the claim arises would determine which of the Courts referred to would have jurisdiction to entertain the action.
Egypt
Cotton Cultivation
23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the fact that the shortage of food in Egypt, largely arising from the lessened imports of corn, threatens a serious invasion of the land now used for the growth of cotton; and what steps he intends to take to avert such shortage of raw material as will not only seriously affect the development of a rapidly growing native industry, but will injure a portion of the Lancashire cotton trade?
His Majesty's Government are aware that Egypt is in need of considerable quantities of imported wheat, and the Royal Wheat Commission are assisting the Egyptian authorities to obtain their requirements as far as possible. His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any intention on the part of the Egyptian Government to restrict the area under cotton, and the present price of that crop is the best guarantee that it will be extensively cultivated.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Egyptian Government during the War did by legislation restrict the growth of cotton and have those restrictions now been removed?
I was referring to the past.
Channel Tunnel
25.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government has now considered the Report of the Military, Naval and Air Departments on the question of the Channel Tunnel; if he can state the decision of the Government; and if they will support the Bill for the construction of the tunnel so that it may have an opportuntiy of passing this Session?
I regret that, owing to the pressure upon the time of the Government and the experts which the Peace Conference has entailed, I am not yet in a position to make any statement, although I hope to do so shortly.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give me a date when I can put this question down again with a prospect of getting an answer?
I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not put it down until the week after next.
Will the right hon. Gentleman see, if such a commission is granted, that an opportunity will be given to provide work for the unskilled British unemployed in that direction?
assented.
Hungary
Murder Of Bela Somogyi
26.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the murder of Bela Somogyi, editor of the Social Democrat organ, Nepsava, in which Hungarian troops are reported to be implicated; and whether His Majesty's Government will ask for a special report on this matter, and, if found to be true, will protest to the Hungarian Government, and will intimate that recognition will be refused to any Government in Hungary until acts of terrorism are effectively put an end to?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Bedwelty.
27.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the report that one of the Allies had approached the Hungarian Government with a view to inducing them to join in an attack on Russia, promising in return territorial concessions in the neighbouring States; and whether he can give the House the assurance that no British Statesman or agent was a party to any such negotiations?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
52
asked whether the partition of Hungary is in accordance with the past declarations of the Allies?
The cession of territory to be imposed on Hungary under the Treaty of Peace in no way runs counter to the declared policy of the Allied Governments.
Food Supplies
Ministry Of Food
28.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong expression of opinion in favour of the continuance of food control, he will consider the advisability of retaining the department of the Ministry of Food until the present difficulties have been overcome?
I can add nothing to what has already been said on this subject.
Is it a fact as stated in the Press to-day that at a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday it was decided to continue the Ministry of Food for the next five years with extended powers?
The hon. Member must not assume the accuracy of everything which he reads in the newspapers.
Has the new Minister been appointed?
No.
Wheat
.57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large decrease in the acreage now under wheat as compared with the acreage of wheat-sown land in 1918, and in view of the general dissatisfaction of farmers with the recent pronouncement of possible wheat prices for 1921, and the probable further diminution of the area under wheat next winter, he will state what percentage of the total wheat required for the food of the people of the United Kingdom he proposes should be grown in the United Kingdom?
No attempt has been made to lay down the exact proportions of the total wheat requirements which should be grown in the United Kingdom, but it is considered highly desirable in view of the lessons of the late war and other general considerations, that we should reduce our dependence upon over-seas supplies so far as is reasonably practicable.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of the pronouncement just made will be that a serious position will arise?
I was not aware of that, but if there are any representations that my hon. Friend has to make about it I shall be very glad to take them into account. I take a very keen interest in this matter.
Is it not much better to pay higher prices to the British farmer than to pay excessive prices to the foreigner?
High Prices
29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the constantly increasing prices, the progressively heavy demand for higher wages, and the alleged profiteering of many manufacturers and wholesalers, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission, whereon members of the consuming public shall find a place, to inquire into every phase of the question, to take evidence on oath, and to make a speedy Report, with a view to such drastic action as will bring relief to the community?
I do not think the question of high prices is one which lends itself to enquiry by a Royal Commission. The prices of many important commodities have been, or are being, investigated by Committees under the Profiteering Act. The more general economic causes underlying recent movements of prices are for the most part matters of common knowledge, and the question of the steps which can be taken to hasten the return to normal conditions is receiving the anxious consideration of His Majesty's Government and of the Supreme Council.
Will the right hon. Gentleman believe me when I say that the continued rise in prices is making it difficult for us to keep industrial peace in the country and we shall be unable to do it unless something is done?
When will the Debate take place in the House?
There is a question later on on that point.
Has the Committee under the Profiteering Act any power to summon witnesses and take evidence on oath?
I do not like to answer that without investigation, but I think it is.
36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House as to whether any decisions were reached at the Peace Conference discussion on the question of high prices; and whether the Government is now able to make arrangements for a day to be set apart to discuss this important matter in the House of Commons?
48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of the international control of food and raw materials, with a view to reducing prices, has been or is being discussed at the Peace Conference; if so, what nations were or are represented at the Conference; whether it was or is intended to invite representatives from all nations to the discussions, and, if so, when; whether any decisions arrived at will be laid before Parliament; and on which Vote or Votes this matter can be discussed?
55.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to give the House an opportunity for discussing the high and constantly increasing prices of necessary commodities?
The Supreme Council has had under consideration the general question of the rise in prices in' all its aspects. Representatives or France, Italy, and Belgium, as well as of Great Britain, have been present at these discussions, and a statement of the conclusions arrived at will be published as soon as possible. As regarda the general discussion, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated yesterday, it is proposed to arrange for it on the Civil Service Vote on Account on Monday week.
Will the decisions of the Supreme Council be in the hands of Members before the Debate takes place?
I hope it will be ready in two or three days.
61.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the large number of petitions of protest Members of this House are receiving from the women of the country, wherein they express the opinion that the continued rise in prices is due to Government extravagance; and if he can give an assurance that the utmost vigilance and economy is being exerted by the Government with the view of doing all in its power to meet the situation?
The rise in prices is the inevitable result of a great and costly war. All countries alike are suffering from this increase in the cost of living. This country suffers less in this respect than any European country. Public and private economy on expenditure will assist to improve matters, and, in so far as Government expenditure is concerned, it has been scrutinised with the greatest care with a view to effecting reductions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to remain in the House during the Debate this afternoon so that he may judge what the opinion of the House is in connection with Government extravagance?
League Of Nations
30.
asked the Prime Minister the names of the British officials appointed on the staff of the League of Nations?
As under Article VI. of the Treaty of Versailles all appointments to the Secretariat of the League of Nations must be provisional until they have received the approval of the Council of the League, I regret not to be able at present to give my hon. Friend the information he desires.
Is it proposed that these officials shall be paid; and will their salaries be submitted to Parliament?
The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
31.
asked the Prime Minister whether the representative of His Majesty's Government on the Council of the League of Nations will be instructed to urge upon the Council the immediate appointment of the Commission to consider the limitation of armaments, with a view to reducing the world expenditure on armaments at the earliest possible date?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 23rd of February, to which I have nothing to add.
Peace Treaties
Roumanians In Budapesth
32.
asked the Prime Minister what was the first date after the Roumanian occupation of Budapesth on which the Allies requested the Roumanian Government to withdraw its troops from territory assigned to Hungary; how many similar requests have been made since then; how many Roumanian troops have still to be withdrawn; and whether he is satisfied that shortage of transport is an adequate reason for further delay?
Since the occupation of Budapesth by the Roumanian Army last August, the Supreme Council have called the attention of the Roumanian Government repeatedly to the urgent need for evacuating Hungarian territory at the earliest possible moment. It is impossible to state exactly how many requests have been addressed to this effect to the Roumanian Government, since the matter has formed part of complicated and, for some periods, continuous negotiations. In these negotiations the Supreme Council have found the Roumanian Prime Minister, M. Vaida-Voovod, most anxious to carry out their decisions, and with his full approval, an Inter-Allied mission of military experts is being sent to the spot, to report on the progress of the evacuation and to hasten its completion. Pending the report of this mission I cannot usefully make any statement concerning the numbers involved or the cause of the delay.
34.
asked the Prime Minister what is the estimated value of the property of all kinds removed from Hungary by the Roumanians during their occupation,; and whether the Allies will insist on compensation being paid by Roumania for the robbery and damage inflicted by her troops during the occupation of Hungary?
The first part of the question raised by my hon. Friend is one which comes within the purview of the Reparation Commission which has despatched a Sub-committee to Budapest; no answer could be given to the second part of the question without prejudging the result of the Reparation Commission's enquiries.
German Property (Surrender)
33.
asked the Prime Minister what is the total value of property of all kinds, but excluding territory, already handed over by Germany to the Allies in accordance with the terms of the Peace Treaty?
I do not think that any figures are yet available, but I will ask the British representative on the Reparation Commission whether any figures can yet be given and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.
Turkey
64.
asked the Prime Minister whether ho will state on what date America definitely refused to accept a mandate for Constantinople?
The U.S. Government have not definitely refused to accept a mandate for Constantinople, but have withdrawn from discussion of the Turkish problem.
65.
asked whether America has been consulted concerning the terms of peace with Turkey?
The terms of peace with Turkey are still under discussion, and the American Government declined an invitation to be represented at the Conference.
Housing
Cabinet Comittee
35.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the increasing hardship to tenants in that they are forced either to purchase or give up their houses when there are no other houses obtainable in certain neighbourhoods; and whether he will consider proposals for preventing eviction on these terms whilst giving a reasonable latitude to landlords to raise their rents sufficiently to cover the change in the cost of repairs, rates, and taxes?
As I have previously stated, the whole question of the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts and of their extension, continuance or amendment is now being considered by a Committee, and I cannot anticipate their report.
What is the Committee? What is its nature? What powers has it?
It is a Committee appointed by the Cabinet to inquire into the whole subject
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing disturbance throughout the country on this particular subject? Tenants are told that they must either buy or clear out, and that is causing a tremendous amount of hardship. Will he hasten matters?
There are very few questions about which I get so many letters as this. I agree there is a good deal of anxiety, but the question is a very difficult and complicated one.
May we hope to get the report of this Committee by Lady Day—a very important date?
Yes. I hope so.
Will the investigation extend to shopkeepers as well as householders?
I think so.
Telephone Service
37.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Government propose raising the telephone tariff, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee of business men to investigate the present cost of operating the telephone in order that the telephone rates shall not be increased unless it is demonstrated beyond question that such an increase is essential for the efficient conducting of the telephone service and, in particular, to find out if the number of telephone users could be decidedly increased and, as a result, the present loss of the telephone be turned into a profit; whether he is aware of the fact that during the period in which the United States Government controlled the telephone the efficiency of the telephone service diminished to an extraordinary degree, and since the American telephone system has been returned to its private owners it has steadily increased in efficiency and profit; and, in view of this fact, will he consider the desirability of the appointment of the business committee, as indicated in the early part of this question, which might be able to recommend to the Government the taking out of Government control of the telephone service in order that its efficiency might be brought up to the highest possible standard.
The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. H. Pike Pease) rose—
Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask that my question should be answered by the Prime Minister? I do not want explanations from the Department concerned. I want to know the policy of the Government.
The question applies to the Post Office.
But the Department will only justify its faults. I want to know what the Government thinks.
The question would be referred to the Post Office for information. The Prime Minister does not "run the whole show."
But is it not possible for the Prime Minister to answer this question?
I understand that the control exercised by the United States Government was financial, and that the management and administration of the service was left entirely in the hands of the companies who were previously responsible for it. The assumption of control by the Government can, therefore, have had no effect on the efficiency of the service.
The labour costs in the telephone service have approximately doubled since 1914 owing to the increasing war bonus. The rise in the price of material and in contractors' charges has been even greater. An increase in the charges, as in the case of every other commercial undertaking, is necessary if the service is to pay its way. As previously stated, it is proposed to submit a scheme for an increase in the telephone rates to a Select Committee, but it is not thought to be necessary or desirable that the Committee's reference should be extended to include the question of re-transferring the service to a private company, even if that step were practicable.In view of the serious nature of our national finances, would it not be wise first to allow this question to be fully considered by a body of the best business men, together with Government experts, before deciding on retaining the telephones?
My answer is the considered opinion. This Committee has been appointed entirely in view of the case to which I have referred.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Committee and their qualifications?
Is not the language of many Americans about their telephone service much stronger than any used with regard to ours?
With regard to the American telephone Service, there are parts of the United States where the telephone service is almost perfect at present. As far as New York is concerned it is inferior to ours at present.
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the cause of the falling short of the American telephone service is that whenever it was put under Government control the officials of the service immediately became Government officials, and therefore suffered from the deadening effect which all enterprise suffers from under Government control?
On the day on which I answered the previous question, my hon. Friend who asked a supplementary, sent a letter to the Controller of the telephone service in London, saying the United States service, as far as New York was concerned, was inferior to ours. The Controller of the London service is the same man who was responsible for the service in 1913, when it is supposed to have been much more efficient than it is at present.
If it is merely a question of finance, how does the hon. Gentleman contest the idea that the New York telephone service, which was certainly the best in the world four years ago, is now inferior to London? I am the man who sent the letter.
Every telephone service is inferior to what it was before the War in every country.
Ex-Monarchs (Neutral Countries)
40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the hospitality of certain neutral countries has been and is being grossly abused by ex-monarchs, enemy alien statesmen, and generals using such territories as the centre for plots and conspiracies with the object of checkmating the peace aims of the Supreme Council; and what action he and the other Allied premiers propose to take to put an end to such a state of things?
I am not prepared to state beforehand the steps which the Allied Governments might find it necessary to take in the event of any country permitting its hospitality to be abused in the manner indicated by my hon. Friend.
War Departments
41.
asked the Prime Minister if he can furnish a list and the particulars of the different Government Departments which were created during the War as war Departments or Departments of control, and which still exist and exercise control over imports, industry, and necessaries of life; and if he can state when it is proposed to close them down?
The Departments which appear to answer the description in my hon. Friend's question comprise the following:—
- Central Control Board.
- Ministry of Food.
- Ministry of Munitions.
- Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies.
- Ministry of Shipping.
- Board of Trade (Coal Mines Department).
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to a small committee being set up to examine as to whether these Departments could now be closed down?
I will consider that.
May I repeat that question this day week?
Yes.
Persia
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government is giving aid to Persia, either financial or military, and, if so, to what extent?
The extent of the financial and military aid which His Majesty's Government are giving to Persia will be found by reference to the terms of the Anglo-Persian Agreement of August 9th, 1919. (Command Paper 300.) A joint Anglo-Persian Military Commission is at present assembled at Teheran, and is considering the needs of Persia in respect of the formation of a uniform force which it is proposed to create. The Financial Adviser is now on his way to Teheran.
Committee Of Imperial Defence
44.
asked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Defence Committee was superseded during the War and has not met since the War, whether the three fighting departments are working in their Estimates to a definite policy and standard of preparation communicated, to them by the Cabinet; and, if so, whether that policy and standard is the outcome of meetings of Sub-committees of the Defence Committee at which the expert representatives of all three fighting departments were present to consider the new orientation of policy and armaments?
It is incorrect to state that the Defence Committee was superseded during the War. It was, in fact, absorbed into other organisations, which, subject to modifications to suit changed conditions, continue to function. The standards of preparation to which the fighting departments are working have been laid down by the Cabinet or its Committees, which have always worked in close consultation with the fighting departments.
Is the Committee of Defence in existence still, and if not, what arrangement is there for the co-ordination of the three services, and is there any opportunity when we can discuss the urgent need of co-ordination of the services in the House?
It has never ceased to exist. Whether it will resume its original form is a matter which will come under consideration.
Is the creation of a Ministry of Defence under consideration?
How is it that the Committee of Defence has not found the necessity for a meeting since the War?
There have been several meetings of Sub-committees of the Committee of Defence since the War.
Profiteering
Punishment On Conviction
47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the inadequacy of a fine in cases of profiteering, a clause can be inserted in any Bill to amend the existing Act giving magistrates the power to commit to prison with hard labour without the option of a fine in cases of aggravated guilt.
I have been asked to reply. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Profiteering Act, 1919, empowers the Justices to impose sentences of either imprisonment or fines for offences against the Act, and that if the circumstances so require, the Justices have a discretion to impose sentences of imprisonment with hard labour.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men in the docks who take tea or sugar off the quay they are working upon are sent to prison without the option of a fine whilst these other people cannot be touched who are robbing people of millions?
Have any sentences of hard labour been imposed already?
I do not think so. If the hon. Gentleman puts a question down I will find out.
Motor Spirit
54.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Report of the Profiteering Sub-Committee to the effect that there is a grave danger of a world-famine in motor spirit even at fabulous prices, and that the sole remedy for this country is a largely increased production of home and Empire produced motor fuel, of which power alcohol is a potentially unlimited source of supply; and will he state what action the Government propose to take to foster the production of power alcohol in this country?
His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of this question. It formed the subject of inquiry by a Committee appointed by the Petroleum Executive, who reported last year. As a result of their report the Fuel Research Board have appointed an Alcohol Investigation Officer to continue the inquiry. The Board of Trade and the Board of Customs and Excise are also looking into the question, which is a very complex one and does not admit of any ready solution.
Trade Unions And Trade Disputes Act
49 and 50.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that associations and unions of citizens in various parts of the country have been, and are being, formed to maintain services essential to the community in the event of an unjustifiable strike on the part of employés in any such service; and will he take steps to afford the protection extended to members of a trade union under the Trade Union and Trade Dispute" Act, 1906, to such defence associations of citizens when endeavouring to maintain services essential to the community; and (2) whether he is aware that the avowed policy of a section of organised labour to obtain political results by methods of industrial action was not in contemplation when the Trade Disputes Act was placed on the Statute Book; and will he consent to receive a deputation of the Middle Classes Union with regard to the position if which large sections of the community are now placed by the Act?
I do not think it would be possible to extend the immunities referred to in the questions, nor do I follow my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that the Trade Disputes Act would apply in the circumstances which he appears to contemplate. I do not, therefore, think that any useful purpose would be served by my consenting to receive a deputation.
British Cellulose Company
51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the arrangement whereby the Government have taken shares in the British Cellulose Company has been, or will be, submitted to Parliament for approval.
The answer is in the negative. The arrangement under which, as already explained, the Government have taken the shares in payment of the company's debt to the Ministry of Munitions, involves no fresh advance of public money.
Have not the representatives of the people of this country the right to say whether they approve of the continuance of very necessary Wartime arrangements in peace time?
Certainly the House of Commons has the right to express its views on the subject. They will find a convenient opportunity of doing so. I suggest, on the salary of the Ministry of Munitions rather than on the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it comes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able of his own volition to invest this money in a company like this without the consent of the House of Commons?
The money was invested in the company, and all I have had to do was to decide, on the advice of the Minister of Munitions, whether the step which we have now taken was the best measure that we could devise to protect the money already invested.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not in error in stating that the money was invested in the company? Was it not a mortgage secured upon the assets, and have we not now foregone our claim upon those assets and taken profit-sharing preference shares in exchange?
That is so. The money was advanced on a prior lieu charge which prevented any capital being raised by the company, and my right hon. Friend and I came to the conclusion that to exchange that mortgage for preferential shares was in the interests of the nation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dreyfus family, who were responsible for the foundation of this company, were on the Black List of the Admiralty during the War?
The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.
Docs the right hon. Gentleman not think that a question of principle is raised by this investment by the State in a private trading company, quite apart from the merits of this particular transaction, and that it is a matter which ought to have been submitted to the House of Commons?
All we had to do was to protect the interests of the taxpayers. For war purposes a large sum of the taxpayers' money had been lent to this company. What we had to consider was how we could best secure the money which had been lent.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when the shares went up from 6s. to something in the neighbourhood of £16, the Government was not able to get its money back?
That is quite irrelevant. It is a matter which was investigated by a Committee whose Report is available to the House.
Montenegro
53.
asked if extra consideration is being shown to Montenegro because she is a small Ally?
Equal consideration is extended to all the cases concerned. Size and importance are not factors within consideration.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far away is Montenegro from Ireland?
Armenia (Massacres)
Allied Governments
56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information with regard to the treatment of the Armenians by the Turks; and what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government or the French Government for the protection of the Armenians from further massacre and outrage?
66.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of further massacres of the Armenians or other peoples still subject to the domination of the Turks, it is proposed to give effect to the warning conveyed by Admiral de Robeck to the Grand Vizier that the Treaty with Turkey will be altered to the disadvantage of the Turks; and whether in this case the Supreme Council will consider the advisability of making Constantinople a free city under the League of Nations?
These matters are under discussion by the Allied Governments and between the Governments and their representatives in Constantinople, and I hope my hon. Friend will recognize the inadvisability of making an announcement on the subject at present.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will take steps to keep the House and the public, so far as they can, fully informed of the course of events in that part of the world in order to relieve the grave and general anxiety on the matter which prevails in this country?
I can assure my right hon. Friend that his anxiety is shared to the full by the Government and by all the representatives of the Allies. Since we received that very serious news about the massacres in Armenia it has been the subject of very anxious consideration by the Allied Conference, and they came to a decision which was communicated to their representatives at Constantinople. It would be inadvisable at the present moment to communicate to the public the character of that decision, because it is subject to the advice they give in return, and we are awaiting that advice at the present moment. I can assure the House that we are fully alive to the gravity of the position and the need for taking very strong action to protect the minorities, in so far as we can, in a country of this kind. I hope to be able to make a statement in a very short time, but at the present time we are awaiting the advice of the representatives of all the Allies at Constantinople upon the suggestions we have put before them.
While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very interesting and satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he could make a fuller statement next Monday, or whether he would rather rather not make any statement?
My Noble Friend will realise that it depends very largely upon the replies and upon the action that is taken. It may be inadvisable if action is being taken to make any answer at all until it becomes quite manifest to the whole world.
In view of the fact that lives are in danger in Cicilia every day and have been for many days past, may we take it that such prompt measures as are possible are being taken to protect those lives?
The protection of minorities in Cicilia is not the sole concern, but it is the charge of the French Government, and they fully recognise that. The Allies are prepared to give such support as is within their power to-ensure that the minorities will be protected.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Adana is not many miles from the coast and that British subjects, including the agents of the Lord Mayor of London's Fund are there and that their lives may be in danger at any time?
It is a very difficult question, which depends upon the advice we get from our naval and military advisers as to whether it is better that the naval force should be at Constantinople or down on the coast there. Perhaps I had better not express any opinion upon it. It is obviously a matter where we must get the advice of our representatives on the spot.
63.
asked the Prime Minister if he has any information to the effect that a concerted effort is being made by certain individuals opposed to the retention of Constantinople by the Turks to prejudice the latter in the eyes of the Allies and to still further complicate the Eastern situation by circulating false reports as to massacres in Asia Minor and Turkish plotting in Egypt, Persia, India, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere; and what steps he proposes to take to contradict baseless reports which do so much to unsettle the native mind and make the peaceful work of the Supreme Council increasingly difficult?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second, therefore, does not arise. There is unfortunately reason to suppose that the reports as to the massacres in Asia Minor are well founded.
Jersey (Taxation)
58.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the States of the island of Jersey sent an official communication on 13th May, 1919, to the Government on the subject of local finance and taxation; that this letter remained unanswered for five months; if he can say if the object was in some way to punish the island or simply to add to the financial difficulties of the place; if the last letter from the same assembly was sent on 20th January, and as yet no answer has been received; and if he will himself inquire into the whole case, and so ensure that an island, the population of which gave £2 per head to the Home Exchequer and sent 17 per cent. of her population to fight, shall not receive any but most favoured treatment from every Department of His Majesty's Government.
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The States of the Island submitted in May of last year a series of proposals for fresh taxation which raised some very important questions of principle. It was necessary to make careful inquiries with regard to the effect of the proposals and to consult the Governor, and this necessarily took some time. It was decided to refer back one of the measures which proposed a large increase in indirect taxation for reconsideration by the States. The other measures were approved. The reply of the States is now before the Home Secretary, and he hopes a decision will be reached in the course of a few days.
Paris Economic Resolutions
60.
asked when it is proposed to put in force the Paris Economic Resolutions which were urged upon the acceptance of this House by his predecessor?
Effect has already been given to many of these Resolutions, but the conditions prevailing at the end of the War differed so widely from those in which the Resolutions were arrived at, that His Majesty's Government have not regarded themselves as bound to give effect to them in detail. What further action, if any, is taken by His Majesty's Government will depend on the course of events.
Do the Government still adhere to the principle laid down by the Government during the War to the effect that the Paris resolutions were necessary to secure to the Allies true, well-grounded and lasting independence?
The hon. Member must hand that question in.
Surely that is a reasonable supplementary question.
It is not unreasonable to ask the hon. Member to put it on the Paper and hand it in at the Table.
Trenches In France (Rent)
68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether rent or compensation is due to the French Government for the trenches held by His Majesty's Army in France during the late war; and, if so, what is the approximate sum of money paid, or to be paid, on this account?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative, and the last part does not therefore arise.
Income Tax
70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the work of many women, journalists and others, compel them to be from home most of the day and often far into the evening, ho will undertake that in any alteration in the Income Tax the relief provided by Section 27, Sub-section (2), of the Finance Act, 1919, be extended to a working woman who, being entirely responsible for the upkeep of her home, has a female relation residing with her in the capacity of housekeeper?
74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the small fixed incomes of the clergy, which have remained stationary notwithstanding the great depreciation of the £ sterling, he can see his way to exempt Easter offerings from this year's Income Tax?
The consideration of these questions must be deferred till the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax.
73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Income Tax has yet presented his Report?
No, Sir.
Government Departments (Expenditure)
72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider his decision not to publish the replies of the various Departments to the Cabinet letter of 20th November last as to the cutting down of their expenditure?
No, Sir. Reports of this character made for the information of the Cabinet must be treated as confidential if they are to preserve their utility.
As the letter of the Cabinet to the Departments was published, why are the replies not published?
Because two wrongs do not make a right. The letter to the Departments ought never to have been published. It was given for publication by some breach of confidence.
Exchange (British Empire)
75.
asked whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to obtain parity of exchange within the British Empire?
I do not fully understand what steps my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I have more than once explained to the House that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to return to the method necessarily adopted during the War of giving artificial support to the exchanges, which would involve new borrowings abroad by His Majesty's Government or, conversely, new loans by the British Government to Governments whose exchange is at a discount with sterling.
As this is a matter which is confined to the British Empire, would not the position be met if we had Imperial currency sterling notes based upon proper reserves in the various Imperial capitals in the Empire?
That is a question that ought to be put down.
India (Currency)
76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was consulted before the Secretary of State for India decided to alter the monetary law of India in accordance with the recommendations of the Babington Smith Committee?
Yes, Sir.
School Teachers (Superannuation)
77.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any teachers have already received pensions under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918; whether any qualified teachers have not yet received a first instalment of the pension due to them; and, if so, why has the payment been so long delayed?
The number of superannuation allowances which have boon awarded under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, up to the 21st February, 1920, is 2,146. The number of applications received up to that date is 3,014, including 105 from teachers who were ineligible. The number of cases not yet decided is 763, but it must not be assumed that in all these cases payment of a first instalment is due. Every effort is being made to arrive at decisions on these outstanding cases at the earliest date. Delay in settling cases may arise from a good many causes, and the hon. Baronet will understand that the verification and investigation of past service, whether as "qualifying" or "recognised" is not a simple matter, especially at the beginning of the work when general questions arise and precedents are still being established.
Small-Pox
( by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to a very serious state of affairs in connection with the ex-Government stores being dumped at Bell Wharf, Bromley-by-Bow, E., and the reported death of one woman working in the wharf and the isolation of five other persons from the same place, one of whom is in the service of the Medical Officer of Health of the Poplar Council, and what steps he proposes to take, if any, to rid the neighbourhood of the cause of the outbreak, as the matter is causing much alarm to the inhabitants?
Yes, Sir. I am aware of this case, and the Ministry in conjunction with the sanitary authorities has been taking active steps for some time past in endeavouring to check the spread of infection from the different centres to which it has been traced from the source indicated amongst, I regret to say, a population largely unvaccinated.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have this dump burned, in order that the disease may be stamped out? Otherwise, there will be more outbreaks, and more serious trouble for the Health Department?
The value of the stores dumped is about a quarter of a million. The small-pox has now spread to various other places in the district, so that burning the dump would not remove the danger.
Is not the life of this poor woman worth more than a quarter of a million pounds?
It would not restore the woman to life to burn the dump.
But it would save others from being buried.
Transport
London Docks Congestion
( by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Press to the effect that the London Docks are congested to repletion with meat, tea, sugar and wool, all of which are urgently required by the people; whether he is also aware of the statement that if the meat was distributed it could be sold at 7d. per lb., and can he state what steps the Government are prepared to take to secure the distribution of these requirements and thus at the same time reduce high prices?
The position in regard to all the commodities mentioned in the question has been repeatedly under the consideration of the Cabinet during recent months and the following is the situation:
WooL.—There is no unusual congestion; the quantity arriving in this country is moderate and reasonable and is being rapidly absorbed. TEA.—Imports have not been made on Government account, as tea is no longer controlled, but steps were taken at the instance of the tea trade to increase shipments in order to keep prices down. Although owing to the limited bonded accommodation available in London, there has been some congestion in that port, no tea is being withheld from consumption, and arrangements have been made, after consultation with the interests concerned, to divert certain shipments to other ports. SUGAR.—As regards sugar, there is at present no congestion. Owing, however, to inability to find tonnage earlier to-lift sugar purchased for loading in Cuba in January and February large shipments are expected shortly. It should be remembered that shipments of sugar are always heavier at this time of the year owing to the fact that the Cuban crop is-now at its height. MEAT.—This is being placed on the market as rapidly as it can be absorbed and an announcement of an early reduction in price has already been made.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these statements were made at the dockers' inquiry on the authority of the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, and that men are walking on sugar and making it into molasses because of the congestion?
There is a good deal of congestion, as the Chairman pointed out, because of the fact that there is a shortage of rolling stock. That is what every country is suffering from grievously, on account of the War. That congestion, I am sorry to say, will continue until we are able to build more wagons and locomotives and to get the railway system into normal working order.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men have been discharged from Woolwich Arsenal, a place where, it was stated by the Minister of Transport, they can produce wagons more cheaply than outside firms? Why are these men not engaged instead of being thrown into the street and having their heads hacked?
Are they not being dismissed under the terms of an agreement come to between the masters and the trade unions? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Devonport stated that this congestion was due to the futile policy of the Government?
I was not aware that hon. Members on the other side were in the habit of accepting Lord Devonport's statements.
Business Of The House
Government Of Ireland Bill
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the business for next week?
The first Order on Monday will be a Resolution allocating the time for the rest of the financial business. The rest of the week, including what is loft of Monday, will be taken up by financial business as detailed in the
Division No. 30.]
| AYES.
| [3.55 p.m.
|
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Astor, Viscountess | Balfour, George (Hampstead) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Atkey, A. R. | Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Baird, John Lawrence | Barnston, Major Harry |
Resolution of which notice will appear on the Paper to morrow.
Will the Order which it is proposed to take on Monday appear on the Paper to morrow?
Yes.
Are the Government going to give any time for the passage of the Bill which was passed last Friday for the enfranchisement of women?
That does not depend on the Government. It is a Private Member's Bill and they are entitled to a certain number of Fridays, of which I am sure they make the best use.
Will the Government give facilities?
It will be quite time enough to consider that when the ordinary methods have failed.
Will the Home Rule Bill be taken next week?
No. The Resolution which will appear on the Paper tomorrow will show exactly what amount of time is available before Easter. There are three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, which are not allocated. They are available, and we intend to use them for the Home Rule Bill and the Adjournment. Very likely the House will wish for more-than two days for the Home Rule Billy and in that case we propose to take the Adjournment Motion at eight o'clock on the Wednesday.
Is it proposed to take Private Members' time?
I think that the hon. Member had better wait until the Resolution is on the Paper.
War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply "—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 32.
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. |
| Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden) | Greig, Colonel, James William | Parker, James |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Gretton, Colonel John | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Benn, Sir A. s. (Plymouth, Drake) | Griggs, Sir Peter | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Guinness, Lieut-Col. Hon. W. E. | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Bennett, Thomas Jewell | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perring, William George |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Preston, W. R. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Purchase, H. G. |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Hancock, John George | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Raper, A. Baldwin |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Haslam, Lewis | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith. | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple) |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Remer, J. R. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Briant, Frank | Higham, Charles Frederick | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hinds, John | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Briggs, Harold | Holmes, J. Stanley | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Seager, Sir William |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hopkins, John W. W. | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. sir William James | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Houston, Robert P. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Howard, Major S. G. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Carew, Charles Robert S. | Hurd, Percy A. | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Casey, T. W. | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Stevens, Marshall |
| Cautley, Henry S. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Jesson, C. | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.) | Johnstone, Joseph | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Kiley, James D. | Taylor, J. |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston s. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Clyde, Rt. Hon. James Avon | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H (Univ., Wales) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Lloyd, George Butler | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Cope, Major Wm. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Wason, John Cathcart |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Klrk'dy) | Macmaster, Donald | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Whitla, Sir William |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Macquisten, F. A. | Wigan, Brig.-Gen John Tyson |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Mason, Robert | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Matthews, David | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Edge, Captain William | Morris, Richard | Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) | Morrison, Hugh | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. E. | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Elveden, viscount | Mosley, Oswald | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Murchison, C. K. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Forrest, Walter | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Neal, Arthur | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Nelson, R. F. W. R. | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Towyn Jones. |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Grundy, T. W. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) |
| Billing, Noel Pemberton. | Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Hartshorn, Vernon |
| Bromfield, William | Galbraith, Samuel | Hayday, Arthur |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Glanville, Harold James | Hirst, G. H. |
| Cape, Thomas | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Rose, Frank H. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Lawson, John J. | Sexton, James | Waterson, A. E. |
| Lunn, William | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | |
| Myers, Thomas | Sitch, Charles H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| O'Grady, Captain James | Spencer, George A. | Capt, Redmond and Mr. MacVeagh. |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring) | Swan, J. E. C. |
Unemployment Insurance Money Committee
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings of the Committee on Unemployment Insurance [Money] be
Division No. 31.]
| AYES.
| [4.7 P-m.
|
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Matthews, David |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Fell, Sir Arthur | Moison, Major John Elsdale |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Forestier-Walker, L. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Forrest, Walter | Morris, Richard |
| Atkey, A. R. | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Morrison, Hugh |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Morrison-Bell, Major A. E. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gange, E. Stanley | Mosley, Oswald |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Murchison, C. K. |
| Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden) | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Glyn, Major Raiph | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Goff, Sir R. Park | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Neal, Arthur |
| Bennett, Thomas Jewell | Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Nelson, R. F. W. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Greig, Colonel James William | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gretton, Colonel John | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Griggs, Sir Peter | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Guinness, Lieut-Col. Hon. W. E. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Parker, James |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith. | Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hancock, John George | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Perring, William George |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Haslam, Lewis | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Briggs, Harold | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Preston, W. R. |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Purchase, H. G. |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hinds, John | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Remer, J. R. |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carew, Charles Robert S. | Houston, Robert P. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Casey, T. W. | Howard, Major S. G. | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Hurd, Percy A. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Seager, Sir William |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Jesson, C. | Seddon, J. A. |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Jodrell Neville Paul | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Johnstone, Joseph | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Clyde, Rt. Hon. James Avon | Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Stevens, Marshall |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cope, Major Wm. | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lloyd, George Butler | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Taylor, J. |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Macmaster, Donald | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Macquisten, F. A. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Magnus, Sir Philip | Turton, E. R. |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Edge, Captain William | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Waring, Major Walter |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Martin, Captain A. E. | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. |
| Elveden, Viscount | Mason, Robert | Wason, John Cathcart |
exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ Mr. Bonar Law.]
The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 48.
| Wheler, Major Granville C. H. | Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Whitla, Sir William | Wilson-Fox, Henry | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson | Winterton, Major Earl | |
| Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Towyn Jones. |
| Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) | |
| Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Redmond, Captain William Archer |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hartshorn, Vernon | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hayday, Arthur | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hirst, G. H. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Sexton, James |
| Briant, Frank | Holmes, J. Stanley | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kiley, James D. | Spencer, George A. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawson, John J. | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lunn, William | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Waterson, A. E. |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Myers, Thomas | |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | O'Grady, Captain James | Mr. G. Thorne and Colonel Penry Williams. |
Coal Mines (Emeegency) Bill
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 36.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
Message From The Lords
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company to increase the nominal amount of the ordinary stock of the Company." [City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [ Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the business of the Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation to the Alliance Assurance Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation (Transfer) Bill [ Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend Henry Bath and Son's (Delivery Warrants) Act, 1890." [Henry Bath and Son's (Delivery Warrants) Act, 1890, Amendment Bill [ Lords.]
City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [ Lords],
Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation (Transfer) Bill [ Lords],
Henry Bath and Son's (Delivery Warrants) Act, 1890 (Amendment) Bill [ Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Bills Presented
Rating Of Machinery Bill
"to amend the law relating to the rating of hereditaments containing machinery," presented by Captain HAMILTON BENN; supported by Sir Watson Rutherford, Mr. Marshall Stevens, Mr. Bigland, Sir John Harmood-Banner, and Mr. Manville; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
Representation Of The People (No 2) Bill
"to remove doubts as to the interpretation of Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of The Representation of the People Act, 1918," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee B
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Sir Arthur Shirley Benn and Mr. Holmes; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Ashley and Sir Thomas Bramsdon; and that they had added to the Committee: Mr. Hayward.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged from Standing Committee B the following Member (added in respect of the Public Utility Companies (Capital Issues) Bill): Sir Auckland Geddes; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Neal.
Standing Committee C
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Manville; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Chadwick.
Standing Committee D
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Major Blair; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Frederick Young.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Representation of the People Bill): Mr. Adamson, Dr. Addison, Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee, Viscountess Astor, Leiut.-Colonel Bell, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Cowan, Captain Elliot, Colonel Greig, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Matthews. Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot, Sir Kingsley Wood, and Sir George Younger.
Scottish Standing Committee
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That the following Members representing Scottish constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:—Rear-Admiral Adair, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Asquith, Sir Robert Balfour, Mr. George Barnes, Mr. Charles Barrie, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. James Brown, Lieut.-Colonel Buchanan, Sir Watson Cheyne, Colonel Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Churchill, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Cowan, Sir Henry Cowan, Sir Henry Craik, Sir Henry Dalziel, Captain Elliot, Mr. James Gardiner, Lieut.-Colonel Gilmour, Major Glyn, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Colonel Greig, Sir Leicester Harmsworth, Major Henderson, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Harry Hope, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Sir Robert Home, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Jameson, Mr. Joseph Johnstone, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Sir Halford Mackinder, Mr. Robert McLaren, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Macleod, Major M'Micking, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Thomas Morison, Mr. Munro, Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Murray, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Murray, Mr. Gideon Murray, Dr. Murray, Major William Murray, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Pratt, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Rodger, Mr. Rose, Mr. MacCallum Scott, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. William Shaw, Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. Sturrock, Sir William Sutherland, Mr. Taylor, Mr. F. C. Thomson, Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir Archibald Williamson, Mr. Wilkie, Major Mackenzie Wood, Mr. William Young, and Sir George Younger.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Navy Estimates, 1920–21
Estimates presented,—for the year 1920–21 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 35.]
Orders Of The Day
War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
This is the last occasion on which this House will have an opportunity of discussing this Bill, and it is perhaps the right occasion to recapitulate the objections to it which we have urged in the course of the discussions in Committee upstairs and on Report. The objection to the Bill, generally speaking, is that it is a hand-co-mouth Bill which enables the Government to carry on without determining what their policy should be. When the Defence of the Realm Act was passed in time of war a limit of time was put to the operation of that Act, and those concerned were perfectly well aware of that limitation set to activities under the Act. In addition to that, there has been a long period since the Armistice, and no one would have imagined that fifteen months after the termination of hostilities we should still be technically in a state of war with the Government in power with all the exceptional instruments which were conferred on them for the purpose of beating the enemy. It is only under the threat of determination of these powers that you can possibly hope to get their activities to cease. We saw only yesterday what was the effect of this indefinite continuation of these special powers when the First Commissioner of Works actually produced a Supplementary Estimate for £260,000 for building the tenancy of which had been continued beyond the period for which it was supposed they would be needed. There we see at once a proof of the effect of this indefinite extension. Therefore the first ground of objection to the Bill, and by no means the most weighty in my judgment, is that unless you set a sharp limit on the emergency laws you will never get those activities to drop off, and let us resume the ordinary peace time organisation of the country. The second point is, that by this Bill giving the Government an extension of these exceptional powers we are in fact providing them with an excuse, if not prompting them, to postpone the permanent settlement of a great question on which there is a demand for a clear and coherent policy on the part of the Cabinet. Let me take a non-controversial subject. There is the summer time problem. The alteration of the daily calendar may be good or bad, but the Government have had pletny of time to make up their minds about it. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the Government should decide this question permanently instead of leaving it to the whim of a Department. That will bring home the evil of this indefinite prolongation of emergency powers. Take the question of food. There is a great deal of difference of opinion about food control. Some hon. Members think that the control is only the harbinger of a general State system of socialisation, and others think that the control is bad and should be removed at once; but nobody is in doubt that the Government should have made up its mind as to what is its permanent policy with regard to food. I submit as a second ground for objection that by continuing in this haphazard way these powers, we are encouraging the Government in not deciding their policy, and not explaining to the public what line they propose to take. We know quite well that the food question is a very large, complicated and urgent question. It is affected, for instance, by the war in Russia, in the employment of the rail and other transport which should be available for the distribution and supply of food. The operation of the blockade has very seriously and adversely affected the food supplies of this country. I submit that the reason they ask for the continuation of the extraordinary powers of the Food Controller is because they will not make up their minds on their Russian policy, and that is the very reason why this House should decline to give them these powers. Whatever views we may hold on this question it is perfectly clear we should demand from the Government a perfectly plain and comprehensible statement of what their attitude to Russia is to be. Exactly the same thing applies in food matters in Germany. Before the War 85 per cent. of the food consumed in Germany was produced in that country and it is now estimated that the productivity of the soil has been diminished by 40 per cent as a result of the War, and the effective quality diminished by 55 per cent. The situation in Central Europe does affect the question of food supplies for this country by allowing the Government exceptional power to manipulate so that here they may take off a sixpence and there they may impose a shilling. We encourage them in their failure to grapple with the urgent question of the revision of the Peace Treaty, and I think it is not going too far to say that we diminish the productivity of Germany by holding over-the heads of the producers threats as to what may happen. So I submit that a good ground for objection to the Bill is that it is merely encouraging the Government to live in this shifty way and not make up its mind. No doubt it is excellent for politicians to be free from commitments, but it is a bad thing for the country not to know the policy of the Government. The objection to the Bill may also be stated in this way with perfect reason, that it shows that the Government persists with a war mind and that it has not settled down to tackle the problems of peace in a true spirit of reconstruction. That brings me to the third objection to the Bill, namely, that this Bill permanently endows, or at any rate for a longer period than intended, the Government with exceptional powers which this House would never have granted if it had not been under the stress of foreign danger. That, I submit, is a very improper thing to do. If we read the terms of the Proclamation made in Ireland, it is stated clearly there that the Proclamation can only be made in case of any fear of invasion or emergency arising out of the War. Neither of those two circumstances existed. When the Act was introduced it was explained that it was intended as a weapon against our enemies abroad. It may be a good thing to strengthen the hands of the Executive and to give them powers they did not possess before the War, but it cannot be a good thing for the Government to grasp in this camouflaged way powers which were only granted for the purpose of beating the Germans, and for no other purpose whatever. Regulation 18A has often been discussed here, and it is one of the most objectionable. That Regulation provides that anyone found even in the slightest degree in communication with an enemy agent is subject to arrest. That is a very proper Regulation and an absolutely essential Regulation to make in time of war. And now the term "enemy agent" is obsolete; it can no longer be used. We have no enemies and the Government has taken this vestige of its war powers to make use of them as a new weapon of oppression. It is far more rigid than the Official Secrets Act, and it is intended to fortify their Intelligence Department with powers that should only be conferred with the full consent of this House after full debate. Take, again, Regulation 18A—the power to punish people for having been to the address of a foreign agent or in possession of a letter, and so on. The foreign agent may be French or American; the phrase is defined in this case in the loosest way. Then we have Regulations 51 and 55—the power of search without proper warrant, and the power to arrest, oven by a police constable, without any warrant at all people suspected of these offences. During the War these powers might be proper, and they are powers that might be brought within a new Officials Secrets Act if it were being proposed. Why does the" Government now propose to get them by this side wind? This is a point of great substance. Why do the Government seek these powers? It is, I believe, because they intend to use them against political doctrines to which they object. We do not think that this is the way to attempt to stamp out public opinion. Repressive measures of this kind are not the way. The way to counter political activity to which we object is not to repress it, but to meet it with a better reason. That is the first item of my third objection to the Bill, that it carries into the area of peace and reconstruction the war mind, and the Government are grasping in time of peace these enormous powers, which were applicable only to war-time. They would never have been conferred except under the stress of the most urgent need in a time of great national danger. That is the most serious defect of the whole Bill, particularly in its application to Ireland. It may or may not be a good thing to have a new Coercion Act for Ireland, but we say that it is a subject for a special Act. Why, when this Bill was introduced the great majority of Members of this House did not know about its application the Ireland The word "Ireland" did not occur. Why was that? Why was it not mentioned that it was an Act aimed principally at the Irish people? I think it was because the Government preferred to camouflage its application to Ireland. While certain vestiges of these great powers were still to exist in Great Britain the whole of them were to continue to exist for Ireland, and for Ireland alone. Why did not the Government plainly say so? They could have done that quite easily by inserting a few words saying in effect, "So far as Ireland is concerned, all the Defence of the Realm Regulations shall continue." That would have been more straightforward and we should have understood exactly what was to be the meaning of the Act. Instead of that the Government came forward in this camouflaged way. it was not discovered what was really proposed with regard to Ireland until the Bill was in Committee upstairs, and then the disguise was torn off, and we understood that the real intention, the prime reason of the Government was to ask for these powers with regard to Ireland. It may be said that we are quite wrong to object to these powers; that the special circumstances of Ireland justify the granting of these powers; that we are unwise in expressing this view and that our admiration for Ireland carries us too far in our opposition to these powers. I venture to remind the House that this Act will suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. That is the reason that when an hon. and gallant Member and myself drafted an Amendment to it, we did so in the words of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. This Act would do away so far as the whole of Ireland is concerned with this foundation of our freedom, this aegis of our political liberties, the Habeas Corpus Act. The Attorney-General may be able to tell us, but so far as I have been able to discover by my searches the Habeas Corpus Act has not been suspended since 1882, and I am also informed that it has been the custom to pass an Act of Indemnity for every suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. That is a matter of legal information and opinion into which I do not enter, but if it is true. Parliament should consider much more carefully this Bill which suspends an Act which has not been suspended for 40 years. All the more strange that it should be attempted by camouflage and by obscure references in Sections and Subsections. I wish to bring the House to a sense of historical perspective. People may say to us: you are allowing your feelings to carry you away, you are going too far in this Irish business. Well, the Government are asking for very exceptional powers, and they say that they are to deal with the bad state of Ireland. But they have already the Crimes Act, the Criminal Law-Amendment Act, 1887, although it is a very small thing compared with these proposals. It enables them to search for arms, to deal with intimidation, illegal assemblies, and dangerous associations. Those powers fall short of the powers of this Bill. They are trifling compared with it. Yet that Bill when it was proposed was discussed in this House for 41 days. The Chief Secretary moved it, Mr. John Morley, as he then was, opposed its introduction into this House, and on the Third Reading Mr. Gladstone stood at this box and opposed it. The House may remember that during that time, when the Act of 1887 was being discussed, the "Times" published the famous Pigott letter, and a great deal of the public opinion of this country was under the impression that the Irish leaders were active participators in the campaign of assassination in Ireland. But in spite of that, Mr. Gladstone stood here and opposed the Third Reading from the very place where I am now standing. Therefore I would recommend hon. Members who still call themselves Liberals and followers of Mr. Gladstone to remember what he did then. I ask them whether they are going into the Lobby to-day in favour of the oppressive instrument which is contained in these Regulations? I think it is an acid test."this House declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill which violates the principles of the Great Charter (many times confirmed in Parliament) that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his liberties or free customs but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the Law of the land; whereas all matters examinable or determinable under the said Bill have their remedy and redress and their due punishment and correction by the Common Law of the land and in the ordinary course of justice."
May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that every section of that Act has been given legislative effect to by Mr. Gladstone?
The right hon. Gentleman was also a Liberal Member. He followed Mr. Gladstone before he became a Home Ruler, and stopped when Mr. Gladstone became a Home Ruler. The arguments that were used in favour of the Crimes Act by the present Lord President of the Council (Mr. Balfour) and others are the very arguments which I have no doubt will be used again now. Let me read the substance of some of these arguments:
These were the words of the Solicitor-General of that day (Sir Richard Webster). And again:—"We have pointed out over and over again and wearied the House by so doing, that the Bill is intended to be put into operation against crime. I say again that we have determined to do our best to put down crime; we have determined to put down terrorism in Ireland."
"Is it the freedom of the moonlighter to pursue his midnight assassinations, and which is marked by the impotence of the law and the omnipotence of terrorism? That is the freedom which the right hon. Gentleman (this was Mr. Gladstone) asks us to bow down to, and to pay worship to." These were the words of Mr. Balfour in reply to the arguments of Mr. Gladstone. What did Mr. Gladstone say in reply?
That is exactly the case of Alderman Kelly which has occurred recently. Again, Mr. Gladstone said, speaking of that Coercion Act:"If I were an Irishman, and I joined a political association, it would be for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) to say whether I became a criminal by this Act. I am not to be permitted to bring him into Court, to challenge him to a contest in which he would have all the advantage of public administrative authority. I am not to be permitted to obtain even publicity for the motives of his proceedings which may remain hidden away in his own breast. It is for him, dispensing with judge, jury, counsel and witnesses, to say whether I am a criminal or not."
That was Mr. Gladstone's argument against the Act of 1887, and that argument applies to our opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill to-day. I know perfectly well what the case of the Government is. They will say, "Look at the crime in Ireland; look at the murders; look at the list of crime which is published daily.""I will not deny that it includes crime in its aim, but it passes beyond the aim of crime, and it aims at associations. Association is the only weapon whereby the many and the poor can redress the inequality of their struggle with wealth, influence, power, and administrative authority."
And what about the rebellion?
I do not understand the relevance of that remark. The Government are asking for powers to crush these people. The answer is that they have had these powers for five years, and there has never been such a failure of the administration in its action against crime. For every succeeding act of repression there has been a new outbreak of crime. It has been said that the only people who are not in gaol are the people who have done the murders. You are not succeeding in suppressing these people by proclamations, suppressions of newspapers and deportations of leaders. In your latest act, like some Norman King, you have put the Irish people under the curfew. We have the right hon. Gentleman's own confession that he has failed. Every statement that comes from the Publicity Department about increased crime in Ireland is only one more proof of his failure to repress it, and I submit, while I desire as much as anyone to see the end of crime in Ireland, that the policy of the Chief Secretary has been a lamentable failure. The whole administration has been utterly ineffective for the purpose for which it was designed. Every step which he has taken in the way of persecuting these people, every kind of irritation which has been put into force, has only had the effect of organising the Irish people still more against the Government. I have spoken to many Sinn Feiners, and they have said that the Chief Secretary is the greatest friend they have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, that is what has happened. These people are very keen politicians. They have no fear of being locked up. What they look to is the triumph of their cause, and I have found many of these men who say that the Chief Secretary is the man who is making their cause triumphant. That is what is said by many men who desire the separation of Ireland from Great Britain.
I have so often told the House what this really means translated into daily act that I apologise for reiterating it again, but I am anxious at least that the people in Ireland should understand that there is someone in the House of Commons who regards the whole thing with contempt and loathing, because that at least is doing some deed which may help to preserve the slender ties, if they exist at all, of affection between this country and the sister island. Here is a boy of 13, Joseph McCarthy, arrested for taking part in a concert at which national songs were sung. I do not know what happened to him, but be was arrested. What is going to happen to his family, to the father and mother of the boy? Are they going to love this Administration more, are they going to feel more inspired with a passion for the Union? I have mentioned some of these cases before. [Cheers]. I am very surprised at those cheers. If they have been mentioned before, why have we not had them answered? Take the case of McGinn, a boy of 16, one month's imprisonment. What was his crime? Carrying a Sinn Fein flag. Then there is the man I have often mentioned, Pat McCabe, and this is really a classic of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, a man who got a month's imprisonment for whistling derisively at the police. He is not a criminal, but he is being made into a criminal by imprisonment for that offence. Then there is the man who got a month for singing the "Soldiers' Song" and "Felons of the Land," two songs that are well known in Ireland, not new, not particularly applicable to the Chief Secretary, although they apply to any English tyrant in Ireland, down to the petty tyrant who rules there to-day. There is not only this fatuous persecution of children, but the crushing of the genuine and very wholesome Irish spirit. The Sinn Feiners have a great idea of the economic future of Ireland, and they have got an Industrial Commission which is spending its time holding meetings to consider how it might be possible to develop the economic resources of Ireland. They went to Cork to hold a meeting of the Commission, and some hon. Friends of ours of the Labour party were there at the time, but the Chief Secretary suppressed the meeting. What sense can there be in that? Is that a crime? Of course not. It is because, first, the Chief Secretary knows very little about what is going on in Ireland and has a very small share of personal responsibility, and secondly, it is the logical and hateful consequence of a mechanical military domination of any country. Here is another instance. A play was suppressed, entitled "The Dawn of Freedom." Our Administration is engaged in suppressing the theatre, and people who have read the history of the Austrian domination in Italy will know what that means. Then there are the raids. I am told that on the 16th February, in one district in Monaghan 500 houses were searched, and, according to my information, in the month of February there were 4,000 houses searched by the Chief Secretary's orders. What is the position of the householders who find themselves disturbed in the middle of the night, their children and servants turned out of their beds by armed men, the drawers and the tables and chairs ransacked? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may find it cause for amusement, but I do say that it is not in the interests of the Union in Ireland. Let me read au interview given by one of these women whose house was raided. Her husband was a Member of Parliament and he may have committed many crimes; I do net know; Members of Parliament are not always above reproach. I do not know what Brennan had done, but this is what she says. She was awakened by a knocking at the front door at 2 o'clock in the morning, so loud that it aroused all the residents on the road. She goes on:She proceeds to explain how a lodger who was at the top of the house was visited in a similar way, and says:"I jumped out of bed and went to the door, inquiring who was there. Someone shouted, 'Police, open the door, we want to search the house.' I asked for time to dress, and the reply was that I was to open the door at once or it would be burst in. I opened the door, and a squad of soldiers with fixed bayonets came into the hall, followed by five or six police with revolvers. An officer asked for my husband, and I. said he was not at home and that the children were asleep, and I hoped they would not disturb them. 'We cannot help that,' replied the officer. They then searched all the apartments, opening drawers and emptying them of their contents. One bedroom which was occupied only by one of my children and the maid was entered four times, the police and soldiers throwing the lights from the electric torches on the occupants, who were terrified."
The three children were so terrified that Mrs. Brennan had to sit up practically the rest of the night trying to pacify them. All the time the search was proceeding soldiers were marching and counter-marching in the street, and there was a continuous buzzing of motor-cars. The report goes on to say that the officers expressed their regret for the inconvenience that had been given, and I am certain that they loathe carrying out the orders of the Chief Secretary. Four thousand of these raids have been carried on in one month. Is it to be wondered at that the whole of Ireland, Unionist, Nationalist, and Sinn Fein, is being welded into a solid block of opinion against the rule of this country there? Of course not. Every person who suffers an indignity of that kind becomes a potential enemy of this country. I am going to say something further. My right hon. Friend is not even satisfied with these powers, this great mass of extra-Habeas Corpus powers which he has got. He is going beyond the law. But I wish first to refer to the cases of people who have never had charges made against them, and, of course, the House will understand that this has been going on under all the Administrations since the Coalition Government was formed, so it is nothing to me whether the present Chief Secretary gave the order or did not give the order. It is the Administration I am tackling, although I would not myself like to be concerned in it. These people, arrested without charges, include an ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin, who is, I believe, on bail in this country. He is not permitted to go back. Why was he taken away? He has never been told. Then there was the bogus German plot of 1917, on the strength of which many Members of Parliament and others were rounded up and imprisoned, and everyone in this country, myself included, was horrified when we read the Government exposure of the German plot. But there has never been given a tittle of proof, and what did the late Lord Lieutenant himself say about it? Lord Wimborne said:"Notwithstanding this and the protests of his wife, they forced her into the bedroom, flashed their lights on the sick man and questioned him several times as to his identity and from whom he rented the flat."
He goes on to say, of course what is perfectly true—that all the time the Germans would have been only too glad to get into touch with the disaffected elements in Ireland, but of this plot ht declares he never had any knowledge, yet on the strength of this plot these people were rounded up and deported, and two of them died in gaol. One, of course, was the famous case of Thomas Ashe, and the other was the case of Mr. Pierce McCann. He was a Member of this House, elected for one of the Divisions of Tipperary. Are we doing the right thing really in giving the Chief Secretary these powers? 1s he exercising them in a way which is calculated to do the best to allay the very sore situation that exists? Did his predecessors, or does the Castle—because that is the point—really exercise the powers given by this House in a way that is calculated to help settle the age-long grievances of Ireland? I am so timid of wearying the House that it is only a real compassion and sincere belief that make me go on. Take the case of Mr. Pierce McCann. I took the greatest trouble to get the facts, because I made a mistake over a case last night in regard to Mr. Barton. I am not justifying Mr. Barton, although I shall be glad to have the opportunity of speaking on it if necessary. I took care to find out what sort of a man Mr. McCann was. He was elected by a large majority and returned as a Member of this House. He was an active opponent of the English. He was arrested without a charge, and he died in prison."It is somewhat strange, in view of the highly specialised means of obtaining information which have recently existed in Ireland, that neither I, nor, as far as I am aware, any other member of the late Irish Executive, was aware of the existence of this plot until it was discovered by the British Government."
I did not arrest him.
What is the good of the Chief Secretary saying he did not arrest him? It is the Administration I am attacking, and the right hon. Gentleman is merely one of a number of transient and embarrassed phantoms. It is the Administration I am attacking, although, as I say, I should not like to think that I or any friend of mine was associated for an instant with that Administration. This is what a friend who can be completely relied on has told me about Mr. McCann. He was a man who was an active Sinn Feiner. He took no part in the rebellion of 1916, and he was a member of the Executive of the Volunteers. He was arrested after the rebellion, deported and confined, and after ten months he died. My informant says:
The Sinn Feiners are in many ways very Conservative in their ideas economically, extremely Conservative, and, as I think, utterly mistaken and reactionary. My informant goes on to say:"He was never brought before any Court charged with or convicted of any offence, political or otherwise. I do not think even the most bitter opponent of Sinn Fein would regard him as an extremist. He was on the Irish Volunteer Executive in 1916, and was one of those who, like MacNeill and the late O'Rahilly, opposed the rebellion and travelled a good deal of Munster on Easter Saturday and Easter Sunday, 1916, in order to prevent the spread of the outbreak. He belonged to a class which in normal times is regarded as rather Conservative."
I should like to call attention to the character of this man who died in prison, a Member of this House, without being charged with any offence. This is his character, written by his friend: 5.0 P.M."He farmed extensively on up-to-date lines at Ballyowen, near Cashel."
I will not commit the indelicacy of reading a most touching letter which I had from his mother because I happened to mention his name in a Debate recently. What possible use can there be in taking a man of that stamp and imprisoning him? I say the thing is an infamy, and I do not think it can fail to find an echo in the hearts of hon. Members who do not agree with us. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with these excessive powers he has been given, is now going beyond the law. I will give him two cases. There is the case of the boy Connors and another named M'Loughlin."He was a man of the very highest character, quiet, gentle, unobstrusive and extremely religious. He was a strong athletic man, very fond of sport, and I believe he got the Royal Humane Society's medal for life-saving on two occasions, and was the recipient of a presentation from his fellow members of the County Hunt, because of the way he risked his life on one occasion by jumping into the swollen waters of the Suir and rescuing a man from drowning."
I do not see the relevancy of this. We are discussing now whether certain powers shall be given or not. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Irish Government has done terrible things in the past, and that the present Government is going outside the powers of the law, what has that to do with this Bill?
I submit that the only way we can decide to give the right hon. Gentleman these powers is to examine the way he is using them.
Not powers which are not contained in the Bill.
I submit to you that I am going only to deal with powers exercised by the right hon. Gentleman, alleged to be power under the Defence of the Realm Act.
I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman began by saying that he was going to deal with matters which were outside the powers of the Bill.
It is quite clear that I am wrong. But how am I to criticise the right hon. Gentleman on anything before this House if he does things which are outside his power?
We are not now discussing the Irish administration as a whole. This Bill contains one clause which relates to the Irish administration, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, of course; perfectly entitled to discuss that if he likes. But this is not the opportunity for discussing Irish administration generally. That is another matter. He is entitled to discuss Irish administration so far as he says it is, or will be, carried on under this Bill. But in order to discuss anything outside this Bill he must find another opportunity.
I certainly have, in common with all Members, a complete desire to submit to your ruling, and I think I can deal with this case without trespassing beyond the limits you have laid down. The right hon. Gentleman, under powers he alleges to possess in Sub-section (4), arrested this boy. I can only deal with the thing lightly, because of your ruling, but he arrested the boy, kept him in confinement from February 10th until April 9th, under the powers of D.O.R.A., as he says. The boy's parents then brought a case to the Courts, and the Chief Secretary's minions were then convicted by the Court of Appeal of de taining the boy unlawfully. What is that but kidnapping? There is the similar case of John M'Loughlin. Of course, it is convenient to the Executive to take away a witness or examine him in private, but it is against the law, and even this Bill which the House is asked to give the Government to-day, will not permit him to do that sort of thing. If the opportunity did offer, I should certainly like to say more about the illegal acts which the Chief Secretary is committing under guise of these powers.
In conclusion, I would ask, is it a moment to give new powers to a Chief Secretary who has been convicted by the Court of Appeal of breaking the law? Is it wise to give new powers to a Government whose dealings in Ireland give rise to the belief— and the well-founded belief—that they are intended to promote disorder? Is it wise to give, again, to this Government, powers to carry out an administration which requires the presence of 35,000 soldiers, which degrades the soldiers into doing duties of which they are ashamed, and which are steadily alienating Irish opinion from the English tie, and will, if persisted in, end in the separation of the two countries? This is not a new problem—the powers of the Irish Ministry. The same question of exceptional powers to the Irish Executive was being discussed in this House 130 years ago under the Treason Sedition Act, or some Act of the kind, at a very disturbed time in Ireland, and I would ask the attention of the House to a passage from a speech made by Charles James Fox on that occasion, which illuminated the whole situation, and might be suitably remembered to guide our counsels to-day:that was so at the time that Mr. Redmond sat in this House—the time of the constitutional agitation in Ireland—"Human nature, is the same in all countries; if you prevent a man who feels himself aggrieved from declaring his sentiments, you force him to other expedients for redress. Do you think that you gain n proselyte where you silence a declaimer? No; you have only, by preventing the declaration of grievances in a constitutional way, forced men to more pernicious modes of coming at relief. In proportion as opinions are open, they are innocent and harmless. Opinions become dangerous to a State only when persecution makes it necessary for the people to communicate their ideas under the bond of secrecy. Do you believe it possible that the calamity which now rages in Ireland would have "come to its present height if the people had been allowed to meet and divulge their grievances? Yon alienate every heart whose voice you stifle: you drive men to correspondence with foreign nations, when you debar them from corresponding with you; and this was the case with Ireland. When she petitioned, addressed and remonstrated she had no power—"
"but when all these acts of insanity and rigour had been passed she rose from small meetings of mere petition to a concerted, armed and embodied union of 100,000 persons."
Quote Mr. Pitt's reply, which is just as relevant.
The argument, of my Noble Friend is that Mr. Fox's opinion was discarded. My answer to the Noble Lord is a simple one. Mr. Fox's advice was not taken; Mr. Pitt's was. Mr. Pitt's advice has been followed ever since, and it has been a failure.
I beg to second the. Amendment, moved so ably by my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not propose to deal again with the question of Ireland. He has dealt with that very thoroughly, and I will pass it by with this one comment, that I do not think it is necessary to inflict this injustice on Ireland. I believe it is a political crime to do so, and, in fact, I believe it is worse. I believe it is political stupidity to inflict this upon the Irish people. We have vigorously opposed this Bill now for four months. We fought as hard as we could. We are but a very small minority, but we have fought it on the floor of this House and in Committee with all the power that we could command, and I think I may claim that we have fought fairly. But we have opposed this Bill because we consider it an unnecessary measure, because we believe it violates every principle of liberty to which we attach very great importance, and we think it is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is an extraordinarily difficult Bill to understand. We had great difficulty in Committee. It deals with a large number of Acts of Parliament, and it deals with them by reference. Then you have Regulations, you have Orders in Council, and you have various other matters which yon have to dig out by reference. It is par excellence a Bill legislating by reference, and we have asked for an explanation from the Government as to when the Regulations are to come to an end. We are met by the statement that this Bill comes to an end on the 31st August. That is not what we want to know. It may be a Parliamentary score, but it is not really, fair on the part of the Government. They should tell us, and explain to us, exactly the position that we shall be in if and when we get the ratification of peace. If the ratification of peace does not come before the end of August, then I take it that this Bill, in so far as it relates to the Second Schedule, will never come into effect at all, and what are the Government going to do? When are we likely to get an Order in Council declaring the termination of the War? Is that likely to be before the 31st August, or after? I think we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to the position. I will address myself to the Bill. It is a thoroughly bad Bill. I object to it from the first word to the last word. I do not think there is one good provision in it. I will take the first Schedule, which seems to appeal to the law officers of the Crown as containing measures of benevolence, and, therefore, measures which should be continued. The Courts Emergency Powers Acts, I understand, are certain enactments which enable County Court judges and ethers in certain eases to grant exemption privileges to certain persons; that is, I believe, in cases of restraint and legal processes they may relieve certain persons of their obligations. That may be a reason to amend the ordinary law. It may be that the ordinary law is harsh in dealing with certain cases, but I want to protest here against giving anybody the power to discriminate between His Majesty's subjects when they come to a Court of Law. When we go to a Court of Law for justice is ought to be justice for one as well as justice for the other. Therefore, if you favour one class of litigants you must inflict injury upon the other class to whom you deny the right granted to the first. The Government, I believe, have lost sight of its early scholastic training. They have forgotten the old law of lynamics, which says that for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction; and for every favour you bestow on one man in this way, you inflict an injury upon the other. I do not think that is a principle which this House ought to allow to be established in a Bill of this sort. It may have been right during war time. It is certainly bad in peace time.
I come to the Second Schedule. It can fee divided into two heads—the one dealing with the Regulations concerning control, and the other with the Regulations which deal with restrictions on the liberty of the subject. In regard to the first, we have a control of, probably, the three vital necessaries of our daily life—coal, shipping and food. Control has not stopped the rise in prices. It is not possible by control, I believe, to prevent the rise in prices. Look at the position of shipping. We have had control for four or five years, yet we have had the freights mounting up until now they are five, eight, and ten times the size of pre-war times. We have had control of coal, and there is not a town in England to-day that it not short of coal. There is not a householder who is not complaining bitterly of incompetence and inefficiency in the distribution of coal. Every hon. Member knows quite well that that is so, for every Member, I have no doubt, has had complaints, as I have had, from his constituents in this matter. In regard to food, I do not want again to go into a detailed discussion of the food Regulations, but my objection to control is not that it prevents the producer or the farmer exploiting the public and extracting from the public a larger share of the profits, but that control is delaying the coming into force of those economic laws which will put the situation right. The Government is bound to tackle that problem sooner or later. The Government is bound to prevent the rise in the price of food. If it does not, the country will demand an explanation. I am quite certain that a proper fate will overtake it if the Government fails to reduce the cost of living. It will not reduce that cost by fining a poor shopkeeper for having sold an article at a few pence above the maximum price-That is dealing with the effect of the rise-But that rise has taken place, and the Government ought to deal with it. They have got to remove the cause of the rise in prices, and I recommend them, if they want to stop the rise in prices, to stop their borrowing. Let them stop creating inflated credit, and credits of all sorts. Let them establish a proper sinking fund for the redemption of their debts, and then they will begin to secure a reduction in the cost of living. Then, of course, the question of the rise in prices does not depend upon control, It depends, to a large extent, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, upon our foreign policy. Instead of trying to control the price and keep it down, inefficiently, it would probably be better if the Government took steps to import the article which was in short supply and create an abundance, because, until you get production or supply in excess of consumption you will not get your satisfactory reduction in price. I come to the question of the restriction of the liberty of the subject. During the whole of last century there was a tendency on the part of the Legislature to extend the freedom of the subject. Laws were relaxed. Freedom was granted. A free press and free speech were fully developed. That has had a very beneficial effect upon this country. Until the outbreak of the War we were the freest country in the world. Life and property was safer in this country than anywhere else. The policy of granting unrestricted freedom of the subject was fully justified. Are we on the eve of a reversal of that policy? Is it the intention of the Executive to curtail and filch away those principles which we have valued for so many years? Is this the beginning of applying to England the policy which has been applied to Ireland—a policy which, when once begun, is bound to increase in intensity? Is it a policy which will lead to the same state of affairs on this side of St. George's Channel, as, unfortunately, exists now on the other side? I hope not! I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, because I do not think it is any use further to appeal to this present House of Commons. During a good many centuries the House at the other end of the corridor, the House of Lords, stood for liberty. I think this cannot be denied! Certainly, up to a time when it was interfered with in the reign of Queen Anne by the creation of Peers to carry the iniquitous Treaty of Utrecht into effect, that House stood for the protection of the people's liberties against the encroachment of the Crown. They have within the last few months taken a new lease of life. I would only instance the Aliens Bill, where they stood for liberty against the arbitrary action of this House. I appeal to them to renew that function of the protection of the people's liberties in this case, and give the people cause to say, with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Liberal party, "Thank God for the House of Lords!"You may hope to get there one day!
I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I endeavour, in as short a time as possible, to reply to the attack which has been made upon me personally, and upon the Irish administration, for which I am primarily responsible to this House. Hon. Members who speak in a sphere of considerable safety and comfort are not speaking with any knowledge whatsoever of the realities of the situation in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Benn) spent about a week in Ireland. He went across to study the situation. So far as I know he saw no person who could explain to him the Government point of view. He came in contact with nobody who was in charge of the Administration, nor did he seek it. It is quite obvious with whom he had contact. Ho openly said he had got his information about me and the Administration from Sinn Feiners.
Really, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary for me to correct him as he goes along. Of course, I saw Sinn Feiners; but I saw bishops, archbishops and all sorts of other people as well.
I am quite prepared to admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's criticism might be fair, just, and legitimate were he dealing with a country where the conditions were the same as in this country. But one thing my hon. and gallant Friend seems to forget in his venom and fury is that the time when this country was in its darkest hour—indeed at no time was the country in greater danger!—was the moment the party which he seeks to defend and justify—do not let the House forget that!—assembled itself in its thousands—and had it not been for some misadventure at the last moment!—in its hundreds of thousands in order to stab this country and the Empire in the back. The salient fact of the rebellion is one which must be remembered when you are dealing with Irish conditions to-day. That rebellion was not stamped out. That rebellion left behind it a spirit far more malignant and far more revolutionary than the spirit of Ireland had ever been in its life. Do not let us forget that the condition of Ireland is the condition which is stated by the hon. Gentleman who is the spokesman of the Sinn Fein party in this House: the condition of Ireland is the condition of an armed country.
Hear, hear!
I am coming to that point. Every single man in Ireland who acknowledges the Sinn Fein doctrine which has been adumbrated in the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who firmly believes—
I cannot allow the Chief Secretary to say that I have defended the Sinn Fein policy of separation. It is ridiculous, because, of course, I have done nothing of the sort.
Let me get on! Every single man, anybody who holds any loyal doctrines of any sort of kind, is an enemy and a foe to Ireland. That is the condition. Sinn Feiners at the present moment regard themselves as the Irish Republic Government. No one knows that better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They issue their proclamations in the name of the Irish Republic. They go as far as to say that they have at least two hundred thousand volunteers whom they have organised into an Irish Republican Army for treasonable, seditious, and murderous purposes. They believe themselves to be in possession of an entirely perfect system of Government. They have quite recently published a new oath of allegiance in, I believe, the Irish press; certainly in the English press. That oath makes it as plain as possible that every single member of the Sinn Fein organisation must disown, as the enemy of his country, anybody who is not a Sinn Feiner. What is more, they have their Army organised just as perfectly as the British Army was in France. They have their divisions, brigades, battalions, and the competent military authorities. The other day I had sent to me a proclamation headed, "The Irish Republican Brotherhood," and this is the sort of thing they issued:
"We hereby give notice that from this time forward any trading directly or indirectly either in the licensed premises or shop of the said Michael Walshe shall he considered as Dealing with the Police, and he suspected of giving information, and thereby considered as traitors and therefore shall be liable to the full penalty.
(Signed) On behalf of the competent military authorities,
I.R.A.
O.C.L.G."
The House may think that is a small point, but it is typical of the intimidation and terror which is being inspired among the people of Ireland by the Sinn Fein people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman taunted me with being a Liberal, but I always understood it was the first duty of a Minister of the Crown to maintain law and order. I am a Minister of the Crown, and so long as I am entrusted with the government of Ireland it will be my duty, which I shall perform faithfully, and as adequately as I can, to do my best to maintain law and order in order to preserve the lives of law-abiding citizens. The hon. and gallant Member opposite seems to forget the traditions of the past. He taunted me with having lost, all my Liberalism because I desired to enforce these Regulations in Ireland. I remember that even the Crimes Act of 1887, which was passed after forty-one days' discussion here, was taken almost word for word from the legislative enactments of Mr. Gladstone.
Mr. Gladstone opposed it, and moved its rejection on the Third Reading.
Mr. Gladstone had enacted almost every Clause of the Crimes Act of 1887. When he was in power and felt that crime should be sup pressed, he used every power to repress it, and when the Unionists came in he condemned coercion merely to score a party point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has repeatedly given a great number of cases, but he has never dealt with the Irish situation. He produced the case of a boy or a girl who has been arrested for selling flags. I cannot remember which these cases are, naturally, because I have a great many to deal with, but what I find in the case often quoted is that in the case of girls soiling flags they are offered the chance of being bound over in their own recognisances, but they refuse.
Is that an offence?
Were I to declare that it was no offence you would find a statement published in all the Irish papers that a Minister of the Crown says it is no crime to refuse to recognise the Courts of His Majesty.
What did Carson do?
The difficulties of the Irish Government have been enoremously increased because of the venomous and virulent attack of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Benn) upon the present Administration. These people regard him as an ex-Minister of the Crown, and as being of much greater importance in the councils of the nation than we do. If murders do take place to-morrow, and attempts are made upon the lives of officials who are loyally endeavouring to perform their duty, I should not be surprised that they would be inspired to do that by the venomous attacks of the hon. and gallant Member.
On a point of Order. I submit that the Chief Secretary has no right to say that I have inspired anyone to commit an outrage. It is not right, and it is not true.
I never said anything of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did'." and "No."] I said that I should not be at all surprised if after accounts of this debate have been read to-morrow the lives of many officials in Ireland are endangered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman comes forward with these trumpery cases. Has he ever tried to look at the other side of the question? Has he realised that last week 49 raids have been made by the Sinn Feiners, and does he know what that means? Does he realise what it means in the dead of night for 100 masked men to go about prepared to take the life of a lonely woman and breaking into places where they think they can get arms. Never a word of sympathy for a poor woman like that comes from the hon. and gallant Gentleman or for the relatives and friends of those gallant soldiers and civilians who lose then lives. What do those, men raid houses for? Is it to procure arms to decorate their houses? Why do they assemble in companies and battalions? Is it for the love of England or for the love of law and order? Why do they do it? What is the reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? There is but one explanation, and he knows it. It is that they are endeavouring to collect those arms to murder, mutilate and destroy the law-abiding citizens of the country. Am I to stand by and not ask for the granting of powers by which I can maintain law and order? The hon. and gallant Gentleman drew a picture of a raid by the police and the military the other day on a house, and I cannot remember what the offence was, but this House was asked to weep tears over the conduct of the police and the military in that case. The police and the military have to perform duties very often which they may not care to do, but they do perform those duties splendidly, loyally, and well.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not produce a much more recent case. He did not produce the case of the murder of the mother of thirteen children by masked and armed men the other day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman brings forward some trumpery case where the police and the military have been endeavouring to do their duty, and he exaggerates it, but not for a moment will he turn to the brutal side of Irish life, in which crime, murder and intimidation are rampant. The poor and the law-abiding are those who are suffering. The hon. and gallant Gentleman usually takes the line that by repression you increase crime, but everybody knows that you cannot repress what does not exist. What are the facts? Before the rebellion we had many years of Liberal administration, and after the rebellion a Royal Commission was appointed to report to this Assembly and to Parliament upon the matters which led up to the rebellion. Up to that time the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit seditious speeches were made and outrages were committed, and battalions and brigades were permitted to drill. A Commission was appointed, consisting of Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, Sir Montague Shearman and Sir Mackenzie Dalzell Chalmers, and this was the result of their deliberations:That is a careful statement by three men who investigated the situation in Ireland. It was their conclusion that if you allowed seditious utterances and crimes to go on, if you allowed outrages to be committed, you did not stop crime and murder, but it continued to increase. The result was that you had open rebellion in 1916. It is true that, after the rebellion, a great many men were deported to this country without trial. Some were tried by court-martial and some were shot, but immediately afterwards there was an amnesty and they were allowed to come back. The moment they came back they started, not to be friendly towards Great Britain, but very much the reverse; and surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is that these men ought never to have been allowed to get into that state of open rebellion and open sedition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman never mentions raids upon police barracks. In the last fortnight, certainly within the last month, there have been nearly twenty of them, conducted with arms and many of the implements used in war, not by a few men, but by large numbers of men carefully congregated and carefully-selected. It is quite obvious we are up against a tremendously dangerous situation in Ireland, and only this morning I received letters from Loyalists in the south and west of Ireland begging that steps be taken by the Government to get them out of a country so dangerous as that part has become to those who are endeavouring to abide within the law. In Ireland no man need fear the law, nor, indeed, any of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, providing he is a law-abiding citizen. Even under my Administration, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman probably thinks is the worst of all Administrations, no man need fear the law if he obeys it. The law of the United Kingdom and Ireland is the law of the realm, and if it is broken—if either the criminal or the common law is broken—it is the obvious duty of the Irish Administration to vindicate it, and neither the Lord Lieutenant nor myself would be worthy of our positions if we did not endeavour by every means in our power to vindicate that law. The hon. and gallant Gentleman draws attention to the fact that Ireland alone has to endure the bulk of the Regulations. I do not know whether he realises that Canada has issued an even worse Regulation than the worst under the Defence of the Realm Act. I will read to the hon. and gallant Gentleman one which was passed on the 7th July, 1919:—"It appears to us that reluctance was shown by the Irish Government to repress by prosecution written and spoken seditious utterances and to suppress the drilling and manœuvring of armed forces known to be under the control of men who were openly declaring their hostility to Your Majesty's Government and their readiness to welcome and assist Your Majesty's enemies. This reluctance was largely promoted by the pressure brought to bear by the Parliamentary representatives of the Irish people, and in Ireland there developed a widespread belief that no repressive measures would be undertaken by the Government against sedition. This led to a rapid increase of preparations for insurrection and was the immediate cause of the recent outbreak. We are of opinion that from the commencement of the present War all seditious utterances and publications should have been firmly suppressed at the outset, and if juries and magistrates were found unwilling to enforce this policy further powers should have been invoked under the existing Acts for the Defence of the Realm,"
is guilty of an offence under this Act. Here you have not only political and treasonable associations, but industrial associations condemned by the Canadian Government."Any association, organisation, society or corporation whose purpose or professed purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury…"
Have they the powers of 18A?
I venture to say that not one of our powers—
It is not a question of one Regulation. It is a question of the whole of the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act.
This is a Regulation passed by a progressive and great Dominion within our Empire, and it is infinitely more stringent than any Regulation which we are asking this House to pass. The Regulation to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred is a Regulation prohibiting illegal assembly, and illegal assembly in Ireland is a political and treasonable assembly, but the Canadian Regulation which I have quoted goes beyond that and prohibits an assembly which may be an industrial assembly.
What about the Winnipeg strike?
That was settled by means of this Regulation, and I ask the House to remember that fact. It shows obviously that within the United Kingdom and within the Empire, there are conditions prevailing infinitely worse than there may be in England. The conditions prevailing in Canada might be as bad almost as the conditions in Ireland, but in Canada at any rate the Government had the courage to get the House of Representatives to pass what, in my judgment, is a very severe Regulation indeed. I apologise to the House for occupying its time so long. Before I sit down I would like to refer for one moment to cases which my hon. and gallant Friend referred to. A great deal of capital is being made out of the deportation of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. But we all know very well that there was no prospect of any sort or kind of this man becoming Lord Mayor of Dublin until he was deported, yet that is the kind of thing on which my hon. and gallant Friend likes to enlarge. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has also talked as if by executive order I had sent police constables to the Dublin Mansion House and taken the Lord Mayor out of the Council Chamber and deported him without trial. The facts are very much the reverse. With their usual perversity, the Dublin Corporation, the moment they found that this man could not be present at a Council meeting, appointed him Lord Mayor. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me what was the charge against him. I told him. I told him that, along with a great many others, he was deported out of Ireland under Regulation B, which is a Regulation preventing people from conducting themselves prejudicially to the best interests of the subject and of the Government.
Are you going to bring him to trial?
There is no intention of bringing him or any of them to trial. They will be kept here under that Regulation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to rake up an old case; the case of Pierce McCann. I had nothing to do with that case. The man was sent to prison and was deported, and died in hospital. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the testimonials which were given as to his character. Such testimonials are quite easily got in Ireland. I will bring forward another case—the case of a man who was known to have been an Irish Volunteer. Recently an attempt was made upon His Excellency's life. This man was shot, and his friends said he was a most excellent citizen. But that man, on the morning of the attempted murder, went to Mass with bombs and revolvers in his pockets and murder in his heart. He was shot by the police. That is the sort of thing which, if it had occurred on the other side, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would no doubt abuse. I make bold to say that no reliance can be placed upon any such testimonials to character. The doings of the Sinn Fein body at the present time are deep and dark. The hon. and gallant Gentleman recently went to Ireland, and probably he came away with the impression in his mind that these men were eager for great political ideals; yet very likely the very men of whom he formed that view were, even while he was in another part of Ireland, engaged in a conspiracy to murder. He pretends that Sinn Fein is not responsible. But everybody knows that it is responsible for these murders. I referred a moment ago to the murder of Mrs. Morris. The evidence given was that the leader of the Sinn Fein gang assembled his colleagues that night and said:
Nobody in Ireland doubts the fact that Sinn Fein is responsible. Nobody in Ireland with any patriotic tendencies at all doubts the fact that Sinn Fein has at least 200,000 of these men who are prepared to murder loyal subjects at any hour of the day or night. No one doubts the fact that, so strong and so determined is that force that the maintenance of law and order becomes a great duty on the part of those who represent the Government there. It is only in this cool, calm and serene atmosphere that speeches of the kind we have heard to-day can be tolerated at all. If my hon. and gallant Friend, day in and day out, had to meet with nothing but murder, nothing but outrage and nothing but crime, I am certain he would soon alter his tone and not vituperate those who are endeavouring to maintain law and order, so that every law-abiding citizen, who wishes to go about his duties with freedom to life and limb, shall be allowed to do so. So long as the outpost of Empire—and Ireland is a very Troublesome outpost— is regarded by the House of Commons and by the people of this country as an integral part of the United Kingdom and Empire, so long we will maintain the Empire's law and the Empire's order, and if, in the days to come, the United Kingdom says that the separation which these people in Ireland wish must come, then my duty will be over."Boys, we must have a raid to-night. The Sinn Fein Club wants money and arms."
The right hon. Gentleman opened his speech with a duel with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the action of the Liberal party and of Liberals in this House. We Labour men are not concerned as to whether people are merely influenced by being out of office or in; the view we are concerned with is that every statement that my right hon. Friend has made from that box to-day affords the clearest justification for the action which we are adopting. He informed the House that the Sinn Feiners were as well trained and as well disciplined as the British Army. That was his own statement, and he asked the House to make the deduction from that statement that armed forces, so well prepared and so well disciplined, and so ready, were the danger that he had to contend with in Ireland at this moment. I will just read an extract to the House which will show exactly that the difficulty he himself complains of to-day is a direct result of the Government of Ireland in the past. I have here a speech by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, delivered in January, 1914, which almost states word for word what my right hon. Friend is complaining of to-day. Speaking at Bedford, he said:
6.0 P.M. The right hon. Gentleman said he unfortunately had to administer and give effect to some things which were the direct result of things he was not responsible for. If he is justified to-day in telling the House and the public that the real danger, so far as this Empire is concerned, is this trained army, now under Sinn Fein, are we not entitled to say that is the direct result of the preparations for the arming of those who are members of the Government to-day? In other words what earthly use is it going to the Irish people and saying, "It is wrong, it is contrary to law, for you to mobilise an army," when they can turn round and say members of the present Government were themselves advocating that policy?"The Ulster Volunteer Force is the most wonderful creation of modern times. You are told the British Army is to be used against you. I cannot believe that this terrible thing will be done, but you are pre-paring an army which I believe, in its personnel, training and equipment, to be in no way inferior to the best army they can put in the field. You are wise and prudent to go on with this wonderful preparation, as it can be used in any emergency."
How many murders have they committed?
You have heard to-day from the right hon. Gentleman the statement that in spite of all the coercion, in spite of all the pressure, in spite of ail the police and 35,000 troops in Ireland, Ireland is in a worse condition to-day that he has ever known it before. That is an admission of the bankruptcy of government so far as Ireland is concerned. Regulation 55 is deleted so far as this country is concerned, and it is made applicable to Ireland. If Regulation 55 was made applicable to this country, it would be competent for the Government to arrest anyone without trial and without charge. I do not think it is fair for my right hon. Friend to twit those who disagree with the Government policy as inciting to murder or violence or anything else, because if that attitude was adopted it simply means that the Government is to do just what it likes and no one is to criticise its action. We are entitled to say first that the administration in Ireland up to now has proved a failure, and whether he be an Englishman or an Irishman there ought to be no power to enable him to be arrested without a charge being preferred against him. We limit ourselves to the simple fact that if these men are guilty of any offence it is the moral duty of the Government not only to enforce the law but immediately to put them on their trial and make a charge against them. So long as you in this House of Commons support a policy that enables you to arrest men without any charge, there is bound to be discontent and dissatisfaction.
Were it not that the situation is so tragic in regard to our unfortunate country it would indeed be rather amusing to listen to the two right hon. Gentlemen squabbling over the corpse of Ireland on the dissecting table of the House of Commons. Both the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) are aliens to Ireland. Each has accused the other of being an alien. Subsequent to a recent by-election the Chief Secretary sneered at the hon. and gallant Gentleman and said he was an alien to Leith. At any rate he proved that he has more connection with Leith than ever the present Chief Secretary has or will have with Ireland. Furthermore, I think the taunt thrown at the hon. and gallant Gentleman that ho did not face the front in Ireland did not lie very well in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, who did not take the same part during the War as was taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But after all what does this all amount to? Here is Ireland once more being made the shuttlecock of British party politics. We have one hon. Member saying at one time, "Mr. Gladstone said coercion was good for Ireland." We have another hon. Gentleman retorting that at another time Mr. Gladstone said coercion should not be put into force in Ireland. What Mr. Gladstone said at one time or another does not concern me in the slightest. I am here as an Irish Nationalist not caring a row of pins what either British party think concerning their treatment of Ireland. All British parties, whether Liberal or Conservative, at all times have proved their utter incapacity to govern Ireland. That is proved more than ever by the condition of Ireland today. The Chief Secretary has given us, I think, a very accurate description of the lamentable condition of that country. Before he came to that part of his speech he made the statement that there were hundred of thousands of Irishmen in the Irish rebellion.
I said thousands were actually engaged in it.
How many were engaged in the rebellion in Dublin in 1916? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the number from the Hardinge Report which he has in that box. I do not believe there were 1,500. No one can surely accuse me of having any sympathy with it, considering that I was in another place at the time, and that subsequent to that I fought two elections against the people who were associated with the rebellion. At the same time, I will not have it stated by the Chief Secretary or anyone else that it was a case of thousands of Irish people in 1916 desiring to overthrow British supremacy in Ireland by physical force. Nothing of the kind. What took place was that a small and hitherto not very powerful section of people in Dublin, for one reason or another thrown together, and having arrived at the conclusion that force was the only remedy in face of the constant breach of faith of British Governments, determined to have recourse to force in the streets of Dublin. When the rebellion took place it was condemned in all quarters. It was condemned by people who are to-day Sinn Feiners. It was the subsequent attitude of the Government, and the subsequent acts of cruelty and repression on the part of the Government that drove the people of Ireland into the attitude they have adopted to such a large extent to-day. That is common history. The Chief Secretary said the rebellion was not stamped out. I agree with him. The Government stamped the notion of rebellion into the hearts of the Irish people, and, furthermore, by their shootings of men without trial, and their deportation of hundreds of people, many of whom were proved subsequently to have been innocent, they enraged the feelings of the Irish people and goaded them into the unfortunate attitude that so many of them adopt in regard to the methods for bringing about their legislative freedom to-day. The Chief Secretary gave us a long recital of the unfortunate outrages and murders which have taken place in Ireland. I could give perhaps just as long a recital as he has given. We have as much, if not more, reason to regret those outrages than even he has because, Chief Secretary as he is, we live in Ireland more than he does, and we are more intimately concerned with the condition of that country. But much as we regret the state of affairs there, and though we agree with the facts as generally enumerated by him, he has never once suggested throughout the whole course of his rather lengthy observation how he is going to remedy that state of affairs. He tells us Ireland is in a worse condition than it ever was. Granted. The question we have put to him over and over again is, Is it by coercion that you are going to remedy that? Has coercion ever remedied it in the past? Has repression ever remedied it? Has the prevention of freedom of speech, of public assembly, and of the expression of political views brought about a remedy when a similar state of affairs has existed in the past? Of course, he knows that such is not the case. He knows that every measure of coercion in Ireland has brought the country to a worse position than previously, unless some subsequent measures of ameliorative reform, such as the various Land Acts and Labourers Acts were passed for the benefit of the people. The Chief Secretary is exceedingly glib in his recital of the conditions in Ireland. He said that he is out to maintain law and order in Ireland. No one wants him to maintain law and order more than I do. How is he maintaining it? Is there law and order to-day in Ireland? Is there more law and order than there was twelve months ago? Is it likely, with the prolongation of those Regulations, that there will be more law and order in Ireland this day twelve months than there is to-day? He states that Canada has a much worse measure than this. For a measure to be worse than this, this must be bad. If this measure is bad, he says the Canadian one is worse. My answer is that Canada has its own choice, and it is the Canadian people who have brought in their own measure for the future of their country. It is not the Irish people who are bringing in the present measure. You are doing it, and you should not have the right to fix the future conditions and welfare of our country. If we had a Parliament of our own in Dublin, and if we chose to bring in what the Chief Secretary has described as a worse measure, then it would be our own business. This is not our business at all. It is a measure which is being forced upon Ireland by representatives of other portions of the United Kingdom.
The Chief Secretary recited various horrible occurrences which have taken place in Ireland. That is true. I am the last person to say that the present conditions in Ireland are not almost beyond despair so far as crime is concerned; but it is only fair to say that the Irish people have been exasperated, goaded, and driven into a state of desperation by the acts of the Government. See what happened yesterday in Dublin. A boy called Staines, who is the brother of a Sinn Fein Member of Parliament, was concerned in the case. He is only 16 years of age and his brother is in gaol. The boy was living with his mother, and the house was raided by the police, under these Regulations I presume, and a few documents were discovered which smacked of the Sinn Fein strain. The boy was brought before one of the city magistrates in Dublin, a most competent, fair-minded and liberal man, and when the charge was made under these Regulations to implicate this lad, the magistrate declared that he saw no connection between the documents that had been found in the house and the charge against the boy. He adjourned the case for half an hour, saying that he would consider what he would have to do under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations. "When he came back in the Court, he said that there was no course open to him under these Regulations at the instance of the police, but to send this lad of 16 to gaol for a month for being in a house in which documents were found which were in no way connected with him. That is the statement of the case which appears in the Dublin newspapers which arrived here last night. Perhaps the Chief Secretary does not read the Dublin papers. I do. This is only one instance of the methods of exasperation that are going on in Ire land. I think it was the "Times" newspaper which stated recently that in their opinion there was some form of conspiracy to endeavour to prevent anything in the nature of an amicable settlement being arrived at in regard to Ireland. I am very much afraid that that must be so. I have come to the conclusion that there are certain parties in this country who are doing all in their power to frustrate anything in the nature of a true union between your country and ours. I have come to the conclusion that there are certain people in this country who want another Amritsar, and perhaps it may take place. The only chance for any well-meaning Government to remedy the present state of affairs is to give the people of Ireland what they have been cheated out of for the last five years, and that is the right that they constitutionally won after two general elections, and which was embodied in an Act of His Majesty's Parliament. We are told that a Home Rule Bill is to be introduced. This is a nice manner in which to prepare for the reception of a Home Rule Bill. It was the same in regard to other proposed settlements of the Irish question during the war. When the Convention made its majority report, the Prime Minister came down to this House on the same day that the report was issued, and said that the Government were going to force conscription upon Ireland. To-day we have the Government with one hand offering a so-called measure of self-government to Ireland, and on the other hand we have them, with their agency of coercion, saying that at all costs law and order in their acceptance of the term must be maintained. It may interest the House to hear a statement which was recently issued by Cardinal Logue in an interview, which he gave to an American correspondent. In that interview he is reported as saying:There is the kernel of the present state of affairs in Ireland. You are seeking to coerce us into submission into the acceptance of a measure which you know no part of the Irish people demand. You are endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the British as well as the American people by offering us something in Ireland which is practically only fit for the waste-paper basket, and at the same time you are perpetuating a system of coercion which will make things worse in the next decade even than they have been in the last."I am convinced that if a satisfactory measure of Home Rule were introduced the people would accept it; but it must be one measure applied to the whole of Ireland. The present regime of repression, deportations and reprisals will continue so long as Britain denies this."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this Debate (Captain Benn) said that if the House passed this Bill it would prompt the Government to defer the solution of several very urgent problems. One of my objections to this Bill is that it continues without any discussion the Daylight Saving Act. One hon. and learned Gentleman said that was an uncontroversial matter. I can assure the Government that it is not so. There are two opinions as to whether or not the Act ought to be continued in its present form, and any hon. Member who happens to represent an agricultural constituency will agree with me that this Act has not met with the approval of agriculturists, either of farmers or farm workers. I very strongly object to an Act of that nature being continued under the Regulations contained in this Bill. I have other objections to this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Redmond) has suggested that Ireland to-day is merely a shuttle-cock between British politicians. I can assure him that that is not so, so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is concerned, and certainly not so so far as I am concerned. We deplore what is taking place in Ireland. When we look to the past we must lay the blame on the shoulders of those who are responsible for the circumstances under which the present situation has arisen. Let us recall what was said by Members of the present Government and by no less a person than the Lord Chancellor in 1913. He said:
That is the Lord Chancellor and hi" friends,"In certain circumstances they"
If that is not providing an example for lawlessness in Ireland I am unable to say what is. The Chief Secretary said that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith merely exaggerated country cases, and paid no attention to the cases which he himself had brought forward. The cases brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith were in every sense just as good and as vital as those cited by the Chief Secretary. It has been said by the Chief Secretary that it is not repression that leads to crime. In my judgment, it is not lawlessness in Ireland that has given rise to coercion, but it is coercion that has given rise to lawlessness, and until the Government grasp that fact they will never settle the Irish problem. I object very strongly to the powers of search and arrest that are given to the Government under this Bill. The Chief Secretary quoted certain powers possessed by the Canadian Government which he said were stronger than those given to the Government under Article 18A. Can he inform the House that the powers of search and arrest under Regulation 55 are possessed by the Canadian Government? I very much doubt whether that is the case. What are the Government going to do when these powers lapse? This Act operates only until the 31st August, 1920. Is it suggested that self-government for Ireland will be in operation by that date?"would stand side by side with loyal Ulster, refusing to recognise any law and prepared with them to risk the collapse of the whole of the body politics to prevent this monstrous crime."
No.
Will the Solicitor-General inform us when he replies what is the intention of the Government? Is it proposed to come to this House for a Bill to continue powers and Regulations such as those under this Bill. For those reasons, if my hon. and gallant Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
I object to this Bill on several grounds. It contains a number of pettifogging silly measures which we could well do without. I may give as an example interference with small private traders, such as the prohibition of the sale of sweetmeats in theatres. A rather more serious power is the power to enter on land, seize trees and take them away at a Government valuation, against which the subject has no appeal. Then purely bureaucratic and extremely stupid Regulations are in many cases continued. I may refer to shipping control. Speaking as the representative of a great port, I Bay that it is not required, and that it tends to hamper trade and keep up freights. Another example, an Irish one, is that of flax control. We have fully discussed it in this House. A very charming gentleman from Armagh sent me in his card just now. I went into the Lobby and met four gentlemen from Armagh, flax growers. They impressed me very favourably indeed. They asked me to do what I could to get the hampering restrictions on the Irish farmer removed. They used extremely bitter arguments against the Government. I said: "We are taking the Third Reading of the Defence of the Realm Act Continuance Bill now, and we are told that this and other Regulations contained in the Bill are required for the good of Ireland." When they asked what I meant, I said: "To coerce your Sinn Fein fellow-countrymen"; and they said: "That is all right. Keep the Sinn Fein part of it on, but free the flax."' I think that on this matter Ireland is for once united. These four gentlemen told me that unless within the next few days they get some assurance from the Government with regard to Irish flax growers, they are not going to plant flax, and this will lead to a lot of unemployment and distress. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind and use his best endeavours to prevent this result.
The hon. Member for Lanark mentioned Russia. I do not think that I should be in order in referring to that, though certainly this whole flax trouble is due to the mistaken policy towards Russia of the hon. Member for Lanark and his Friends. Then there are great interferences with personal liberty which are intended for use against a class This is class legislation. It was the hon. and gallant Member for Reigate (Brigadier-General Cockerill), I believe, who did great service in the War, who told us in the Debate on the Report stage that it was absolutely necessary to keep on the power in this country of arrest and search, and this extraordinary Regulation, 18a, because of foreign agents. He told us with great pride of the wonderful organisation of the censorship of cables and letters, and the international exchange of information which had been built up during the War and defeated the machinations of the German spies. And it is necessary to keep it on now, not against Germany, but some other power. The hon. and gallant Member is not actively engaged in this work now, but I would submit to him that in all countries engaged in this War there has been built up an enormous organisation of counter espionage, and these people have got a vested interest in keeping their jobs going. The work is extraordinarily interesting. I saw a great deal of it myself during the War on the staff, and they naturally want to keep it going, and there is a sort of tacit understanding among them that they are going to be very careful to watch each other and to make out an excellent case to show that the Hush-Hush Service is vitally necessary for the defence of the Empire and for each respective country. Therefore we are told by the Government that this right of search and arrest under 18A is required in this country. Nothing of the sort. The Government know that it is class legislation. It is aiming at what they are pleased to call Bolshevism. I have never heard a definition of this terrible disease. Anyone whom you disagree with is called a Bolshevik, and there is an end of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) asked for a definition and has not got it. It seems to be a terrible disease, afflicting the working classes, and this is what these regulations are required for. They are not going to work a cure of general unrest among the working classes. That is going to be cured only by better conditions and more liberal treatment. I now come to the worst portion of the whole Bill: that is, the Irish portion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Irish rebellion. I was serving at sea at the time. He said there were thousands of Irishmen who did not rebel because their hearts failed them—a mean and despicable argument. Anyone who has ever served with Irishmen knows that they are brave as, or braver, than any English people. It was not cowardice which kept these people back.I assure the House that I never said anything of the kind.
He said, what will be seen in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, that their hearts failed them—a mean and despicable sneer. You may disagree with these men and call them murderers if you like. These men who are prosperous need hardly spend their time in plotting against the Govern merit. You may abuse them to any extent, but they are not cowards.
I said nothing of the kind. The hon. Member will see what I said to-morrow. "By some misadventure," I said.
Their consciences failed them.
I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept his withdrawal of course. Debates like this have been taking place for years, not only in this House but in the German Reichstag over Poland and Schleswig-Holstein, in the Hungarian Parliament; over the subject nationalities of Hungary, and while people are oppressed in any country by Imperial ism, as Ireland is oppressed by British Imperialism, these Debates will continue, and abuse by the Government about murders and crime will not help us. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. The hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, has been referred to. He was arrested before he was Lord Mayor. Even Unionist members of the Council selected him Lord Mayor afterwards. He was arrested on the charge, as the right hon. Gentleman told me in answer to a question, of being suspected of having acted, or being about to act, contrary to law. I ask hon. Members to forget for the moment their political platform. Here you have a totally new crime, new to me, and, I hope, new to all of us, of being suspected of being about to act contrary to law. Under that a man who is a philanthropist and a good citizen, who is respected everywhere and is a credit to any city in the world, a man of the highest character, is arrested. He is spirited off to England. For a time his relations do-not know where he is. Eventually it is admitted that he is in Wormwood Scrubs. The Chief Secretary, in answer to a question in this House, said that he is not going to be brought to trial, and his comrades are not going to be brought to trial.
Whatever the crimes committed on one side they do not justify this. It does not, maintain law and order in Ireland. Things there are going from bad to worse. This is not going to keep law and order in Ireland. I believe that the more this is continued, the more you will do to increase crime. Hon. Members may not know it, but I believe that the votes given by Members in favour of this measure to-night will do move to cause deaths of innocent people than 50,000 speeches here or anywhere else. It is a sad thing to find the whole of Ireland in such trouble at the present moment, and I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech in defence of his Administration. These raids in the dead of night against 400 people, entering their houses by force, turning women in a delicate state of health out of their beds, ripping up mattresses, searching for incriminating documents, is that keeping law and order? Are these things which keep law and order or redound to the credit of our Administration or of our race? No, it is not meant to keep law and order. It is meant to stir up crime. The words of the hon. Baronet opposite, Sir F. Banbury, during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, "then Home Rule need not be given to Ireland," will, I hope, appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I hope that they were heard in the Reporters' Gallery, because really they give away the whole of the Government case in regard to Ireland. It is intended to stir up trouble in Ireland. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman himself would wish to have a massacre and mow down people with machine guns, but I say that there are men in Ireland who do. They do not care twopence what happens as long as they can prevent Home Rule for Ireland. They have got the right hon. Gentleman in their pocket. The other day there was a meeting in the Albert Hall, and an hon. Member calling himself the Vice-President of Ireland, the hon. Member for East Cavan (Mr. Griffith) made a speech. He stated to an audience of 10,000 people that the real governing power in Ireland was the Assistant Under-Secretary, Sir John Taylor, and that Sir John Taylor—I would like a denial of this—was connected with the "Times" newspaper during the Parnellism and crime period, that he wrote or prepared the articles for the "Times" which were intended to connect the Nationalist constitutional party of that time with the crime that was then going on in Ireland. If that be the case—I am told that there is not a word of truth in it.
I am very glad to hear it. The man who made that statement is not a firebrand, he is not a romantic; he does not show the Celtic temperament, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and myself do. He speaks deliberately and coolly, and he declared that, and I think there is some reason for the suspicion. This is what people believe in Ireland. They believe that what is desired is at all costs to discredit the cause of Irish freedom. That is why I say that these powers should not be left in the hands of such an Administration. The Administration is not competent, it has not kept law and order, and things are going from bad to worse. The riots at Fermoy and Thurles, in which, I am sorry to say, the police and the military took part, had not been condemned, as far as I know, by any leader of opinion on the Government side. I know that the British soldiers over there hate the work they have to do. It is unfair to ask these men, many of whom have fought bravely in the War, to do such work. That sort of treatment and the whole attitude of the authorities are combining all classes and all creeds against the Government. In the last few days I have spoken to a number of fellow naval officers who are of Irish birth—three to be exact. They came, one from the North, one from the centre, and one from the South of Ireland. I will give the right hon. Gentleman their names, in private, if he wishes it. They come from Irish land-owning families which have been Unionist for generations. I talked to them at some length about the conditions in Ireland. They did not talk about the murders; they did not condemn them; they did not condemn even Sinn Fein. They deplored the condition of things in Ireland, but their invective was kept for the Government. That is the most extraordinary part of it. They spoke in tones of sympathy for the Sinn Fein movement. They said they did not believe the murders were committed with the knowledge of the leaders of Sinn Fein. They hinted that certain of these murders were deliberately concocted by agents provocateurs.
That is the state of things in Ireland. These things ought to be said, and it is our duty to say them. I give my word that what I am saying is true. You have succeeded in uniting Ireland—excluding perhaps a few in the North-East—you have succeeded in uniting nine-tenths of the Irish people against you in hatred of England. That is the tragedy of the position. The Irish are people who, if they had been treated properly, would have been loyal, peaceful and worthy citizens, as such men are in our Colonies and in the United States. Let me give one instance. A man named Savage was killed in the fighting after the attempt made on the life of His Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant. That man's brother served in the Australian Navy. There you have one man living in an atmosphere of liberty who does good service; the other, living under the oppressive rule in Ireland, attempts to commit a dastardly murder on the King's representative in Dublin. That is what this Legislation leads to. I hope hon. Members will think carefully before they vote for it. It is not we here—as the right hon. Gentleman accused my hon. and gallant Friend—living in safety who do it. My hon. and gallant Friend, at any rate, was not living in safety during the whole of the War. It is not we who incite to murder or who palliate murder, but hon. Members who support the Government in this repressive Legislation; it is hon. Members who vote to-night in favour of the Third Heading of this Bill. They may not be conscious of it, but they are as guilty as the humble instruments who have to put this Law into force in Ireland. I have spoken plainly. I hope I have not hurt the feelings of any hon. Member. I feel as strongly about this as anyone can.The point has been made that where it is desirable to continue any provisions under this Bill, it would be far better that they should be the subject of separate legislation. I want to refer to one of those provisions. It is that which relates to the coal mines. We have now passing through this House a Bill for the purpose of dealing with coal mines. Whatever power you are seeking to retain under this Bill could have been transferred to the Bill dealing with coal mines. I think the point should have the special attention of the representative of the Government who replies to the Debate. There are other provisions of a similar character which might very easily and wisely become the subject' of special legislation. In reference to what has been said about Ireland, I wish to say that I recognise that the Secretary for Ireland has a very difficult task. The Chief Secretaryship is, and has always been, one of the most difficult positions to fill in any Government, and probably at no time was that task more difficult than it is now. The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly has to cope with a legacy of mis-government in the past. The prevalence of violence in Ireland is due to the fact that we have not recognised the right of Ireland to govern herself. Any man who has any knowledge of the Irish question, especially since the days of Parnell, must have come to the conclusion that the present state of affairs in that country is due to the fact that one part of the constitution in this country refused to sanction a Bill that passed through this House years ago to give Home Rule to Ireland. If the other House had passed the first Home Rule Bill I think Ireland would have been in a state of peace and prosperity to-day. Ireland has ceased to trust us; she has no faith in any promise we make. We remember the awful conditions in Ireland at the time of Isaac Butt. Charles Stewart Parnell and Mr. Redmond, by their wise leadership, brought the country to a state of tranquillity, and then it ought to have been the pleasure of this country to have granted a measure of free-government to Ireland. If the psychological moment in the history of Ireland had been used by British Statesmen we would not have had enacted the crimes that trouble us to-day.
7.0. P.M. Therefore, all responsibility for the state of unrest in Ireland must be placed, not on Ireland alone, but upon the shoulders of those people who had not statesmanship and foresight enough to give to Ireland the measure of freedom she ought to have had. There has been passed through this House a series of Acts designed for the repression of crime in Ireland. I think everyone on the Opposition Benches believes in the repression of crime. What we do not believe in is the repression of the aspirations of the Irish people for liberty and freedom. We will not support the Government in any act whatever which seeks to prevent Irishmen from giving free expression to their political opinions. We have honoured in this country men who have come from foreign lands, men like Garibaldi and Mazzini, who were fighting for the liberty of their country against the oppression of the foreign foe. I would like to say that as far as the Labour party are concerned, we would to-day be in precisely the position in which the Irishmen are if the Germans had been lucky enough to win the War and to impose their will on Ireland. What Englishmen would have been worthy of his salt if he had sat down quietly and complacently under the rule of a foreign yoke such as the Germans might have imposed upon them? If we had been guilty of perpetrating the crimes that are supposed to be perpetrated by Irishmen now against the present Government, if we had done a similar thing in this country and had the German yoke upon us, I venture to say that hon. Members opposite, who are condemning Irishmen because they are taking part in these political struggles, would hail with delight similar action in our own country if those actions were designed to get rid of a foreign foe. But even if that is so, I do not for a moment believe that Irishmen are fighting their case the best way when they have resort to crime. I believe that the whole testimony of the Irish case from beginning to end is that you cannot repress the aspirations of the Irish people for liberty and the right to determine their own form of government, by these powers which you are seeking to obtain under this Bill. The whole history of Ireland tells us that you will not succeed this way. You have the right to say to us, what would we do, and that is a position which we should face. I do not know exactly what position is being taken up by those who represent Ireland in this House, or by His Majesty's Government, except as represented in the Bill which has been introduced. I do know that during the War we proclaimed to the world that we were fighting for the right of small nations to determine their own political destiny, and I believe you will never settle the Irish question until you allow Irishmen themselves to determine what form of government they are going to have in their own land. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Republic."] If it is to be a Republic, why should they not have a Republic? I would like, to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. What right have we to impose our will upon Ireland, any more than—The hon. Member is getting rather far from the question. We are not dealing with the Irish question generally, but as to the application of certain Acts to Ireland.
Instead of seeking to retain powers for the purpose of governing Ireland, it would be far better to face the whole situation and let lreand determine its own form of government. I believe that you will strengthen our Empire by giving each separate part the right to determine whether it will remain part of the Empire or not, and we will never have a strong and complete Empire and loyal Empire so long as we use any form of repressive measures to make one part or any part remain inside the Empire. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not really attempt to answer the charges which were made by the Mover of the Amendment. He did not seek to explain them, but brushed them aside as trivial and trumpery. If there has been a miscarriage of justice in Ireland upon even a girl or boy, I think the right hon. Gentleman should have a thorough investigation made of each case, and where he finds that there has been that miscarriage of justice and that his servants have been over-zealous, he himself ought to acknowledge that fact, so that, as far as possible, he shall renew in the Irish people that measure of confidence that they might have in his government if they found that when he ascertained his servants had made a mistake, he was quite prepared to recognise that mistake and to try, as far as possible, to avoid having it made again.
I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentlemen who Moved and Seconded. These Regulations have a very prejudicial effect on the commerce of Ireland at the present time. In the north of Ireland, where I come from, flax control is causing very serious trouble. Outside the doors of this Chamber just now there is a deputation which is trying to interview the most responsible Minister of the Government on this subject. In Ireland, and particularly in Ulster, flax control so shackles and so limits the price to the producer that it is inflicting very grave injustice on the producers of flax. I have here a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting held in Belfast on Friday last, which was mainly composed of very loyal supporters of the Empire:
I think there, ought to be a reply immediately on this question of flax control. There is no commercial reason, or reason of policy, why this control should continue, and flax in Ulster and all over the country should be free. If it were, the producer would get three times the present price, and in England and elsewhere the producers are getting three times the price received by the Ulster producers. The Control Board, which sits somewhere in London, is composed largely of spinners, and there is very little representation for the producer who is a farmer. The Board sees that the spinners get the bulk of the profits. They have benefited to a very great extent, and in fact huge fortunes have been made by spinners within the last two or three years, as a result of this, shall I say, for want of a better expression, "wangling" of prices of flax? Only the other day, in the County of Down, a farmer brought his flax to the market in the belief that he could sell or not, as he pleased, but he was told by the police that he must sell, and at the particular price at which his flax was graded. He refused and said he would take it home. A riot was almost precipitated in the market, and subsequently the unfortunate farmer was brought before a Court under the Defence of the Realm Act and fined £5 for refusing to sell his flax at an unfair and unjust price. There is another matter to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the export of potatoes. Inspectors were appointed to see that the Army got the right class of potatoes, and those inspectors put certain prices on and no man dare export a potato out of Ireland without a licence from the Department of Agriculture, which is really the Department that carries out this kind of control in Ireland. To the present day no man can export a potato out of Ireland without a licence. That is a position of affairs that is causing trouble and is the subject of very great scandal in the country. I am speaking of facts, as I live in the country and am aware of what is going on every day. These licences are granted in various invidious ways. Discrimination is shown and fortunes have gone into the pockets of men who have been granted licences to export while other men, just as much entitled to licences to export, have not received them. There is no necessity for any licensing system. The stock is much better than it was this time last year and the people in Ireland want to export potatoes. I can assure hon. Members that in Liverpool and other markets in England potatoes are £1 or £2 more than they ought to be by reason of this particular licensing system in Ireland. If this system were abandoned potatoes ought to be sold in Liverpool at least £2 a ton cheaper. When I speak of control I refer to this insidious and discriminating system of licensing. I do not know if the Chief Secretary knows much about this matter, but I think it is about time that this scandal as to licences for exporting potatoes was done away with, and the sooner that is so the better for the British as well as the Irish consumer. On the political aspect of this Bill I desire to say very little. My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Water-ford (Captain Redmond), has dealt with the question in his own lucid and eloquent way. I will only say this—that generations of Ministers have sat on the Treasury Bench and stood at the Table and they have used in their own various ways the alleged remedy of force, but force was never a remedy. Whether force is applied in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, or under any other name which you choose to use it has never been a remedy, and never will be. When you apply force you beget force in return, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members—it may be through their not knowing Ireland —that the sooner they get rid of the idea that they can treat Irishmen and Ireland by force or repression the sooner will relations between Ireland and England be better. The sooner they get a broader outlook on this question of self-government for Ireland, the sooner they get rid of the narrow, old ideas that I believe were promulgated from one of the Benches on the other side of the House, then the sooner will the link between Ireland and England become a more peaceable one."Not a Board which, in 1918, fixed Irish flax at 45s. maximum per stone, and 25's tow yarn at 18s. 10½d. per bundle, yet still controls and confiscates Irish flax at the same price (viz. 45s. per stone maximum) in spite of the fact that 25's tow yarn being freed from control have risen from 18s. 10½d. to 72s. per bundle, is dead to all sense of righteous dealing, and for this reason alone is unfit to direct or govern."
I hope the House will forgivve me if I make a somewhat short reply to the speeches made this afternoon. I am very anxious to try and fulfil the expectations which were formed, when my right hon. Friend opposite had a word with me on Monday night, that the division on this Third Reading should take place at an hour which I think has already passed, and which I do not want to make later. Perhaps I might answer the hon. Member who spoke last, in a sentence or two. The question of flax was very thoroughly discussed on the 1st March, and on a previous date when the Bill was on report. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Bridgeman), then intimated that he was hopeful that some voluntary agreement might be come to after meetings had been held by the groups of persons interested, the farmers, the merchants and the spinners. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Hansard, for the 1st March, Col. 94, he will find that the matters to which he has referred have already been anticipated in large measure by my hon. Friend.
This is a Bill to continue Regulations and a few Statutes until the 31st August next. The Statutes and Regulations it is proposed to continue are all of them at present in force. We ask powers from the House to continue a dozen Statutes and something like fifty Regulations out of the existing number of 250. All we ask is that the Regulations should be continued until the 31st August. It is suggested that this is a most extraordinary legislation, that it is unprecedented, that we are asking the House to pass the Bill by reference, and so on. When that criticism is levelled against the Bill, I wonder whether hon. Members have ever made themselves acquainted with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in which, Session by Session, we continue a large number of Statutes by reference, many of them Statutes which have never been put permanently on the Statute Book by reason of the controversies which surrounded them at the time. There, we have Statutes which date back over eighty years, and which are still placed annually on the Statute Book by reference, and no objection whatever is taken to it. Surely I may say this scheme of legislation has been enshrined into a system of the House by the precedent already created. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. W. Bonn) that this is a hand-to-mouth Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says that the Regulations we are continuing are pettifogging Regulations.Some of them.
Illustrations were given of the small importance of some of them. Yet, in this case of a hand-to-mouth Bill and pettifogging Regulations, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith tells us that ho has culled out of the Habeas Corpus Act some words which he has put together as a reasoned Amendment against the Third Reading. He makes a speech obviously feeling very strongly that it was a case of John Hampden, on a minor scale, and clothed himself with the mantle of Mr. Gladstone whom he told us, spoke from this box, and in the words of Charles James Fox he asked us not to pass the Third Reading of the Bill which contained pettifogging Resolutions and was a hand-to-mouth Bill. I do not think I need detain the House with that sort of dramatic matter. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that when we were listening to the hon. and gallant Member we were very glad to know that there was no disaster at the field of Chalgrove such as happened in the case of the great John whom he impersonated. This Bill falls into three parts. We are continuing the Food Regulations. That is said to be an evil thing to do, but a large section of the House asks us to continue them and to enforce them more strictly. In another Section we are keeping shipping Regulations, which again are demanded by a large number of hon. Members as vital. Another Section deals with the Coal Regulations, under which we secure more or less the distribution, or if you like the non-distribution, of coal. Lastly, there is the question of the continuing powers asked for by the War Office in regard to foreign aliens. What is the acid test of which my hon. Friend spoke, I think rather rightly? We have had diatribes about the administration of the law in Ireland and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which has never taken place, either in England or Ireland. All this was pure melodrama, and quite apart from the fact. Under 18A we give powers to arrest and search those people "where a person without lawful authority or excuse" does so and so. Where they have either lawful authority or excuse no harm can happen to them. It is suggested that my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Macpherson) is acting in a merciless, cruel and absurd manner in Ireland in making use of these Regulations against persons who are unable to justify themselves and have no lawful authority or excuse. If they are law-abiding citizens they need have no fear of that law any more than any other law or Regulation.
The other matters which are left are these. It is said that these Statutes ought not to be continued, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough called them class Regulations. It is necessary to say a word in answer to that, because a very improper feeling or understanding might go abroad if I left that unanswered.I cannot allow that statement with regard to class legislation to go by. I never made use of that expression.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
The hon. Member has a right to disclaim anything that has been put into his mouth.
I accept that explanation at once, and beg the hon. Member's pardon.
I said "class legislation."
The honour belongs to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. What is class legislation? It is a series of Acts under which a court is empowered in its discretion, in the particular circumstances which come before it, to decide whether a greater amount of time ought to be given to a debtor to pay what is due to him, or in the case of bankruptcy where the particular facts of the case seem to warrant, that time should be allowed in coming before the court. Persons who are debtors, or who may have to go to the Bankruptcy Court, and the other persons for whom this legislation is passed do not belong to any particular class, and rights are not given to any particular class. It is merely for the purpose of arming the court with a discretion in order that it may be rigidly and rightly used, as it is by the court, for the purpose of preventing a miscarriage of justice. These Statutes are continued in the First Schedule, and the Regulations are continued in the Second Schedule. All the matters with which the Regulations deal have been discussed over and over again. We discussed them many days in the Autumn in Committee, we have discussed them again in this House, and we have proved through the War that the Regulations were of service and of use.
The last criticism I wish to answer is this. It is said "Now we are getting to the times of peace." It is quite true that nearly all these Regulations, and still more these Acts of Parliament, were intended to deal with problems and difficulties which arose out of the fact that the War disconcerted men in their business, upset the ordinary course of trade, and created difficulties. During the period that those difficulties existed, the Acts and Regulations were held to be of use. Has that time passed away? Can it be said that the waves which have been created by the storm of War have all died down? Is there no reason for the Regulations and the Statutes still to remain? We ask the House to-night to continue the powers given under the Bill for a further period until we hope the storm may finally cease.Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with one matter which affects poor people, the sale of chocolates in theatres?
My strong disinclination to take further part in this Debate has been extremely accentuated by the speech of the Solicitor-General. I firmly believe that if I had at my command the austere eloquence of Demosthenes, the more flamboyant rhetoric of Cicero, even the golden eloquence of St. John Chrysostom, or even the trumpet of the Angel Gabriel, I could not penetrate the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains of the language of my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Leith. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith, ho says, invoked Magna Charta, cited the name of John Hampden, cited the name of Mr Gladstone, and, says the hon. and learned Solicitor-General—I am perfectly assured with all sincerity—why are these great names brought into this trumpery question on this wretched little innocent Bill? It seems to me that it is not a trumpery question to ask whether Magna Charta still exists, whether the principles for which Hampden fought and died are still valid, and whether the gospel of Gladstone is still adhered to, in face of the fact that you have in Ireland at the present moment the abrogation of Magna Charta, of the principles of Hampden, of the principles of Gladstone, and of all the principles on which this great assembly is founded. Trial by jury does not exist in Ireland, the freedom of the Press does not exist in Ireland, freedom of speech does not exist, the freedom of the person does not exist, the freedom of one's home does not exist in Ireland.
Hear, Hear!
I am glad my hon. Friend agrees with me. After all these abrogations have been made of the principles handed down to this country by generations and centuries of struggle, the Solicitor-General, with the simplest and most candid air in the world, says, "Why all this pother, why Magna Charta, why John Hampden, why Gladstone Drought into the discussion of this simple, innocent little Bill?" I have such great respect for my hon. and learned Friend that I put this down to a professional innocence which he does not feel. When I hear lawyers in the House of Commons addressing it, I often have a feeling that really the stage has lost some of its greatest ornaments. There is nothing to compare with the apparent fidelity to nature, innocence and ignorance of these learned gents. What is the state of things in Ireland? I was talking the other day to a newspaper correspondent who had been over in our part of the world recently. He had also been in America, from which he had just come; he had fought gallantly in France during the War on the side of the Allies, and he was, I may say, a countryman of mine, as many others who fought on the side of the Allies were, and recently, in his voyages for the discovery of truth, he had been in Ireland. He said that the only thing for any parallel to the state of things he found in Poland under the Russian Government was the state of things he found in Ireland under the British Government. We have liberated the Poles from Russian Government, and we have put Russian Government on the Irish people by way of vindicating our purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!"] Did I hear murmurs against that statement; [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am very glad to find somebody has the courage to deny my statements. Did Russia do more in Poland than take away the liberty of the Press, liberty of the person, the liberty of speech? Did Russia rule by tanks and aeroplanes? Did Russia do more than that in Poland? I find silence from the Gentlemen who murmured against my statements.
The Solicitor-General reads Regulation 14b of this Defence of the Realm Act and says, "It simply asks that a man shall show that he is in lawful occupation, or something of that sort—so simple—and you call on the name of Hampden, and Gladstone, and Magna Charta, because in Ireland every man must prove himself innocent if the Government declares that he is guilty." I see that the other day 50 people were deported from Ireland on a warrant which did not charge them with any crime but the intention, or purpose, or suspicion of the Government of the intention and purpose of committing a crime, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Why discuss this trumpery Bill with these innocent Regulations? I wonder what Camille Desmoulins, when he was going to the guillotine, in sending his last message to his own wife, who was to follow him so shortly to the scaffold, would have thought if after he had led the mob and brought them to the Bastille, and after breaking down the Bastille had brought an end, as he thought in his idealism, to the principle of Lettres-de-Cachet and the Bastille—that was in 1789—I wonder what Camille Desmoulins would have thought, if he was able to see the events of this world from another sphere, if, I think it is 131 years after he had brought down the Bastille and the Lettres-de-Cachet, the free and liberal Government of which he and all the revolutionaries in that period were the admirers would have the Lettres-de-Cachet in Ireland to send Irishmen to the Bastille. That is the innocent little measure which, with his almost virginal, Joan of Are appearance, the Solicitor-General describes as a trumpery Bill in reference to which no man is entitled to mention Magna Charta or Hampden. I am sorry the Chief Secretary is not in his place. I am sure his absence is unintentional. I am still sorrier I was not in my place when he was delivering his speech. As a matter of fact, I have spent my day in attending a meeting to try and save the Armenians from butchery and in attending a Committee to do something to help disabled soldiers, English as well as Irish. I hope the House will believe me when I say that the present state of things in Ireland fills me with horror and misgiving, that no man who takes anything like a sane view of the future of his country can look at the events that have taken place in Ireland with any other feelings than those of horror and misgiving. If I could think the policy of the Government can bring that state of things to an end I would support the Government, but I oppose the Government for the reason that I believe, as long as the present system in Ireland remains, that state of things will not only not pass away, but will become worse and worse with every day and with every hour. There is no use anybody charging me with sympathy with assassination. If anybody makes that charge against me I am prepared to meet it, but there is nobody. I call the attention of the House to the fact that things in Ireland, instead of improving, are getting worse. I call attention to the fact that until the present system was inaugurated, under the present Government, under the present Prime Minister, after the rebellion, Ireland was comparatively tranquil. It is a country where crimes of violence for sordid reasons are rarer than in almost any other country in the world, and the reputation of my country for crimeless-ness and for virtue is historical. I ask the House seriously to ask themselves this question. There is crime, there is disorder. Cannot they put these two things together, that the crime and disorder in Ireland have begun and have increased steadily and proportionately with the repression and the militarism which exist in Ireland today? If that be so, surely any rational man is bound to come to the conviction that as the present system, instead of diminishing or detecting crime, has increased crime and left crime undetected, it is time for us to try another system of dealing with this terrible and unfortunate state of affairs. This journalistic friend of mine, whom I quoted a short time ago, told me of the extraordinary consequences that are taking place of this system in Ireland. Your soldiers who are there are mainly young men, some of them, I believe, not much more than 18 or 19 years of age. Some of those of 20 or 21 have come to Ireland from other parts of the world, and when they come to Ireland to do duty, which they hate, to stand in the way of national aspirations with which they sympathise, full of the conviction that they have risked their lives to bring liberty back to the world, instead of the autocracy and militarism of Germany, when these men mix with the Irish people and perform the duties, odious to them, which they are asked to perform, take care that you are not sending hack to England English soldiers who are as much Sinn Feniers as the people against whom they are sent. I am told by those who have been in Ireland, and who have spoken with the soldiers, that by the employment of them in this odious duty, which they detest as free-born Englishmen, you are planting in their minds the germs of revolutionary feeling. After all, who are these young soldiers? They are the sons of working men, most of them have been working men themselves, most of them have to go back to earn their living, when they are demobilised, as working men, and do you suppose you could put any genuine, honest liberty-loving English working man, although he was in khaki, in Ireland to carry out the principle of militarism, there, against the will of the people, without imbuing his mind with revolt, not only against the Irish Government in Ireland, but perhaps against his own Government when he comes home? I understand the right hon. Gentleman spoke of an army of 200,000 Irishmen, fully armed and as well equipped as the British Army. The first question I ask about that statement, which I do not believe to be true, is this: What good has your repression in Ireland been, what good have been your 12,000 raids into private houses, tearing the clothes off the beds in which women lie in illness and children lie in fear, what has been the good of all your deportations and all your savage sentences before courts-martial, what has been the good of all this, if at the end of it all the Chief Secretary tells you that you have in Ireland 200,000 Irishmen as well equipped as the British Army? Why, Sir, when the rebellion took place in 1916, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) said, there were not at most more than 2,000 men in Dublin engaged in it. There were not 2,000; but, supposing there were, they have become 200,000, according to the Chief Secretary. Could there be a greater indictment of the present policy of the Government than that statement of the Chief Secretary? I do not think the statement is accurate. I really sometimes think the Chief Secretary is in search of another job. I am not surprised. I do not think his present job is a comfortable one. I am very sorry for him. I am very sorry for any man who is Chief Secretary for Ireland under present conditions. I do not wish to embitter the life of the right hon. Gentleman by anything like a personal attack upon him, but I must say this. I hope he gets another job, and gets it soon. When I see men on the look-out for a job, I ask myself what do they want next, and I have come to the conclusion that what the right hon. Gentleman is really aiming at is to become first President of the Irish Republic. No man has done so much to advertise the Sinn Feiners, and when he says that the Sinn Fein organisation has 200,000 men as well equipped as the British Army, I think he has given a tribute to the power of that organisation. Another statement I am told the right hon. Gentleman made was that Alderman Kelly would never have been made Lord Mayor of Dublin unless he had been put into Wormwood Scrubs? If you do not want him to be Lord Mayor of Dublin, why not keep him out of Wormwood Scrubs? Does it not all mean that the policy of the Government, instead of diminishing crime, instead of diminishing revolt, in Ireland, is increasing it hour by hour? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was determined to preserve law and order. I want to restore law and order. He cannot preserve what he destroys. He says he regards Ireland as an outpost of the Empire. So do I. If you look at it from that point of view you will not make the mistakes you have. The idea that Ireland by force of arms can beat the British Empire never occurred to my mind, but it is a danger to the Empire. The neglect to solve this question, the provocation given to the Irish people, men tried by court-martial instead of by jury, boys sent to gaol, like the poor little boy of 17, the poor little girl who was sent to gaol because she sold green flags, the domiciliary visits, the soldiers and police running loose and killing people—all these things are producing an effect which is full of peril to the Empire. To-day alt the Irish in America are on the side of the Sinn Feiners. Nearly all the Irish in Canada, if not on the side of Sinn Fein, are dangerously near it. In Australia, where the Irish are a third of the population, they are on the side of the Sinn Feiners. I have just come back from a tour of my old constituency. I found myself there, not amongst organised Sinn Feiners, but the attitude that they are not surprised at their people at home, because of the provocation of the Government. By this policy you are estranging the opinion of the civilised world. You are making the people of every nation come to the conclusion that all the old gibes at England as perfidious Albion, with virtue on her lips and hypocrisy in her heart—a statement I should never have believed but for Ireland—you are convincing the world that all your professions in this War of righteousness and unselfishness are false and hypocritical, and I think in that way you are damaging the repute, and, in my opinion, imperilling the future of this Empire.I desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] It is not right that we should go to a Division without at least one point made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down being answered, because he is a most distinguished Member of this House and has a considerable reputation in other parts of the Empire and in America. His words will probably be cabled out, and will give, I think, a very false impression of the attitude of this country towards the Irish problem at this moment-He compared the Government of Ireland to-day with the Government of Poland under the old Russian Empire. I have heard many exaggerated statements of the case from the Irish Benches opposite, and were I 110 years old instead of only thirty-seven, I daresay I should have heard during the last hundred years the same speeches made about every British administration, including probably the same speech made by the hon. Gentleman about Mr. Gladstone's administration in the Eighties.
That was very bad, too.
I am glad the hon. Gentleman admits it, because he said at the commencement of his speech that the policy of the Government to-day is so different from that of Mr. Gladstone.
No.
He said it was contrary to the policy of Hampden and Gladstone. I do not want to go into the question. I only want to deal with the specific case he put. It is an example of the appalling exaggeration of the case put forward in statements from those Benches for many years. The hon. Gentleman may be very thankful he lives in Ireland to-day and not in Poland. Does he suggest for a moment that British soldiers in Ireland or Irish police, or whatever are the instruments of the Government, torture prisoners as was done by the old Russian Government in Poland before the War?
No.
Then what does the hon. Gentleman's reference to Poland mean—a reference which is going over the cables to America and elsewhere? I can imagine the American newspapers saying, "Mr.—, a distinguished Member of the House of Commons, describes the Government of Ireland to-day as that of Poland before the War." It is perfectly true that the liberty of Irish subjects has been largely taken away. We admit it and deplore it. Many of us on this side deplore many mistakes made by the present Irish administration, and the hon. Gentleman would have more sympathy from us if he did not make such obviously exaggerated speeches as that which he has made to-day. But there is an answer to the point that liberty has been taken away. Let me tell him as a British soldier that a great many British soldiers during the War who were not politicians had some pretty hard things to say about a section of the Irish people attempting to stab us in the back. Then what about the British officers who were murdered m cold blood in Dublin? Can he point to any nation in the world which, under such circumstances, would not have imposed some restrictions on the Irish? Had any States of the Union behaved when the Americans were in the War as a section of the Irish did in 1916, does he deny that the utmost rigour would have been imposed upon the liberty of those people? The hon. Gentleman ignores this fact, that there is a huge organisation in Ireland by means of murder and assassination to make all government impossible. How are you going to deal with that except by military law? He talks of people who fought in the War. People who fought in the War realise that when murders are committed on the police—in many cases when they are not able to defend themselves—it is the first duty of the administration to protect them, and, instead of making covert attacks upon the police and soldiers—he made reference to women and children being dragged from their beds by soldiers—I think it would have been more becoming had he paid a tribute to the extraordinary patience with which the Irish Constabulary and British Army have borne the most brutal attacks which have ever disgraced the annals of a people. He talks of crimelessness in Ireland when you have men murdered in cold blood. Take the case of the Inspector murdered in Thurles, a man respected by all in the town except the extremists. He was murdered in cold blood. The murder was witnessed by 3,000 people coming back from the races, and not one of these people had the moral courage to give information as to who committed the murder. Yet the hon. Gentleman said it was a crimeless country.
I never said so.
He said it was one of the most crimeless in the world.
The Noble Lord, I am sure, is not so foolish as to say that I declared Ireland was crimeless now My statement was that ordinarily Ireland was the most crimeless country in the world, and I adhere to that statement. Instead of denying that there is crime in Ireland now, my point was that a country that might be crimeless had been filled with crime by the policy of the Government, which is quite a different thing.
8.0 P.M.
I will only make this answer to the hon. Gentleman. I was one of a small band of Tory Members in the 1906 Parliament who constantly faced the Opposition from the hon. Member and his friends when we called attention to the disgraceful cases of cattle-maiming which went on from 1906 to 1910, accompanied by some of the most brutal manifestations ever seen. According to the hon. Gentleman's statement, Ireland was at that time a crimeless country. Including Mr. Birrell's administration, there has always been in Ireland— I have not the slightest hesitation in saying—a section, if only a small section, who have committed crimes that would disgrace any civilised country; crimes almost unknown in this country; moonlighting, the maiming of cattle, and things of that kind. The fact that they are more active now does not necessarily mean that it is because of the restrictions placed upon them by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends had any policy to deal with this situation we should listen to their speeches with more satisfaction. If by the wave of a magician's wand—which they are never likely to receive they were put in a position of authority, they would be met by exactly the same disorder and would have the whole of the Sinn Fein organisation against them. The hon. Member mentioned the French Revolution. If is always the people who start by being mild revolutionaries who find, when they do get into power, that they either have to become autocrats or lose their heads. If, as I say, the hon. Gentleman and his four friends opposite, by a magician's wand, were put into the position of those in charge of what is termed "Castle Government" in Ireland, he knows perfectly well he would have to adopt the same methods, or, at any rate, give some sort of protection to the ordinary citizen of Ireland who does not wish to see murders take place in the streets. There has never been a party in this House so bankrupt of suggestions for dealing with the situation in Ireland, or whose policy is supported by such a small section of the people, as that of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
It is characteristic—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—It is characteristic, I say, of hon. Members who have been standing at the bar of the House, and who are in a hurry for their dinner, that, after listening to and encouraging the harangue which has just been delivered by the Noble Lord, they should try to shout down anybody who replies, even in the briefest terms, to that speech. The Noble Lord has not been unduly long: I shall not be as long as he. I have listened with great admiration and received in a chastened spirit the lecture which he delivered to my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division on his extravagance. I have seen many wonderful things in this House during my seventeen years in it, but I never expected to live to see the day when the Noble Lord opposite would excuse anybody of extravagance. Satan rebuking sin is the only spectacle I can compare with that of the Noble Lord. He has delivered a speech worthy of his earlier days in this House. He and I have gone through many lively scenes in this House and we have said a good many things of one another across the floor of the House. I have outlived my schoolboy indiscretions. If the Noble Lord had outlived his, and never delivered that speech to-night, I would have thought he was on the high road to becoming a statesman. When a politician begins to think that he is a statesman he is on the slippery slope that leads to destruction. I thought the Noble Lord had got on the slippery slope and was slipping right down on to the Government Bench at the earliest opportunity! He has been good enough to sneer at the paucity of the Members of the party with which I am associated.
I did not sneer, I can assure you.
The Noble Lord repeatedly referred to the three or four Members to which our once powerful party was reduced. He once belonged to a little coterie which, I would remind him, was not more numerous than ours, but which I do not think is very likely to obtain a dominating voice in the councils even of the party which he supports. The Noble Lord got very indignant in respect to several matters. His memory should carry him back to 1885. I would remind him of the identity of the statesman who introduced the parallel between Poland and Ireland. It was the late Mr. Chamberlain. In a memorable speech he delivered in Islington in 1885, he said that the government of Ireland by England could only be compared with the government of Poland by Russia, or with the government of Venice by Austria. Therefore, the Noble Lord need not have got so very indignant when the comparison was advanced to-day by my hon. Friend. I advise the Noble Lord to read that speech of Mr. Chamberlain, and when he reads it he will not be quite so violent as he was this evening. Mr. Chamberlain then warned this country that England was depending in Ireland absolutely on the bayonets of 50,000 soldiers kept permanently in a hostile position. That is the position to-day in Ireland. Whatever may be said about the government of Poland, let the Noble Lord remember that, as a result of British rule in Ireland, you have reduced the population by 50 per cent. with in the past half-century. Even Poland, misgoverned by Russia, by Austria, or by Germany, has doubled its population within the same period. It is also very remarkable, and I commend this to the Noble Lord, that every one of the countries for which you went into this War to win self-determination—I do not care which you take—Rumania, Poland, Finland—they have all doubled their population within a period during which the population of Ireland has been reduced by half.
Crime in Ireland to-day was talked about by the Noble Lord. None of us approve of crime in Ireland. I do not approve of it in England either. I do not approve of it in the Noble Lord's constituency. There is a whole lot of crime committed there about which he does not say anything. One of the greatest crimes was selecting the Noble Lord himself. We condemn these crimes in any part, but the Noble Lord—I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Third Reading of a Bill.
I bow to your ruling at once. Sir, but it is tempered, by the reflection that the Noble Lord had got so hopelessly out of Order himself that he dwelt upon the question of crime in Ireland, and I was replying. All I want to say is that we have condemned crime all over Ireland. The Noble Lord in his speech made two contradictory statements. He said that this crime was committed by a very small section of the Irish people—
In normal times.
But the Noble Lord immediately afterwards talked about a "huge organisation."
What I said was that in normal times a small section of the people committed crimes in Ireland not committed in most civilised countries.
The only statement the Noble Lord gave us referred to cattle maiming. But in Staffordshire there was an outbreak some years ago of cattle maiming, and it went on for years—cattle maiming never equalled by anything done in Ireland.
We cannot discuss the whole story of cattle maiming, or have a duel between the Noble Lord and the hon. Member. The Question before us is the Third Reading of the Bill.
I have not the slightest intention of dwelling on the matter. I only mentioned it in passing as an answer to the Noble Lord's suggestion that cattle maiming is a crime peculiar to Ireland. I say it is not. I repudiate the charge. I say there has been no cattle maiming in Ireland during the whole period covered by the operations of this Bill. It was the Noble Lord who went into ancient history, and resurrected charges against Ireland, and
Division No. 32.]
| AYES.
| [8.15 p.m.
|
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale |
| Agg, Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Briggs, Harold | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Brittain, Sir Harry | Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Courthope, Major George L. |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Brown, Captain D. C. | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bruton, Sir James | Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. |
| Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick) | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Denison-Pender, John C. |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Butcher, Sir John George | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Campbell, J. D. G. | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Carew, Charles Robert S. | Dockrell, Sir Maurice |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Carr, W. Theodore | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Casey, T. W. | Duncannon, Viscount |
| Bigland, Alfred | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Edge, Captain William |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith. | Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Falcon, Captain Michael |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Farquharson, Major A. C. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fell, Sir Arthur |
alleged crimes were being committed there to-day which are not committed at all. I repudiate above all the suggestion of the Noble Lord that such crimes as are being committed in Ireland are being committed under the aegis of a huge organisation. Personally, I differ most profoundly from the Sinn Fein party. They opposed me at the last election and no doubt they will do so at the next, and probably I shall follow the fate of many of my colleagues. But no personal considerations of that kind are going to blind me or make me be a party, or cause me to sit here silently and listen to the slandering of my own countrymen. To say that the Sinn Fein organisation is engaged in working up crime is a foul and atrocious libel. Whatever personal grievance I may have I am not going to be a party to abusing their character. Everybody who knows anything about the condition of Ireland knows how these crimes are brought about, and they are not brought about by the Sinn Fein organisation. I think it only right that, as a political opponent of theirs, to repudiate the suggestion which the Noble Lord has offered. I indicated when I rose that I intended my remarks to be very brief, and I should not have intervened at all except for the extravagances of the Noble Lord. I hope in future he will deliver more serious speeches and bring a little more thought into his orations than he did in the effort which he made to-night.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 52.
| Forestier-Walker, L. | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lloyd, George Butler | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Lloyd-Greame, Major P. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lorden, John William | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Glyn, Major Raiph | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Seager, Sir William |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Macmaster, Donald | Seddon, J. A. |
| Gould, James C. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Grant, James A. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Macquisten, F. A. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Malone, Major p. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Gregory, Holman | Martin, Captain A. E. | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Mason, Robert | Steel, Major s. Strang |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Mitchell, William Lane | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Griggs, Sir Peter | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Stevens, Marshall |
| Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro') | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mosley, Oswald | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Hailwood, Augustine | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Taylor, J. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Nail, Major Joseph | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Neal, Arthur | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Haslam, Lewis | Nelson, R. F. W. R. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Finchley) | Turton, E. R. |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Nield, Sir Herbert | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Perring, William George | Whitla, Sir William |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Prescott, Major W. H. | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Pulley, Charles Thornton | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Purchase, H. G. | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Jesson, C. | Raper, A. Baldwin | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Jodrell, Neville Paul | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | |
| Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Remer, J. R. | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Renwick, George |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hancock, John George | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hayward, Major Evan | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Briant, Frank | Johnstone, Joseph | Spencer, George A. |
| Bromfield, William | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lawson, John J. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lunn, William | Waterson, A. E. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Wedgwood, Colonel J. C. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Donnelly, P. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Myers, Thomas | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | O'Connor, Thomas P. | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | O'Grady, Captain James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Redmond, Captain William Archer | Mr. G. Thorne and Colonel Penry Williams. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) | |
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Supply
Considered in Committee.
Civil Services And Revenue Departments, Supplementary Estimates, 1919–20
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Public Buildings Great Britain
Class I
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £482,000, 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. 1920, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes."
May we have an answer to the questions which have been put before this Vote is taken? It is not necessary to go over them again, but there are one or two things we want to know. For instance, there are contracts in Sub-head I which we were told were entered into 18 months ago, and we want to know why it is that they only now appear on the Supplementary Estimates. Questions were also asked with regard to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and as to compensation paid. We want to know how many claims this item represents and is it the last we shall see of them or are we to have any more? There were quite a number of other questions submitted yesterday to which we are entitled to have some reply.
I think the first question addressed to me was in regard to the Canadian military hospital at Orpington. This hospital has been taken over by the Ministry of Pensions from the Canadian authorities, and the sum mentioned in the estimate covers the value of the equipment which was handed over. It is a very beautiful building and cost something like £700,000 to put up. Really it is a very generous act on the part of the Ontario Government to let us have it at so low a price. Another question was with regard to the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum cottages. These cottages are intended for the staff of warders, some of whom are being transferred to Broadmoor while others are at present housed in an adjacent village, and it is desired to bring them nearer to their work. The total number of cottages to be erected is 32. They will be brick cottages of a good type, and the average cost works out at about £900. With regard to Sub-head C, this item is made up of a number of items and includes both rent and compensation. It is difficult to separate the items, but I may divide them in the following way:—£23,000 for hired premises, and £184,000 for commandeered premises which include a number of large hotels that we took over, namely, the Hotel Victoria, the Grand Hotel, the Hotel Metropole and the Cecil. These hotels have all either been or are being surrendered. I believe that the Metropole will be handed back by Easter. This item includes a certain amount of compensation. There are still some claims outstanding, and negotiations are going on between officers of my Department and the owners of various hotels regarding the cost of dilapidations and reinstatement. Therefore, I cannot say that this is a final account, although it covers the bulk of the claims. There are several claims—De Keyser's Hotel, for instance, now before the House of Lords—which have not yet been settled. There are a considerable number of commandeered premises as to which the question of compensation has not yet been determined. But they are premises not in the same category as the large hotels I have mentioned. The total amount of this Estimate is £1,120,000, the original Estimate having been £850,000. I hope that next year there will be a very substantial reduction in the rent account. Some of the hotels had to be retained longer than was expected, because the reduction of the staffs did not take place with the rapidity which the Department were led to anticipate, but we have surrendered buildings and other accommodation representing nearly 50 per cent. of all that was acquired during the War, which represents a very considerable rent. This process of surrender is going on continuously, and as the staffs diminish, I hope more rapidly, they will be more rapidly surrendered. At any rate, we have got rid now of the large hotels, and we are practically clear of the museums.
There is the rent of the houses.
I have not the value of the private houses separately.
Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the total rental value which has been surrendered against the total rental value which has been retained?
I have not got the figures quite in that form. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will give the information with pleasure. With regard to Sub-head I., the total value of stores that we expected to pay for in the last financial year was £1,560,000. We have saved £750,000 by cancellation of contracts, and the estimated net expenditure was £810,000. The revision of the Estimate has arisen in this way: Instead of being able to cancel £750,000 worth of contracts, the amount actually saved by cancellation was £550,000. Deliveries have been going on under these contracts all through the financial year, and therefore it was impossible in the last Estimates to know how many contracts we could cancel and to know what the surplus would be. That is why it now appears in this form of a supplemental Estimate. The Departments having declared that they do not require these goods, they have been declared surplus and handed over to the Disposal Board. It has realised £120,000, which is paid direct to the Treasury, and appears in this year's Vote as an Appropriation in Aid. There is a considerable balance yet to be disposed of.
£80,000?
I expect the surplus to realise £140,000. If that is realised, we shall obtain £260,000 worth of money for the Treasury for £200,000 worth of surplus stores. That would be quite a good transaction. I am relieved to find, having given a good deal of care to the matter, that the very large stock necessarily left at the end of the War will be liquidated, not as a Toss, but as a benefit to the Exchequer. Next year there will be no item of Appropriation in Aid in this Estimate, because it has been decided that the Disposal Board's surplus shall, from this year onwards, be paid direct to the Treasury and not appear on the Votes of any Department.
With regard to Subhead I, the contracts were placed prior to the conclusion of the Armistice. Were the goods delivered prior to the conclusion of the Armistice? The practice used to be to wind up the financial year with an Appropriation Bill, and pay everything off. We found out that the Government in some of the Estimates was bringing forward into the new year charges for goods delivered in the earlier year on the plea that in those cases they could not get the accounts in in time because there were cases of military missions abroad, and so on. I want to know whether any of these goods, on which the First Commissioner seems to have made such an excellent stroke of business in selling at a profit, were actually delivered and were really due to be paid for in the last financial year. Another thing I asked was this. We understood, when the Chancellor made his statement, that the surplus Government stores were being realised and were being taken into the National Balance Sheet. He called it revenue. I am not sure that I understand on what principle the Chancellor is going to include an item of the sale of surplus stores as a revenue item. I will not argue whether that is a proper thing to do, but he does it, while on individual Votes, such as this, we find that stores are being sold and used as Appropriations in Aid. That is a point of which I am not quite clear.
As regards the first point, the stores have been coming in all the time. As a matter of fact, delivery is not complete yet. That is the reason why they have been carried over in this way.
Were any of them due for payment in the previous financial year?
Not the year 1918–19. These are 1919–20. With regard to the second point, this form of account is laid down, I understand, by the Financial "Secretary. The matter of the treatment of accounts in the future is under consideration. The money goes direct to the Treasury, and it appears in the Estimates in this form.
Question put, and agreed to.
Surveys Of The United Kingdom
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the Year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Survey of the United Kingdom and for minor services connected therewith."
I should like to know how much in A, B, C, and D is represented by War gratuities and bonuses.
The whole of this Vote is due to War gratuities or bonuses and increased rates of pay. There is nothing else in the Excess Vote at all. All these increased rates have been approved by the Government since sanction was given in the original Estimate. Against that there is an increased Appropriation in Aid, which is due to very simple reasons. The Ordnance maps have been sold in much larger numbers than they used to be. We used to sell to an agent, but that was not very successful. We now sell direct ourselves, and the result is that there have been increased sales. In addition to that we have raised the royalty. What used to happen before was this. The Ordnance Survey carry out the whole of the surveying of the country, but various firms were allowed to have the results of our service at very small cost indeed, and in that way they produced a reduced Ordnance Survey map, paying the Government quite an insufficient sum for what they got from us. We have increased the royalty payment, as we are entitled to do, with the result that we are getting a more reasonable sum for the work of the ordnance survey. In addition we have been obliged to increase the price of the maps. We have had to pay more for labour, etc., and in view of that increase it is not unreasonable that there should be an increase in the cost of the maps. Roughly speaking, as regards large scale maps, the price which was formerly 3s. and 1s. has been raised to 5s. and 1s. 6d. If you take the cost of the six-inch sheet, the increase has been to 4s. Taking the small scale maps there has been a very small increase up-to-date of only from 2s. 6d. to 3s. We think this is insufficient, and certain proposals have been made to the Treasury. In future it is proposed that for the one-inch large sheet series, the present charge of 2s. should be 3s. For the half-inch layered, mounted and folded, the present price of 2s. is to be 3s. The quarter-inch, layered or shaded, previously sold at 2s. will be 3s., and the one-inch popular edition, mounted and folded, that used to be 1s. 6d. is to be 2s. 6d. Having regard to the general rise in prices, I do not think the increased charges for the maps are out of proportion; indeed, they are on the low scale. It cannot be said that the public is being precluded from getting maps by the increased prices, because we have sold a great many more maps in the last year than we ever did before. The increased amounts asked for in this Estimate for pay and allowances are entirely due to war gratuities, bonuses, and increases of pay, sanctioned since the original estimate was prepared, and we have a very substantial appropriation in aid to set-off against it.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Vote represents increases authorised since the original estimate was made. One item represents a bonus authorised by an Army Order of 29th January, 1919. How comes it that that particular bonus, which was authorised over a year ago, appears in a Supplementary Estimate for the first time this year? I should have thought that would have been in time for the last estimate.
I think that bonus did not become effective until a later date; but I will inquire into it.
What steps have been taken to bring the Ordnance Survey up-to-date in parts of the country where the original survey has been completed?
These surveys are being revised constantly. We have three companies of the Royal Engineers constantly engaged in revising the surveys, with a certain number of civilian assistants. The value of this training in survey work proved of exceptional service during the War. One of the great objects of the survey has been to train competent surveyors in the Army for military purposes, and as a result of the work done in the survey our Army was better supplied with maps than any other army in the recent War. That was entirely the work of men who have been trained in this survey which is constantly going on.
Question put, and agreed to.
Rates On Goverment Property
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £213,520, 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, 1920, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of Government property, and for rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign powers, and for the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a contribution towards the expenses of the London fire brigade."
A brief explanation of the Vote is desirable. I am sure every Member of the Committee will realise that on this Vote it is impossible, in a time of rising prices, to avoid a Supplementary Estimate. The increase in the Vote is divided into two portions. The first portion is the result of increases of war bonuses which have been given by the Conciliation and Arbitration Boards in the course of the last year. In the second part, if you include England and Scotland, we are asking for a sum of £212,000. It is common knowledge to hon. Members that owing to causes that are beyond the control of the local authorities, the rates throughout the United Kingdom are rising. The principal causes, of course, are the largely increased wages that are being paid to police and to employés of all descriptions, and to the increasing cost of every kind of labour that has to be undertaken by the municipal authorities, and also to the extra cost of education, which is now being felt by the ratepayers no less than the taxpayers. My only wonder is that the amount that we have to ask for in these circumstances is not greater than it is. I have been at some pains to analyse the figures, which I am sure will be of interest to the Committee, although they will understand that in the course of the year it is very difficult to pick out exactly the figures that you want. There are cases where the payment of rates on Government property have been in suspense. There are cases where large increases have been made on Government establishments, both in the southern and the northern parts of the United Kingdom. Roughly, no less a sum than £80,000 out of the £212,000 is directly owing to the arrears that have to be paid on those properties for which no rates had been settled before this financial year, although if they had been, they would have been payable at an earlier date. That means a balance of about £130,000, which is directly due to increased poundage which is found generally from one end of the United Kingdom to the other.
Are these contributions in lieu of rates calculated in the same way as the local rates and handed over by the Government? Are they of like amount?
Yes, they are of like amount. Strictly speaking, we are not liable for rates in the way ordinary ratepayers are, but the rates are arranged between our local authority and the rating authority. Generally speaking, these rates are arranged with the minimum of friction, and are paid over to the local councils. They have been brought before this House before. When some difficulty arises, I always do my best to see that it is amicably and speedily arranged. I do not think that any blame attaches to the Departmental officers for any delay that has occurred. The hon. Member will understand easily that in places that have increased very much, like Rosyth, near his own constituency, or the Arsenal at Woolwich, or the rifle factory at Enfield, where very large increases were made during the war, it is not easy to decide quickly what an equitable distribution of the rates would be. But these matters have in the course of the year been agreed, and about £80,000 of the £212,000, of course, is due directly to arrears.
What is going to be done about the quinquennial valuation? Obviously the valuation of many premises in London wil be greatly raised.
Whenever a valuation is followed by a substantial rise, the Government have to take that into consideration, but we must wait and see. Those are the very simple reasons that have led us to ask the Committee to sanction this Supplementary Estimate The amount paid in rates has, of course, been rising for many years past with the Government just as much as with any private ratepayer, and though we may look for some relief as buildings which are in the occupation of the Government are given up, I am afraid there is very little chance of the Government in the near future obtaining any more relief than the private ratepayer.
Question put, and agreed to
Public Works And Buildings Ireland
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,620. 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, 1920, for the expenditure in respect of public buildings in Ireland, for the maintenance of certain parks and public works, and for the maintenance of drainage works on the River Shannon, and for grants in aid."
In reference to Item A, Ministry of Transport, £5,500, I would like to know what that sum means and how it has been spent?
I would draw attention to the amount under Item B, Peace Celebrations £860, which it is rather surprising to find in reference to Ireland, and I would like to know how that money has been spent?
For those new Departments extensive accommodation is wanted in Ireland just as in England. Suitable premises are being arranged for. The actual premises acquired are in Westland Row, Dublin, and the money set aside in the Vote for it is for the acquisition of those premises and fitting them up. In reply to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) I have looked carefully into the account for the Peace Celebrations in Ireland and can give him the information which he requires. There was a stand provided at a cost of £267 where the Lord Lieutenant took the salute of the troops as the King took the salute of the troops in the Mall at the time of the Peace Celebrations in London. Also £500 was spent on flags and decorations, which flags remain ready for further use.
Would that be when Home little is granted to Ireland?
That will be for the Government of Ireland to decide. £110 was spent en fixing them on piles. Although this amount, £870, may seem large, yet on similar purposes in England we spent £70,000, which was chargeable on the Votes and passed by this House.
After the explanation, I am more astonished than ever. That the taxpayers of this country should be paying £500 merely for flags for purposes of this kind is not in keeping with the spirit of the age, which is one of economy. As far as Ireland is concerned, peace has not been established, and when the hon. Gentleman began to tell me that all this was necessary in order that troops could pass by and salute, I began to wonder which troops were they, whether they belonged to the North Ulster army, the Sinn Feiners, or those attached to the Empire as a whole. It seems to me to be a piece of hypocrisy to be celebrating peace and spending the taxpayers' money in this manner when there really is no peace in Ireland. We have heard from the Chief Secretary that the country is full of chaos and conflict. As a Member who has to some extent to safeguard the interests of the country, I deprecate anything like this being done, as it is not in the interests of the nation or of peace.
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
9.0 P.M. My object is to elicit further information as to who is responsible for this Irish expenditure. It is strange that we should be asked to vote this money for expenditure in Ireland, and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should have charge of the matter in this House. Great as his financial experience may be, and wide as his financial know-lodge is, and adequate as he has always shown himself in that regard, yet I fail to see what connection he has with Ireland. Does he really know how this money is being expended in Ireland? I am one of the very few representatives left in the House of the Irish taxpayer, and I would like to know on what authority it is proposed to expend this money. The reduction that I have Moved is in respect of Sub-Heads A and B. Under Sub-Head A there are four items in respect of the erection of barracks for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and a similar one under Sub-Head B. I would like to make it clear that, personally, I have no fault to find with the general body of the Irish Constabulary. In fact, I rather sympathise with them in the position in which the Government has placed them. It is no fault of the police that they are in that position. I am sure they are doing their duty as good, honest Irishmen, and they are a fine body of men, who, if properly controlled and paid by a local administration, would be a great asset to the country.We must not discuss the general policy of Administration of the Irish police force. We can discuss only this Supplementary Estimate.
I was not proposing to discuss the general policy of the Government in regard to the Irish police, but was prefacing my remarks for fear that anything I said later might be misconstrued. I wish to say I have no fault to find with the Irish police, and that if properly administered the police force would be an asset to any governing country. It is indisputable that there is martial law in Ireland to-day. My reason for objecting to this extra Vote for the erection of police barracks is that it is not the police who are ruling Ireland but the military, and that the military are being employed in doing police work, which work, as I know from conversation both with soldiers and officers in Ireland, is most distasteful to them. Why, then, should there be extra police barracks erected? Ireland is not being governed to-day civilly; it is being governed militarily. We have martial law in its naked and unabashed form. As far as I am aware, there is no necessity for the erection of these barracks. For the last few months huts and barracks have been demolished and have been evacuated by the police throughout Ireland. There are to-day large tracts of land in Ireland which are entirely unprotected by the police. I want to see protection for people in Ireland, but protection from the proper source, and that is from the police. It is the soldiers who are called in to protect the people in Ireland to-day. We had a demonstration near Westminster Bridge a day or two ago by a certain number of demobilised soldiers. If that procession had taken place in Ireland it would have been met not by the police, but by soldiers with fixed bayonets.
I see one item here dealing with the Dublin War Pensions Committee. That Committee is allotted the colossal sum of £297. The Dublin War Pensions Committee is supposed to deal with the pensions of the 25,000 fine young Irishmen who went from Dublin. It was mentioned to-night that thousands of Irishmen rose in rebellion in Ireland during the war. It may interest the Committee to know that from the City of Dublin, where there were not more than 1,500 men engaged in the rebellion, no fewer than 25,000 men came forward voluntarily, enlisted for service abroad, and fought in the Dublin Fusiliers to secure freedom for small nationalities. Where is this sum of £297 going to land the Dublin War Pensions Committee in dealing with all the intricate subjects which concern the welfare of the soldiers and their dependants? I say that the Treasury might have been a little more munificent, and have reversed the order of things by giving the larger sum to the Pensions Committee and allowing a smaller sum for the erection of barracks. I see also that new public offices are in progress in Dublin, and that £14,000 are to be allotted for the purpose. What are these new public offices? Are we to pass this Vote without knowing where they are, what they are, and what they are for? Are they for the new Treasury that is going to be established in Dublin or for some other agency of the iniquitous Castle system? I would particularly like to know whether this £14,000 is to be used in replacing the General Post Office in Dublin. It should have been replaced several years ago. The Dublin General Post Office to-day is in a very backward quarter. If that is the object of the Vote I certainly will support it. We see here "Sundry Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks (Protection), £5,450." I want to see the Royal Irish Constabulary well paid, well pensioned, and well protected. If they are not, it is no fault of mine; it is the fault of the Government. I would like to know what" Sundry Barracks "means. Does it mean that the police are to be all huddled together in two or three centres, or are they to be properly distributed over the country, not only for their own protection, but also for the protection of the population at large? We now come to the really cynical statement at the bottom of Sub-head B. The Irish taxpayers are to be asked to pay £860 for peace celebrations. That is really very interesting. What peace celebrations? Are the Irish people to be taxed for a peace which exists in every other country but their own? Are they to be taxed for a peace which they have largely brought about by the blood and bone and sinews of their lads who voluntarily enlisted and went to the front? Are they to be taxed £860 for a peace which does not exist in Ireland and for a war which is a violation of the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles? We were asked in Ireland to enlist and fight for small nationalities, for the peace of the world, and to make this country and our own fit for heroes to live in. We did so. Docs anybody mean to say that it is anything but a cynical disregard of the facts of the situation and a blatant insult to the Irish race to ask them to contribute £860 for celebrating a peace which they, by their brawn, sinew and blood succeeded in gaining for every country but their own? It is nothing but an insult to the Irish people, and the hon. Gentleman can never have surveyed, these Estimates very minutely or he would never have made the proposal. The present state of Ireland has been luridly described by the Chief Secretary this afternoon. We are supposed to have all the crimes of creation. Ireland has been described as a country not fit for human beings to live in, a country where a man's life is not safe. Yet that country is asked to contribute £860 to celebrate peace. When peace does come, we will celebrate it and we will vote more than £860 to do so. Irishmen are really not such fools in matters of finance as people perhaps may be led to think, and to ask them to vote £860 for the celebration of peace is ludicrous. We have been told tonight that there are two hundred thousand men in Ireland under arms, and that they are as well trained—the Chief Secretary rather jibbed at the word "equipped" and as well armed as the British Army. I do not believe a word of what the Chief Secretary said; I do not believe that there is anything like that number. These men, we are told, are ready at any moment to smash this country and Empire, and yet the people of Ireland are asked to vote £860 for peace celebrations. Was there ever anything like it out of Bedlam? Was there over anything more rampantly ridiculous? It is another instance of the utter inefficiency and impossibility of people here in this country, with all their gifts and intellectual attributes, to govern a country like Ireland, about which they do not know oven the first rudiments or elements of fact. The whole of these proposals come from, and are supported by, a Minister who, as far as I know, has never visited Ireland. I should like to see him there, because I should like to show him the need that we have in Ireland for financial assistance for many useful works for the benefit of that country and its neighbour, this country. If he comes, we will give him a very warm reception. He can take that as he likes. For him to be the Government representative, and to propose that we on these Irish Benches, scantily manned as they are, should pass without protest this Vote for the celebration of peace—well, all I can sec is that it bangs Banagher. It is only another instance of the earnest endeavour of this Government to bring peace to Ireland. If the Government want to bring peace to Ireland, they can, but, great and powerful and omnipotent as the Coalition think that they are, they should not charge the Irish people for celebrating peace before they have the courage and the power to bring proper peace to that country. I do not know whether I shall be supported in my Motion, but I fail to realise how any real Liberal or any Labour representative can acquiesce in the passing of a Vote to celebrate peace in the country which they know is not at peace, but is in a state of war with this country. I hope and trust that I will have some support in the Lobby, and, if so, I will go to a Division, as it will show how futile and ridiculous in the eyes of the world is the attempt of the people in this great land of Great Britain to understand, and thereby to rule, a country which they, probably, have never seen and of which they know practically nothing.The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred specially to the £860 for peace celebrations and described this as a cynical Vote. In doing so he showed great disregard of the right of minorities. Out of a population of about 4,000,000 people in Ireland, you have something over a million Loyalists, and does he really mean that we Loyalists in Ireland should be denied our peace celebration?
Why should we pay for them?
Why should not those million people have their peace celebrations as well as the millions in this country? That is a cynical disregard of the rights of minorities and shows what we have got to expect in Southern Ireland when they get a Parliament in Dublin. This Vote is an instance of cynical treatment by the Government of the taxpayers of this country. It is obvious that 10,000 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary can not possibly keep down 200,000 well-armed trained men. Therefore huts had to be constructed, and iron shelters and barbed wire and trenches and bombs and hand grenades supplied to the police. Surely the Irish ratepayer, who is largely responsible for this state of things, should pay and not the English taxpayer. I am speaking now as an English Member.
I must protest against the statement that it is the English taxpayer who is paying for this. It is not. It is the Irish taxpayer. The revenue in Ireland to-day exceeds the expenditure by over £20,000,000, and, therefore, it is the Irish taxpayer who is paying.
That is more disregard for minorities. Why should the Ulster taxpayer have to pay a share of this? This is a matter for the Irish ratepayer. If law and order cannot be preserved in those parts of Ireland where barracks have had to be erected and bombs given out to the police, the Irish ratepayers should pay.
Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond), I do not quite understand what this Vote means. We in Belfast had our own peace celebration, and I do not think it cost anything. Perhaps it may interest hon. Members to know that in our Peace Procession in Belfast more men walked than in the procession in London, and every one of them had served in the trenches.
I think after the excursions which have taken place a mere Englishman may be allowed to devote five minutes to the actual Estimates before the House. We had some little discussion before the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) came in, and if he had been in his place at the time I should have made a longer explanation. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about the erection of new barracks. I could understand him being carried away by the Peace Vote, on which he spoke with much eloquence and feeling, but this is not for the erection of buildings but for the acquisition of barracks already in existence. In Ireland, as has happened in this country, it is often found desirable to buy premises at this juncture which you have hitherto rented. These places, which appear in the Vote, whose names I shall not attempt to pronounce, are places where existing barracks have hitherto been rented. The item of £1,500 for general constabulary buildings is to provide as much money as we expect will be required for certain cases of hired barracks which the Government may be able to acquire by purchase before the end of the financial year. We are advised by the Office of Public Works in Ireland that, there is a general desire on the part of house builders to realise their property at the present time. That is apparently the reason why these premises have come into the market and the Office of Public Works are taking advantage of it. There was one little item to which the hon. and gallant Member referred—namely, £297 for the Dublin War Pensions Committee. If these Estimates were printed in more detail it might be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would cost a great deal more, and I find it to be cheaper to make an explanation of them here than to use additional type in printing the Estimates. The £297 is a small additional sum required to acquire on favourable terms the leasehold interest in certain premises occupied by the Dublin War Pensions Committee, and the transaction has now been completed. That is all that has been referred to. The bargain is considered good. I explained the item of the Ministry of Transport to the best of my ability, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who followed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford. I will not repeat that, lest I should be called to order by the Chair. In B there is an item for new works of £14,000. These are what are called the new buildings in Dublin, which are meant for the housing of the Department of Agriculture and of Technical Instruction in Ireland and of the Local Government Board. They have been in progress for a good many years past although they have been held up during the War. Up to the 31st March, 1919, something over £100,000 has been spent. This work has been got on with faster than was expected, and a large quantity of constructional steel has been delivered this year, and an additional £14,000 has had to be provided for the payment of this, and to enable more rapid progress to be made. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the fact that all building cost more, the cost of labour and so on has gone up, and I think these two reasons together fully amplify this small extra sum.
Is the Post Office involved at all in this new building?
I do not think the Post Office comes into this Vote. Then there is the question of protection for the Royal Constabulary Barracks. I am sure not a single Member of the House will cavil at that, or that if a request comes from any department in control of the police, whether in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales, asking us to take any measures for the protection of their servants, we should support them with every means in our power. With regard to the peace celebrations, that has been explained in various quarters. I gave an explanation, and again I am afraid of the Chair if I repeat what I said. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, though they had had what he should esteem to be peace in Ireland, he would have a great celebration, and it may be some consolation to him to know that the flags that were purchased with £500 of this money will be available for this purpose. I hope that after this explanation the Committee will enable me to get this Vote.
May I ask a question with regard to Item C? Extensive works at the coastguard stations in Ireland are referred to. Cavalry huts are lumped together with the coastguard stations in a very objectionable way, and we cannot separate them. The cost is given as £38,000. I do not know what the future of the coastguard in this country is going to be, but my own personal opinion, which is the opinion also held by the Admiralty, is that the old-fashioned coastguard station is absolutely no use in war, and why in Ireland they are spending this money on coastguard stations it would be interesting to learn. Unless we can get some explanation with regard to this expenditure, I shall certainly feel compelled to support my hon. and gallant Friend as this is a big item.
I quite agree that this looks a large amount, but perhaps I may explain it in a way that will be satisfactory to the Committee. During the War a large number of coastguards were withdrawn for various purposes. Of course, what is done with them, whether they are withdrawn or put back to their old station, has nothing to do with my office or the Office of Public Works in Ireland. If they are there they have to be housed. They are now gradually returning to their stations. While the men were away there was practically no expenditure on those places, but a good deal of money has now to be spent to make the premises fit for pre-occupation for the men and their families. This is going on throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, and the additional amount of that Vote is £7,000.
It is not new building?
No, not new building. I am coming to that. About £8,000 will be spent on the huts for temporary construction which were occupied by the Irish Constabulary. Primarily it will be putting them in a condition of better protection than they are at present, and in cases where the huts are arranged singly or in pairs so to dispose them that the men may be in rather larger numbers for their own protection, in districts where they are now going about in terror of their lives. The large amount of £15,000—it is not a large amount in the circumstances—is wanted for the ordinary maintenance and repair of the enormous number of Government buildings throughout Ireland that come in under the control of the Irish Public Works Department. That has arisen in exactly the same way as the smaller items of maintenance have arisen in England, owing to the additional cost of materials and labour. Of course, it includes fuel and lighting in the buildings and all repairs, decorations, and work of that kind. I do not think that, in the circumstances and having regard to the amount of buildings under the control of this Department, that that additional Estimate is a matter of very serious concern.
I should like an answer to the question with regard to the Peace Celebrations. What peace was celebrated in Ireland? Was it peace in Ireland?
No one grudges £5,000 to the protection of the police barracks. In common with everyone, we deplore the outrages on the police, but it is a sinister comment on the administration in Ireland that the Government have to ask for £5,000 for fortifying buildings which, in this country, where public opinion is behind the Executive, do not require to be more than ordinary houses. With regard to the Peace Vote, why is there a Supplementary Vote at all? The War came to an end in 1918. Everyone knew the Peace Celebrations were going to take place; they were discussed everywhere. Surely it would not have been impossible to have had them in the main charge rather than by the objectional method of Supplementary Estimates? There is one other point. Under Vote A, the Ministry of Transport has a sum of £5,500. I understand these are new buildings.
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in the House when I explained that these were not new buildings, but acquired property in West-land Road, Dublin.
Yes, I heard that, but that does not affect it. The Ministry of Transport is going to be a service administered in Ireland. Is it wise to take a large sum of money and commit in advance the Irish Transport Minister to buildings, and possibly to a policy, which he thinks are not the best in the circumstances?
The hon. Gentleman seemed to think he might incur the displeasure of the Chair if he referred to the £5,500 in respect of the Ministry of Transport. I heard his first explanation,
Division No. 33.]
| AYES.
| [9.42 p.m.
|
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Grundy, T. W. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Spencer, George A. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hartshorn, Vernon | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, G. H. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Lawson, John J. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Briant, Frank | Lunn, William | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Bromfield, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Cape, Thomas | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Myers, Thomas | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Royce, William Stapleton | Captain Wedgwood Benn and |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Sitch, Charles H. |
NOES.
| ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Haslam, Lewis |
| Amery, Lieut. Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Curzon, Commander Viscount | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Hinds, John |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Dockreil, Sir Maurice | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Doyle, N. Grattan | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Edge, Captain William | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Farquharson, Major A. C. | Jodrell, Neville Paul |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Fell, Sir Arthur | Johnson, L. S. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Forestier-Walker, L. | Johnstone, Joseph |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Forrest, Walter | King, Commander Henry Douglas |
| Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Gange, E. Stanley | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lloyd-Greame, Major P. |
| Carew, Charles Robert S. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Goff, Sir R. Park | Lorden, John William |
| Casey, T. W. | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) |
| Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | M'Lean, Lieut-Col. Charles W. W. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Macmaster, Donald |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Gregory, Holman | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gretton, Colonel John | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Griggs, Sir Peter | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mitchell, William Lane |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hailwood, Augustine | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. |
| Courthope, Major George L. | Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hancock, John George | Morris, Richard |
and he seemed to pass very skilfully over it as regards detail. I would like to know for what purpose this £5,500 is intended to be spent. The Government ought, of course, to carry out their pledges with regard to economy. I am painfully aware that they exercise economy sometimes in very improper directions, and I think it is within the knowledge of Members of this House that they have rigidly exercised economy to the annoyance and inconvenience of many thousands of people in the city I represent.
It would not be in Order on this Vote.
Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £70,620, be granted for the said service."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 153.
| Munro, Ht. Hon. Robert | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Remer, J. R. | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) | Renwick, George | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Nail, Major Joseph | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Neal, Arthur | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Nelson, R. F. W. R. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. |
| Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Perring, William George | Seager, Sir William | Whitla, Sir William |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Seddon, J. A. | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Prescott, Major W. H. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Pulley, Charles Thornton | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Purchase, H. G. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Rankin, Captain James S. | Smithers, Sir Alfred W. | |
| Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | Stanler, Captain Sir Beville | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Towyn Jones. |
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Railways, Ireland
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,565, 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, 1920, for payments under The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, &c, The Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, The Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish railways."
Is the Arigna Railway now completed?
I see this Arigna Railway is put down as a special railway undertaking, and I should like to know whether it is carried out by the Minister of Transport under the special duties conferred upon him?
This undertaking has been authorised by Parliament, and the only question here is the amount required to complete the work.
With great respect, there was £9,000 granted by Parliament for boring for coal at Lough Neagh. I should like to know whether the borings are successful, and whether this money is necessary for these new coal mines?
This is a matter of completing a work already authorised.
On a point of Order. Is my hon. Friend not entitled to be told where Arigna is? The Secretary of the Treasury apparently does not know and has been asking the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member should have learned that piece of geography last year.
What I want to know is where is the coal mine. We ought to have some information.
The hon. Gentleman who rose first has not been sufficiently long in this House to realise that this is an old friend, and that the original Estimate has been exceeded, which is the cause of this Vote. The reason for that excess I shall have great pleasure in laying before the Committee. It is partly owing to the abnormally wet weather in the winter of 1918–19 which delayed the work very much, and made it much more difficult to lay the permanent way, and to get materials to the spot. The work has met with a good many unforeseen difficulties in procuring the ballast, and the amount that is required to complete will also help to make additional sidings and loading banks. There is a small item of £2,000 put in for this reason, that when the railway is finished it is going to be inspected by the Inspector of the Ministry of Transport, and the £2,000 is required in the event of the Ministry of Transport making fresh demands on the contractors for supplying additional signals or anything that they may think necessary for the safety of the line. During the War it was considered essential to get on with this work.
The hon. Gentleman himself is now going beyond the question.
I would like to ask, with reference to this £2,000, whether a proper standard gauge will be utilised not only for the convenience of the coal mine but for proper development of the railway system? Will this money be utilised for that purpose? Secondly, will the money be utilised for signals and necessary things essential to a railway system?
It is a mineral railway pure and simple.
Question put, and agreed to.
House Of Lords Offices
(Class 2)
Resolved,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,441, 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, 1920, for the salaries and expenses of the offices of the House of Lords."
Treasury And Subordinate Departments
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £51,787, 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, 1920, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including expenses in respect of advances under The Light Railways Act, 1896."
10.0 P.M.
There is an item of £5,509 in connection with the history of the European War and for increased rate of war bonus. I understand that the War Office is making a history of the European War. The Admiralty, I know, is. The Air Force, the Ministry of Munitions, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Reconstruction, in fact, every single Government Department, so far as my information goes, is writing a history of the War. It is a great means of keeping officials in their jobs when they ought to be out working for their livings. It is the great excuse of the Admiralty in every Department— Naval Intelligence Department, Operations Department, Mine-Sweeping and Trawler Defence—every single Department has men, who ought to be demobilised, remaining on in order to write the History of the War. Now we are asked for £5,000 for a separate history of the War. I think this requires very careful scrutiny by this Committee. I am against this money being spent now, because the history of any war cannot be written till at least two generations after wards. If you told the truth you would blast too many reputations; and I commend that, without anything personal in it, to such hon. and right hon. Members of the War Cabinet who may be present now in the House. Any historian will bear me out when I say that you ought not to write a history, or histories, of the War now, and unless my hon. Friend does so, I am prepared to move a reduction of this sum.
I do not think we could discuss a more important Vote than this concerning the salaries and allowances connected with the Committee of Imperial Defence. It appears from the answer given by the Prime Minister in the House to-day that the Committee of Defence, as such, has never met since the War broke out. I ventured to suggest that it had been superseded during the War. The Prime Minister objected to that term and said that it had been merged in—I suppose—a more glorified Committee—that is the War Cabinet—during the War. My own powers of description are unequal to the task, but perhaps it might be equally appropriate to say that when one read of the lady who went for a ride on the back of a tiger, but she was not superseded, but simply "merged" in the tiger! Since the War the Defence Committee, for which we are invited to vote an increased sum, had only met once. We are told by the Prime Minister that Sub-Committees have met. But this is the one Committee which brings about the co-operation of the three fighting services and therein lies its importance, and this is the only way you can bring that about outside the Cabinet. I want to know why this Defence Committee has never met as a Defence Committee during the War, and why it has ceased to function? Who constitutes the Defence Committee? I myself am willing to vote almost any sum for this Defence Committee because it is the one Committee by which we can bring about great economies in the fighting services in using them for what they are best fitted to do.
We have heard from the Secretary of State for War that very often the Air Service can manage a war much more economically than the Army. I do not see how you are going to bring about any co-ordination in these matters unless these fighting services meet together. Why don't they meet?I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is a Supplementary Estimate upon which we cannot discuss general policy.
I just desire to ask, on this Vote for Defence Committee expenditure, why it has not met? What is the obstacle to its meeting? Is it that the Secretary of State for War has an ambitious scheme by which he is to be at the head of the three fighting Services? Is it the Admiralty? Or has anything come between the Committee and the Cabinet? You have a most efficient Secretary of the Defence Committee in Sir Maurice Hankey. He is a man who can bring about the co-ordination of these three fighting Services. We in this House never get an opportunity of discussing the fighting Service as a whole unless this special Vote is put down for discussion, which I hope it will be at a later date. Why, in the matter of these histories, cannot we have the whole thing co-ordinated so as to get the real lessons out of the War?
I desire to move to reduce the Vote by £100, to draw attention to Sub-head A. There is an increase in the Treasury establishment of £22,000. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the relations which are at present subsisting between the Treasury and this House, in regard to the presentation of their accounts. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a week ago whether the Government had had time to consider the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, recommending a very serious new departure in the procedure of this Committee, and the reply I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was:
What was the recommendation which the Committee on National Expenditure actually made? I may remind the Committee that when the Select Committee was set up, it was specifically instructed to make recommendations in regard to the procedure of this House in relation to Supply and Appropriation, so as to secure more effectively the control of Parliament over public expenditure. Why was that done? Because there was an opinion that our procedure in Committee of Supply during the last three days was quite inadequate to attain the object for which the Committee is set up. We concluded in the first place that the time allotted was quite inadequate—"This proposal has received the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and in their view its adoption would lessen the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, and tend to weaken the control of the Treasury over expenditure."
I am afraid that cannot come in on a Supplementary Estimate, because it is a question of the relation between the Treasury and this House. That must come on the main Vote for the year.
In regard to this item about the history of the European War, I think the Committee ought to have more information. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that it would be many years before we could get a complete and accurate and impartial history of the War, and he suggested that it could not be done to-day because it would blast so many reputations. It is plain that we cannot expect any definite result from an official history for many a long day to come, and it is out of the province of the Committee to ask for details as to how this money is being expended, and exactly what the estimated cost of the official history is going to be. If it is the case, as alleged, that there is more than one official history of the War being prepared, then I say still more emphatically we ought to be told from the point of view of the Treasury exactly the whole of the expenditure involved in this matter. There are countless histories of the War published unofficially, some very good, and others bad. It is not for the Government to encourage the continuance of expenditure which was initiated at a time when it was thought very desirable to prepare the official history. That need not be done at the present time in view of the ultimate publication which may take place years hence. All that need be done now in the way of expenditure is to maintain a very small staff collating all the facts of the War, and laying the bedrock for a work which will be accomplished out of a Vote to come before the Committee some years after this.
Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us what is this increase of Treasury establishment—£22,000?
I want to have a little more information as to what is being done in connection with the history of the European War. In this connection I disagree with the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in what ho said. I hope that this Vote for the staff indicates increased activity in this direction. I have always heard that one war begins where the last war left off. I very much hope that the lessons of this war will not be lost to this country. I trust that this item indicates increased activity so far as the Admiralty and the War Office are concerned. It is important that the lessons of the war should not be lost. Some are in writing, some in the form of that new invention, the film, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly what is being done. I trust we shall also be informed that we may look forward to having a history of the War at a not very distant date.
I will first answer as briefly as I may the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hurd). I would remind this House that every Committee on Expenditure has remarked that, while the strength of all Departments of the State has grown, that of the Treasury has remained stationary. It has been observed more than once by those best qualified to judge, that admirable as the staff is it is not numerous enough to cope with the vast amount of work that faces it to-day. That statement was made by Mr. Herbert Samuel in the last Parliament, and it has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by Members of the present Parliament who are most noted for their interest in economy. We have taken up this question of Treasury supervision with great energy and zeal during the twelve months now passing. In introducing the Estimate last year, I foreshadowed that whatever might happen in other Departments I hoped to be in a position to introduce an increased Treasury Vote at an early opportunity. No one is more conscious than I that we have been understaffed for our work. We want to be in a position to maintain our record, and if we are to do that we must have more strength. The permanent staff on the 1st April, 1919, was 114. It is now 154. Before we have finished our re-organisation we may nearly come up to 200. We have divided the office on a method that we believe will enable it to cope in the best way with the work, specialising the financial work and work that deals with establishments and work that deals with all the other Departments, and this extra £35,000 is going to sharpen our swords and make us a far more efficient Department in our work, in our criticism, and, I hope, in the effect we may have on the other Departments than we have ever been before.
A great deal of interest has Peen very naturally shown in this comparatively small item of salaries, wages and allowances for those who are engaged in compiling histories of the War, and I think this is a very favourable opportunity to give the fullest in formation in my power as to what is being done in this matter. It is the first chance I have had. It was decided that on the whole it would meet the public need if what may be called interim histories of the various activities of the War could be published at as early a date as possible, that is to say, if it was compiled by men who are thoroughly competent to prepare histories which would appeal to the general reader more than to the men who specialise, because the preparation of what may be called the professional histories must be a work of time. It may be years before sufficient information is collected to enable these professional histories to be prepared, and my own view is that when these more popular histories come to be sold the demand for them will be enormous, and it will be no surprise to me to find that, so far from losing money on their production, they might even be a revenue producing undertaking. These histories are all being prepared on the same lines and will be produced by the leading publishers, and the copyright will be vested in the King's Printers. The present position is as follows. There is a naval history in preparation. The author of it is Sir Julian Corbett. The first volume is finished and will be published in the spring of this year, and the second is well in hand. The complete history will probably run into four volumes. The author of the military history is Professor G. S. Gordon. The first volume is nearly ready, but it is too early yet to say in how many volumes the work will be completed. A trade history is being prepared by Mr. Ernest Foyle. The first volume is finished and gone to press. The second is well advanced and three will complete the series. Mr. Archibald Hurd is writing a history of the merchant navy. The first volume is finished and gone to press. Good progress is being made with the second, and that series will be completed in three volumes. Professor Sir Walter Raleigh is writing a history of the Air Force in the War. He is writing the preliminary chapters, and hopes to have the first volume ready before the end of this year, and as at present advised I am told two volumes will suffice, for that history. There is a great mass of material; a much greater mass than could have been anticipated when these histories were first projected, owing to the length of War. In the current year about £11,000 will be spent on the production of these histories, the particulars of which I have read to the Committee. I have given the Committee the fullest information on this subject within my power. I do not know why this particular group of histories comes in my Vote; except that everything comes into my Vote that no one is anxious to father, I present the Vote with great confidence. Although it may not meet with approval in some quarters, I believe it is an expenditure that will command itself on general grounds to the majority of the CommitteeI should like to refer to the first subject dealt with by the Financial Secretary, namely the increase in Treasury staff. I hope that will commend itself to the Committee. I had the honour for a few months to occupy the position which my hon. Friend now adorns, and I was constantly amazed at the amount of valuable work done by Treasury officials, considering the extraordinary smallness of their numbers. The numbers which the hon. Member has given include, I think, nearly everybody. The number of effective men who really draft the important letters of the Department are extraordinarily small when one realises the amount of work they turn out. All through the War, and indeed before the War, they have been working under the most extreme pressure, and the position of the Treasury has suffered in consequence. I hope that in making these additions to the staff a certain principle has been borne in mind, and will be in any further expansions which are to take place, a principle which I believe will be exceedingly valuable in that part of the public service, and that is, that, as a general rule, the higher division clerks who are brought into the Treasury should, before they are appointed to the Treasury, have had some real practical experience in some other Administrative Department. A great deal of the bad repute into which the Treasury has occasionally fallen is due to the fact that men who pass high in the Civil Service Examinations come straight into the Treasury and their work suffers simply because they lack experience of other Public Departments. If the Treasury can introduce this system, which ought to be more possible now that their staff is rather larger, I Relieve the public service would be the gainer. I have in my mind many instances where criticisms of Treasury action have really not been justified. It is always supposed to be negative criticism, but there are Treasury criticisms which are really helpful to the Departments. I believe that will be assisted by making the work a little lighter, by avoiding the constant overstrain upon the staff, and by introducing the system of giving the clerks rather more outside experience before they go to do their work in the Treasury.
I should like to ask whether the Vote includes the charges for the booklets on individual countries which were prepared at the Foreign Office for the purposes of the Peace Conference. If so, is there any intention on the part of the Government at any time in the immediate future to put these booklets on the market? I was a member of the Committee responsible for urging an increase of the Treasury staff to which this Vote is giving expression, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend on proposing this Vote, and on the fact that there was one Government Department which was admirably efficient although it was hopelessly understaffed.
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
I move this Reduction to draw attention to the very surprising explanation about the histories. Plenty of histories of the War have been written already by private people, and why the Government should go into this business I cannot for the life of me understand. The Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon), the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and myself want staff appreciations of the War. I understand that a cheap edition is going to be put on the bookstalls, written by the Government. This will be nothing else but propaganda. I am sorry that a writer of such eminence as Sir Julian Corbett is being prostituted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—to write cheap popular editions. Hon. Members, I think, will agree that Sir Julian Corbett is a writer of the greatest eminence, and to use him to write cheap popular histories of the War is an insult. This is a most dangerous precedent. Suppose we were to have a popular history of the Peace Conference?Why not write one yourself?
I am not such a fool. "Would that mine enemy would write a book!" Such a history would be nothing else than Government propaganda to boost Members of the Government, which all those histories are going to be.
The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give us an explanation of the histories which are in contemplation, but apparently there is no limit to the expenditure which may be incurred upon them. One history has been written of which, ho says, one or two volumes are ready, and we do not know how many more may follow. I have no hostility to the Treasury in this matter, but I suggest it to them that it is opening a door through which any amount of money may fall. I think that a scheme should be brought up showing the exact scope of the undertaking and an estimate of the expenditure which will be incurred. My hon. Friend alluded to the possibility of a sales revenue. That is the most problematical thing in the world. If we made out an estimate showing the probable expenditure which we can fairly gauge and what is likely to accrue in revenue to the Treasury, there is no publishing house to-day which would dream for a moment of allowing thousands of pounds to be spent every year out of profits from histories when sales revenue accounts are proving to be, from the financial point of view, failures in every sense of the word.
My name has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. I would like, therefore, to make my action quite clear. I want to see something absolutely reliable written in connection with the War, something which will be of the utmost educational value to the youth of the country and to the many people who want to know all about what has happened. There are many unauthorised histories being published and a great many yarns are being passed round in the Press as to certain incidents of the War. I hope this history will settle all those things. One wants the history to be readable and available for general consumption. At the same time, I hope that it will not prevent the Naval and Military and Air Force authorities from producing, for staff purposes, a real history on more expensive lines. I hope the Committee will not support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, because I think the expenditure is likely to be very valuable from an educational point of view.
Amendment negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Foreign Office
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1920, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the Foreign Claims Office, Foreign Trade Department, War Trade Statistical Department, and News Department."
in the regrettable absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I have been asked to submit this Supplementary Estimate. I regret the absence of my hon. Friend. The Committee will be glad to know he is rapidly recovering from his illness. This Supplementary Estimate asks for £10. in effect I am asking the Committee to give me this sum in order that I may use certain increases of revenue from the Passports Department to cover the expenses of that Department, and also to cover certain expenses in connection, with the foreign messengers who travel from London to the different diplomatic posts abroad. Of the £18,000 under the head of salaries, wages and allowances, £13,000 is due to war bonuses that are not special to the Foreign Office, but common to the whole of the Civil Service. These war bonuses are fixed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board set up by the Government. As to £5,000 of the £18,000, I want that particular sum in order to cover the increased staff in the Passport Department. The demand for passports has exceeded all expectations, and, although it is a most remunerative business, the Department does require additional staff to earn the extra revenue.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has laid particular stress upon the fact that he is asking for only £10, and in explanation of that he drew attention to the fact that the demand for passports had greatly exceeded all expectations, and that, therefore, the revenue from that source would write off a certain amount of expenditure. I wish to draw attention to the increased staff of the Passport Department and to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman one or two questions. I very much regret to see that it has been necessary for the Foreign Office to increase the staff. I fully recognised the necessity for the passport system during the War. I myself have some considerable knowledge of the system and I have had something to do with it. I fully recognise that it was essential for war purposes, but I cannot see the necessity for it now. It is only right to say that the head of the Passport Department of the Foreign Office has carried out his duties in a very admirable and efficient manner, but now that the War is over the passport is an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the travelling public. I addressed some questions to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject, and I was referred by the Treasury Bench from one Minister to another. As a result of the questions which I put, there appeared in the "Times" the following day a letter from the hon. Member for the combined Universities drawing attention to the great inconvenience to which travellers visiting Switzerland had been recently subjected. That is the case everywhere that the passport system is at present in vogue. I wish to urge the Government to lead the way in bringing this system to an end. The answer that I received to my question in reference to France was that the French Government were responsible for the passport system, but I would like to ask whether it is not the case that the French Government expected that the visé system would come to an end some eleven months ago, shortly after peace was signed, and whether it was not due to the Regulations enforced by the British Government that the system was continued? We have been told that the receipts from passports balance the expenditure. That may be so, but the fees are paid by the public; it all comes back upon the consumer. The public is fleeced again, and that is an additional reason why this load should be taken off the taxpayer and why this restriction should be removed from legitimate travelling. I ask myself whether there is any necessity for the passport and visé system at the present time, and I suggest that there is no necessity for it at all. It is quite true that a certain amount of control of foreigners entering this country is necessary under the Aliens Restrictions Act which has been passed by this House. Under that Act foreigners are compelled to register, and surely it is the duty of the Department presided over by the Home Secretary to ensure that the Regulations are carried out. The French Government have recently, I understand, introduced a Bill establishing a permanent system for foreigners in time of peace and which suggests that no passports will be required on the frontier. Any person over fifteen will have to make a declaration of identity and nationality, and if he intends to remain in the country he must obtain the identity card instituted in 1917. What response did the British Government give to that proposal? Do they intend to keep in being the passport offices all over the world, in the United States, South America, France, and elsewhere; or will they follow the example of the French Government and abolish as soon as they possibly can this illegitimate war-time restriction upon the freedom of travel?
I agree heartily with what the last speaker has said, and it appears to me that this restriction on travel has been continued far too long. If a man wants to go to Russia why should you put any obstacles in his way? The particular question I rose to mention is this. It was announced some time ago that the Ministry of Information had come to an end, but, according to my information, that Ministry was transferred largely to the Foreign Office and became the News Department. How much, if any, of this Vote, is accounted for by the expenditure involved upon this News Department, and what exactly does this Department do. I do not see much signs of its activities—
The hon. and gallant Member has been mislead by the fact that the heading is that of the main Vote for the year. There is no item for the News Department here.
I rise to endorse the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) concerning the vexatious restrictions on travelling by the present passport system. Before the Committee passes a Vote of this nature we ought to receive some information concerning the necessity for maintaining these restrictions to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Vote no doubt had Ministerial facility for his visit to Deauville last summer, and enjoyed all the amenities which appertained to his exalted station, but as a humble member of the travelling public journeying to the same destination, I was put to a very considerable inconvenience. I can only imagine that on a longer journey than that undertaken by my hon. and gallant Friend and myself considerable inconvenience is experienced. I have heard from numerous sources, and from my own constituency in particular, which embraces a large number of individuals who travel on the Continent, that they are subjected to the utmost inconvenience, which appears, in these times, to be entirely unnecessary. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to justify the necessity of maintaining this system before the Committee passes this Vote.
I appreciate the nature of the criticism of my three hon. and gallant Friends, and I shall in a moment or two justify the retention of the passport system. The passport system under the British Foreign Office is in existence not because of His Majesty's Government or the Foreign Office, but for two main reasons. First of all, because all other foreign countries insist upon passports, and no Britisher can travel abroad without a passport, unless he is willing to run the risk of arrest as he goes from frontier to frontier in foreign countries. May I say also that the finest testimonial and the best guarantee as to character that any human being can carry there is a British passport. A British passport will pass a Britisher in spite of his habits. It is therefore essential, as long as Britishers travel, that they should be armed by His Majesty's Government with this token of their nationality and sample, I hope, of their respectability.
There is one other important reason why passports are essential. This House has passed an Aliens Act. Under that Act persons coming into this country must show that they are desirable persons. Therefore when a Britisher travels abroad or, being abroad, seeks to return, he must have a passport, either issued from the British Foreign Office or a Consular Officer abroad in order that he may be admitted with the very minimum of trouble. These are the two important reasons why we have passports; not because we want them, but because the rest of the world, and, curiously enough, expecially the United States, insists upon them. I hope, therefore, with this explanation, that my three hon. and gallant Friends, whose splendid work abroad during the War has, I am afraid, made them forget the needs of these passports, will accept this Vote without further demur and that the Committee will come to that intelligent unanimity that I hope it will always show.I have only one remark to make, and I do not exactly know whether I shall be in order. It has to do with the issuing of the passports, and, if I may say so, with the invidious distinction that is drawn, and has been drawn by the Foreign Office in their issue. A very distinguished member of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain was chosen as the representative to a Geneva Conference. He made application for a passport, along with other people, but, for some reason or other, he and another gentleman were refused their passports for a considerable time. When his passport came through, instead of its being for a fortnight, as he desired, the Foreign Office would only give him leave to be away from the country for a week. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give us the reason why—
That really cannot arise on a Supplementary Vote. It might come on the Main Vote for the year on the Secretary of State's salary.
I merely wish to say, with all respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that his reply is most unsatisfactory. He has not justified his case at all. I asked him quite briefly about the passport system, but I also included in my remarks the visé system. He has told us it is necessary to keep the passport system, but he has said nothing about the visé and if we could abolish the visé it would certainly be a great convenience to the travelling public I told him what the French Government were doing, and he only replied that they demand a passport. I asked what response the British Government intended to make to the Bill which was being introduced in the French Parliament, but he made no answer to that. I hope the Government will lead the way in this matter, by approaching the French Government and other Governments, and I suggest that in one of the spare moments devolving on the Peace Conference they should discuss this matter and see whether some arrangement cannot be arrived at.
I wish to support what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, and I think it would be very useful if the hon. Baronet takes away from this Debate a general impression that the sooner this complicated and most tiresome system of passports and visés all over the place can be modified and made less vexatious the better for everybody concerned. I can see there is some substance in what he said, that because other countries do it we have got to do it, but other people use that argument as well as he. I remember protesting, so far as my limited knowledge of foreign languages would permit, against the fact that I had to leave the place, in Switzerland, I was at and go to Lausanne two days before I should have done in order to get my passport viséd by a French official whose office was only open on certain days, and therefore my very brief holiday was cut short. I said, "This is a nuisance." He said, "Yes, but I should have to go through this sort of thing if I came to your country, and therefore we think it legitimate to make a certain income by forcing you to come to our office and get these visés and making you pay ten francs, or whatever it is, for getting our stamp." I think, if we could take the lead in a little relaxation in these matters, it would be taken up, because the Swiss officials and the French officials in Switzerland do not want to harry the English visitor more than they can help; but, of course, it does pay, no doubt. In fact, the hon. Baronet prided himself on having got £18,000 more out of the passport system than the staff had cost, but I do not want him to pride himself any more on that. I think we would willingly surrender this revenue if we could, and I am sure we should all welcome getting back to a little more freedom.
I should like, Mr. Whitley, with your permission, to refer to the question of the News Department of the Foreign Office. Your ruling was that there was no item down on this Paper in connection with the News Department, but Item A [Salaries, Wages, and Allowances] so far as they appear to have any relation to the Supplementary Estimate, may well be applied to the News Department of the Foreign Office.
If the hon. Member will kindly read the Vote he will see that that would not be in order.
I wish to offer one or two suggestions as to how expense might be saved. After having bought your passport and obtained a visé, shown it to get a railway ticket, and again on board the steamer, it is surely unnecessary to keep a large staff at the port of embarkation to have it carefully examined. That may perhaps be necessary, but having arrived at your journey's end and made up your mind to return home, surely it cannot be necessary to have your passport re-viséd by the British Passport Office at the place where you happen to be in a foreign country before starting on your journey home. That must cause a large increase of expenditure. I know a place at which I called where the passport office was a very large and expensive building. I am sure they had not sufficient work to do.
Like everybody who has spoken to-night, I only rise for the purpose of occupying the attention of the House for one moment. There are some items here I do not understand. I see the receipts from fees for passports are larger than anticipated by £23,990. Last year we had to get passports to go to Ireland, and I would like the hon. Member to tell me how much of this increase came from the collection of fees for pass ports to Ireland. I must say the present Home Secretary did not waste his time in Ireland, because when any Minister is in trouble about any Irish question, however simple, he turns to the Home Secretary and gets inspiration from him. I think my hon. Friend ought to be able to answer this himself.
I can. This Vote has nothing to do with the old passport system of going to Ireland.
Then I want to know where did the money go to. A more ridiculous passport system than that was never invented, because it was introduced for the purpose of—
It is not on this Vote at all.
My hon. Friend has told us that, but he told us on the prompting of the Home Secretary, and we have no information on that.
I have, though.
I see an addition for messengers' travelling expenses. Was any of that paid for the expense of messengers running over to Ireland?
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.
Unemployment Insurance Money
Considered in Committee.
[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law in respect of insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a contribution towards the cost of unemployment benefit and any other payments to be made out of the Unemployment Fund established under the Act, and also of such other sums as may be required for making any other payments (not being payments in respect of the cost of unemployment benefit or of benefits payable under any supplementary scheme) as may be authorised under the Act:
Provided that the contribution towards the cost of unemployment benefit and other payments aforesaid shall not exceed one-third of the aggregate amount of the contributions which would be received from employers and employed persons in any year if those contributions were at the rate in the case of men of six pence, and in the case of women of five pence per week, or at such higher rates not exceeding in the case of men eight pence, and in the case of women seven pence, as may be fixed under any provisions of the Act for securing the solvency of the Unemployment Fund, or relating to the periodical revision of the rates of contribution."
In moving the Resolution I may planation. The first part provides for a contribution towards the cost of unemployed benefit, and the second part defines the limit within which the State shall be responsible. It will be recollected that under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act the amount of the contribution the State made was limited to one-third of the whole of the contributed amount of the employers, workmen, and the State. It is provided in the second part of this Resolution that the State shall be liable for only one-third of the aggregate amount of the contribution which would be received from the employers and employed persons in any one year if those contributions were at the rate in the case of men of 6d. and in the case of women of 5d. per week.
Under the Act the provision is that in the case of men, 3d. shall be provided by the employer and 3d. by the worker, these sums representing the 6d. here described, and in the case of the women 5d. In this case the contribution of the State is limited to one-third of the 6d. in the case of the men, and one-third of the 5d. in the case of the women. I would point out to the Committee that in addition, the effect of the Resolution is to limit the liability of the State to one-third of the 6d. and of the 5d., whatever might be the amount the Committee might afterwards determine should be the amount of the benefit. That is, if the Committee should determine that the amount of the benefit should be more than 15s. in the case of men and more than 12s. in the case of women, that the additional contributions to produce that benefit would require to be provided by either the employer alone or by the employer and workman together. The result of the Resolution is to alter the contribution of the State to one-third of 6d. or one-third of 5d., as the case may be, but it goes on to provide, as the Committee will observe, that the State shall pay one-third of such higher rates, not exceeding in the case of the men 8d., and in the case of the women 7d., as may be fixed under any of the provisions of the Act. It is provided by Clause 16 of the Bill that if it is found that the fund is insolvent there may be a modification of the contribution, but in any case so as to make the contribution in the case of a man not more than 4d. from the man and 4d. from the employer, and in the case of the woman not more than 5½d. from the woman and 5½d. from the employer. In case the fund became insolvent you could have contributions to that extent. If the contributions were raised the liability of the State would be raised to the extent of making the contribution one-third of 8d. in the case of a man and one-third of 7d. in the case of a woman. That represents shortly the meaning of the Resolution which is before the Committee.I bog to move, after the word "sums" to insert the words "not exceeding five hundred thousand pounds in any one year."
The fact that the Eleven o'clock Rule has been suspended rather indicates that the Government anticipate a certain amount of discussion on this Resolution. I do feel that we ought to have rather more explanation in regard to the expenses of the Bill in respect to the administration and payment of officials. On Tuesday a blue paper came round to every Member and No. 4 was "Unemployment Insurance Bill; copy presented with memorandum of financial Clauses" and I was full of hope that we should have a proper financial explanation. I went to the Vote Office the same day and asked for the financial memorandum. Nothing has been printed although it is a command paper and I got a typewritten copy on a sheet of paper absolutely the same as the memorandum on the Bill itself, word for word. I think it is a farce to go to the trouble of issuing a command paper for the purpose of explaining these financial Clauses and merely having a fac-simile of what has appeared on the face of the Bill. I feel that the Government ought to offer some explanation as to what really they are going to spend in administrative expenses. I think we ought to know what the Government intend to spend upon officials throughout the length and breadth of the land.Under Clause 12 of this Bill payment towards the officials apparently is going to be practically absolutely unlimited, and I therefore propose to insert the limiting words "not exceeding £500,000 in any one year." In Clause 12 there is a proviso that one tenth of the whole of the income payable into the Unemployed Fund is to go in payment of administration expenses. One-fifth of the whole of the income is to come out of State funds. One-third of one-tenth is all that the Government ought to pay towards administration expenses. One-tenth of the income, according to the report of the Actuary—Sir A. Watson—comes to £1,214,000. The Government share is just over £400,000 My Amendment will give another £100,000 to it, and I submit that that is the utmost the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask the House to pay in regard to the administration of this Act. Under Clause 17 the right hon. Gentleman is going to allow the Trades Unions 5 per cent. of the Unemployment Fund for administering the benefit—or about one-twentieth of the amount of the expenditure on benefits. Surely the Minister, who is going to have more than anybody else to say on the ad ministration of this Act, ought to be able to administer the contributions, the stamp business, and so on for another 5 per cent. or one-twentieth of the contribution itself. That would bring the total up to one-tenth of the whole amount paid into the Unemployment Fund. Here there is nothing down for administration, and ho can spend, under the Bill as it stands, practically anything he likes. Under the National Health Insurance Act for England and Wales, 1918, they have spent only 10 per cent. of their funds in administration expenses. Their income was about 24¾ millions, and the expenditure on administration was 2½ millions—practically 10 per cent. If that can be done in the case of the vast machinery of National Health Insurance, I venture to submit that should be done in the case of Unemployment Insurance. I feel that this is reasonable. Half a million is ample. It is more than one-third of the one-tenth, and that being the case the House should put it into the Resolution so that we may know what we are committed to. If, in the future, the right hon. Gentleman finds he wants more he has only to come down to the House and make out a good case, and then, I am quite certain, he will get it.
I beg to second the Amendment.
This Resolution brings home to us how slender really is the control of this House over finance. It gives practically unlimited powers to the executive to spend such sums as may be required. Some limit should be placed upon the expenditure authorised by the House, and if it is afterwards desired to exceed that expenditure the Ministry should come back and ask for an additional sum. The Government contribution must necessarily be indeterminate, but the cost of administration stands on an entirely different footing. I support the Amendment.
I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. It is not that I do not sympathise with the desire for a strict limitation of the amount which may be spent. Every man of the Committee desires to spend as little money as possible in the working of the Act, but we must not prejudice its working by lying it up unduly, and I fear that a limitation of this kind put on at this point of time is going to prejudice the Act. We are now proposing to add an indeterminate number of persons to this scheme. It is going to be a very large number I expect, but what it will be precisely it is impossible to say. Accordingly no man is in a position exactly to estimate what the expense is going to be. So long as I am responsible for any administration under the Act I shall certainly give my assurance that it will be worked as economically as possible, but I am certain no man who has any experience of this kind of measure or observation of the past working of similar schemes could say with any precision what amount of money would be required for the operation of the Act.
I come now to our point. When I was proposing the Second Reading, I indicated a direction in which I thought it was necessary to leave some latitude. Clause 17, which provides that the insurance benefit may be dispensed through an industrial organisation such as a trade union, limits the amount to be paid to the trade union to 5 per cent. I indicated that I was not satisfied that it could be worked upon a 5 per cent. basis, because very strong representations had been made to me by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress which went a long way, I will not say to convince me, because probably more proof is necessary, but at least to indicate that a strong case could be made out for a larger contribution by the State towards the expenses of the Trade Union administration than what was here provided for. Accordingly I am not prepared at present to say, when this Bill is in Committee, that I am going to stand rigidly by the 5 per cent. which is provided in Clause 17, and I gave the House a clear indication of my view upon that matter. If I accepted the hon. Member s proposal I should be tying myself to the 5 per cent. It would have that result. As the person responsible for the introduction of this measure, with all the best will in the world I cannot accept the limitation that my hon. Friend proposes, and I hope he will not press it.I much regret to note the attitude taken up by my right hon. Friend. If ever there was a time for economy, it is now. If ever there was an ago when everybody preached economy it is the age in which we live now; but though everybody preaches economy I notice very few who are endeavouring to put it into practice. I have no doubt that so long as the right hon. Gentleman is in charge it will be economically and wisely managed and the House will have confidence in the management, but we may not always have a Scotsman in charge. An Englishman may stray in some way or another; and Englishmen are not to be trusted in any Government Department. It is because of that that I have always been a strong advocate of Home Rule for England. They should be allowed to manage their own business, and not the affairs of Great Britain and Ireland. There is another reason why I look with considerable hostility on this proposal. The cost of the Workmen's Insurance Act is somewhat appalling. I do not think the country has grasped the enormous figures showing the cost of that Act. My hon. Friend said that it only cost 10 per cent. for administration expenses. There is another way to look at what the Act has done, and that is by comparing the benefits that have been paid out, with the cost of the administration of the Act. It is astounding that the cost of working the Insurance Act should be practically equal to the total amount paid in benefits under the Act. If that is so, the Act is a humbug from beginning to end. There ought to have been a limit placed upon the management expenses of the Act; but that was not done. That is a very strong reason why a limit should be placed upon the expenditure under the Bill now before us. We are overridden with bureaucrats and officials all over the country. The country is groaning under officials from Government departments. There ought to be some check upon it. I am sorry the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is not here, because I am sure he would have raised his voice in support of this Amendment. We are the only two real Tories left in the House, and the only real guardians of the public purse. I welcome my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) among the economists, and I am not without hope that if he goes to a Division we shall find a good many who will have the courage to say that a limit must be placed upon Government expenditure. The Amendment is reasonable. It does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from coming to the House and saying, "This limit is too narrow. I find that the expenditure that has been incurred, and the magnitude of the work I have to discharge makes it necessary that I must have more money." If he comes to the House with his perennial smile and his invariable good temper, and makes out the excellent case which he always makes, he will get the money without any objection from any part of the House, but he ought to come and ask for it. Figures should be given showing why it is necessary to spend more than £500,000 on salaries and expenses for this new department. Hon. Members need not be afraid of a Division. Even if defeated the Government will not go out. As they come out of the Lobby after defeating the Government they will find a Minister at the door shaking hands. There will be no indignation. I invite hon. Members to put in practice the principles of economy.
My right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I do not propose to diminish the contribution towards administration expenses. The reports show administration expenses at £1,214,000. All I propose is to limit the Government's share of those to one-third. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman £100,000 more than he requires. The object is to keep the Government to a certain sum which they will be able to take out of the unemployment fund for administration.
I do not understand my hon. Friend. If administration is to cost £1,000,000 and the Government are to have only £500,000, I do not understand who, he thinks, is going to administer the rest, and do not think that he thoroughly understands the scheme.
If we were to vote for the Amendment we might prejudice seriously the whole position, and I should be sorry if no support were given to the Government from the back benches. My hon. friend (Mr. MacVeagh) will shortly have an opportunity, if he likes to take it, of showing how cheaply he can administer unemployment benefit in another part of this realm, and it will be interesting to compare the cost of administration here and there. We can criticise the cost and administration when we know a little more about it. The Minister will have to come here every year and we can test the cost of administration. There is no good quoting figures from the actuaries' reports which assume, that a given number of people are going to be concerned in this Bill. There are many in this House who consider that some of the exemptions which are in this Bill ought not to be there and we want the House to be perfectly free if it sees fit to deal with large classes that are at present excluded from the scope of the Bill. Suppose we had included agricultural labourers, leaving out domestic servants for the moment. The whole basis on which the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) founded his suggestion disappears. The hon. Member is proposing this specious amendment as if we were dealing with one fixed capital sum. The number of people who are included within the Bill makes that capital sum completely variable. I press the Government to economise when economy is possible, but I do not think we render any signal service if we take specious occasions on which to try to. secure it. I want this Bill to be as complete a success as possible, but I think the Amendment will seriously prejudice us in our further consideration of the measure.
I have been in this House many times when Ministers have asked for indefinite votes of this kind, and I have heard the same arguments repeated on the one side and the other. It seems to me that if this House is to have any real control over the finances of the nation it is absolutely necessary for it to put its foot down and tell Ministers that they must not come here and ask us for all the money there is. That is practically what this Votes comes to. The House, I hope, will refuse to grant any such power. Let the Ministers mention the sum and the House will vote
Division No. 34.]
| AYES.
| [11.34 p.m.
|
| Atkey, A. R. | Glanville, Harold James | Redmond, Captain William Ascher |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gretton, Colonel John | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Johnstone, Joseph | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Casey, T. W. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | |
| Donnelly, P. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Mosley, Oswald | Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson and Mr. Rose. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Purchase, H. G. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Glyn, Major Ralph | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Renwick, George |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gregory, Holman | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Hallwood, Augustine | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hartshorn, Vernon | Rutherford, Sir W. w. (Edge Hill) |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Hayday, Arthur | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Seager, Sir William |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bromfield, William | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Sexton, James |
| Bruton, Sir James | Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W. | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Lloyd-Greame, Major P. | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Courthope, Major George L. | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | M-Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Macmaster, Donald | Vickers, Douglas |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Edge, Captain William | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. E. | Whitla, Sir William |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Neal, Arthur | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, w, Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pulley, Charles Thornton | |
it, and if the sum is not sufficient they can come down and ask for a supplementary vote. If they do not do that it shows entire contempt of the financial control of the House, and I hope the House will resent it in the proper way.
Before we divide, I should like to say that it is perfectly clear in this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman is going to get an unlimited amount for administration expenses. I wanted to limit it. If hon. Members read the Bill they will see that that is the case.
Question put, "That the words not exceeding five hundred thousand pounds in any one year be there inserted."
The Committee Divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 104.
Original Question again proposed.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to issue a White Paper giving fuller details as to what the administration of the proposed Act will be approximately. If he will do that it will be very helpful to Members.
I shall be very glad to accede to the request of the hon. Gentle man and to see that a White Paper is prepared.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after half-pant Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley) adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant, to the Standing Order,
Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before Twelve o'clock.