On a point of Order. I desire to call the attention of the House to a communication which I have received from you, Mr. Speaker, declining to allow me to put a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Attorney-General with regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case of two men named Thomas Whelan and Patrick Moran, who have been sentenced to death. In the letter which you have sent me you state that you could not permit this question, as it was not a matter that ought to be discussed in the House. I replied to you to say that I could not understand why you have taken that decision, because within the past two months, and, I think, in the past few days, the very same question in regard to other cases has been raised in the House without any objection being made by you. I refer in one case to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) in regard to a young soldier, and only in the last few days a question was asked from these Benches in regard to the sentence of death on a Canadian. Therefore I would like to have some explanation as to why you have taken exception to the particular question which I desired to ask.

The general rule which has been laid down repeatedly—and I think I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the last occasion when it occurred, when Mr. Byrne, late Member for Dublin Harbour, asked a question, and the ruling was then given—is that no question ought to be answered, either by the Home Secretary as to the advice which he will tender to the Crown, or by the Chief Secretary as to the advice which he will tender to the Lord Lieutenant, in respect of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The House has always felt that it is very undesirable that these cases should be discussed here or even raised by way of question and answer. The questions which have been asked and to which the hon. Member refers have, I think, been questions on matters of fact as to whether or not the prerogative in a particular case had been exercised. I see less objection to that, but I do see great objections to putting in interrogative form reasons for, or it may be objections against, the prerogative of mercy. That would be contrary, I think, to the general rule, but simply to ask the question whether in a particular case the prerogative had been exercised or not is a matter to which I think no exception can be taken.

Then I wish to ask the Attorney-General the question in the form in which Mr. Speaker has indicated it might be asked, namely, whether he is prepared to state whether the prerogative of mercy has been or will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—extended to Thomas Whelan and Patrick Moran in connection with the shooting of officers in Dublin, and whether it is a fact that in regard to Thomas Whelan the Crown depended on witnesses whose evidence—

That exactly raises the question to which there is strong objection, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ask that part of the question but will confine himself to the first part.

May I respectfully point out that the case you quoted, namely, the question put by the late hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, is not the most recent case. I have already pointed out to you that there have been two cases in the last two months, and one case in the last week, and it is not my recollection, though I bow to your superior knowledge, that the questions raised by the hon. Member for South Hackney and by another hon. Member from these Benches were couched in the terms you have indicated. I rather think that the questions were in similar terms to the form in which I have presented my question to the Attorney-General.

Even if that is so it was only by inadvertence that they were accepted. Such a question should not appear on the Paper. I think it must have been asked by private notice or possibly it was asked without notice.

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

It is only on very rare occasions that this Motion comes before the House. I am certain that the House strongly objects to being asked to sit on a Saturday—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—especially when that occasion arises in connection with financial business. I quite agree that the position being what it is, the greatest amount of publicity which can be thrown upon the financial operations of the Government the better. I also agree that it is much better to discuss these questions even on a Saturday than after one o'clock in the morning. I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what Votes he hopes to get to-day, of course, with our assistance, and when the Second Beading of the Bill relating to the imposition of duties upon German goods coming into this country will be taken? Further, I wish to ask whether the House is entitled to assume that the Committee stage of that Bill will not go upstairs, but be taken on the floor of this House. On that point I want to say that if the Government decide to take that Bill, which is not only of national but international importance, in Committee up- stairs, it will be a flagrant defiance of the general understanding which was come to when the new rules of procedure were before the House. I strongly urge the Government to consider what may be the effect of such a precedent in years to come.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is going far from the question. The Bill has not yet received the sanction of the House, and therefore it is raising a purely hypothetical question as to whether it will be sent to a Committee upstairs or not.

The Government is asking the House to sit on Saturday and obviously they are moved by necessity in connection with legislation which they propose to lay before us. I submit that I am entitled to raise that point in connection with the Motion now before us, because the Saturday sitting relates to that Bill. I do not wish to press that; I will leave it as it is. What are the proposals with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill I have mentioned, and if it is taken on Monday on what day is it proposed to take the Committee stage, and if due progress is made to-day with regard to the Supplementary Estimates, is it possible to avoid sitting to-morrow, assuming we get through four or five of these Supplementary Estimates?

My Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will answer as to the business to be taken. In response to the right hon. Gentleman's questions as to the German Reparation (Recovery) Bill, we propose to take the Second Reading of that on Monday. I will not attempt to discuss what Committee it will be sent to. I am sure the House will recognise that it is very desirable that a decision should be taken on that Bill rapidly, and if the House approves of the proposal of the Government, it should take effect at the earliest possible moment. How that may best be secured with the general assent of the House we shall know better on Monday. If it is possible to arrange to pass the Bill rapidly through without sending it to a Committee upstairs, then the Government will be glad to meet the views of all sections of the House. Of course it depends upon the spirit in which the proposals of the Government are met and whether there will be general co-opera- tion in getting an early decision, and in getting the measure passed rapidly into law. As regards a Saturday sitting, my right hon. Friend opposite has admitted its necessity, and if it is disagreeable to the House to have a Saturday sitting it is all the more disagreeable to hard-worked Ministers.

I wish to ask if the Government intend to take other business on Monday as well as the Bill relating to the German duties, and, if so, what business? I would like to know at what time it is proposed to resume the discussion on the remaining Irish Estimates?

After the Second Reading of the German Reparation (Recovery) Bill on Monday, we shall endeavour to make some further progress with the Supplementary Estimates. We do not propose to take the remaining Irish Estimates on Monday, but on one night next week.

I suppose at the end of the sitting?

Yes.

Does that mean an all-night sitting?

Certainly. There are nine Votes on the Paper to-day. It is essential that we should get them today and to-morrow, and we shall not put any further Orders down to-morrow. I hope we shall make sufficient progress to-day so as to avoid a late sitting tomorrow. When I say that, I do not mean a late sitting to-day, and by five or six o'clock I hope we shall get through sufficient business to-day as will not leave too much for to-morrow.

Amongst the Unclassified Service there is the question of the War bonus, and a very large amount of interest is taken in that subject. May I ask that in the arrangement of these Supplementary Estimates that that Vote should come on first Order some day, so that it will receive the discussion which is so generally desired throughout the House? I should also like to ask when the Army Vote will be taken?

The Army Vote will be taken on Tuesday. I purposely omitted the War bonus from the business for to-day and to-morrow because of its importance. I do not like to commit myself, but it will be impossible to start the business of the day with any Supplementary Vote on any day next week before Friday. We might take it on Friday, and without committing the Government at the present moment to that course I may say we had it in contemplation to make it the first Order on that day.

Will it not be possible to take the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, in which great interest is taken in view of the state of affairs in Ireland, at a reasonable hour.

We might take it on Saturday next week.

Arising out of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the Reparation Bill, I understand that the Allies are concerned in the same way as we are, and I would like to know whether they are passing similar Bills at the same time.

I think each country will have to take such opportunity as it can to pass its own legislation. I understand that the Allies do intend to submit to their Parliaments similar proposals.

Question put, "That this House do sit to-morrow."

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 50.

I think it will meet the convenience of the Committee if I make a few observations on the three items referred to in this Vote, and it will meet my convenience if I take the second and third items before I take that relating to typhus in Poland. The case of Mr. North, the British chaplain in Moscow during one of the most difficult and critical periods of our relations with Russia, is familiar to the Committee. We have already recorded the services of Mr. North, and last year I asked and obtained the sanction of the Committee for the payment of a sum of money to meet the charges to which he had been put in the course of his beneficent activities in Moscow.

What was that sum?

I forget the exact amount at the moment, but it was a considerable sum. There was, of course, no official representative of the British Empire in Moscow or in any part of Northern Russia at that time, and Mr. North was placed, by the consent of the community and because of his own remarkable personal qualities, at the head of that community. During that time he performed services of the highest possible value to our country. In the course of his activities it was necessary for him to borrow considerable sums of money from those members of the British community who were a little better off than the others. He had nothing to give but his note of hand, but he was sure that the British Government would sanction and endorse any commitments into which, owing to the necessities of the situation, he entered. Those charges have already been met, and what I now ask the Committee to do is to allow the Government, as a mark of recognition of Mr. North's services, to make him a grant of £5,000. I need not again go into the story of that very wonderful achievement on the part of the British chaplain, but I should like to give to the Committee the view expressed at the time by Rear-Admiral Sir Walter Cowan, commanding in chief in the Baltic. When Mr. North emerged from Moscow, at about the time when the last group of prisoners was coming out from Russia, he met Sir Walter Cowan, and Sir Walter Cowan found it quite impossible to extract from Mr. North himself any record of his services; but the Admiral heard of them from every one of the prisoners and refugees who had benefited by the activities of Mr. North, and, in a letter to the Admiralty, he wrote:

I will touch more briefly on the case of Mr. Merrett, who also rendered very great services to our community in Russia. He was instrumental in securing the freedom of more than 250 British subjects or British nationals in Russia, and he did this under conditions of great personal danger. From the accounts that have reached me, Mr. Merrett displayed the qualities of sagacity and daring that, fortunately, are not rare among our people when they find themselves abroad in very critical circumstances. This sum of £3,000, which I hope the Committee will sanction, is not a reward or a free grant. It is a reimbursement to Mr. Merrett for the charges to which he was put in obtaining the release from Russia of our prisoners and other British nationals. There is here no question of a grant. Mr. Merrett, like Mr. North, was obliged to raise money, partly from his own resources and partly from British nationals in Russia. He had nothing to give in the latter case but his own note of hand, and he gave it with the same confidence as was felt by Mr. North that this country and this Parliament would reimburse him for the expenses to which he was put. I have gone into this very carefully, and can with complete confidence recommend it to the acceptance of the Committee. It is an obligation that was incurred on behalf of the British nation.

I come now to an entirely different subject. It is one which, for aught that I know, may excite controversy, although I trust that it will not. It is the question of the means that have been taken or are being taken by the League of Nations to meet the situation in regard to typhus in Eastern Europe. This matter, as the Committee will be aware, has been much in the mind of the medical world of Europe, and it has been the subject of the most careful inquiry by the highest medical authorities. I understand that the need for widespread measures was first brought to the notice of the League of Nations by the League of Red Cross Societies, and it was the subject of a special mission sent by the League of Nations to the affected areas. In all cases the authorities dwelt on the devastating effects of the disease in Poland and Russia and on the risk of its spreading to Western Europe. Finally, a report, in the name of the Canadian Delegate to the League of Nations, was submitted to the Assembly at Geneva. I may perhaps quote exactly the main results arrived at by this Committee, because they express briefly and authoritatively what all these Health Authorities thought and think about the danger of typhus in the affected parts of Europe. The Committee said that the epidemic condition of typhus in Poland and Galicia is very grave and constitutes a distinct menace, especially to Eastern Europe and in general to the world at large; that the resources of mechanical and medical equipment of Poland, though hitherto employed in an excellent manner, are altogether insufficient successfully to cope with the conditions in Poland itself; that the infection of typhus is widely distributed in Russia, and other countries adjoining Poland, and opportunities for its distribution are constantly and continually increasing; that urgent necessity exists for an immediate and adequate effort participated in by the nations of the world successfully to combat a menace which is international and world-wide. Those sentences embody virtually all the opinions that I have read of the highest authorities in connection with this matter.

At first it was proposed, as I understand it, to proceed on a very elaborate scale, and it was originally estimated that a sum of not less than £3,500,000 would be required in order to institute a thoroughly satisfactory health system all along the Eastern frontier between Poland and Roumania and Russia. It was, indeed, intended to establish a real cordon sanitaire all along this line, and appeals were made by the League of Nations, but I regret to say they met with comparatively little response. It was, therefore, decided that the greater scheme must remain in abeyance. It was also decided that what could be done with whatever funds could be got together should be done and done quickly. On 2nd December, at Geneva, the Assembly of the League passed the following resolution: touch with him in connection with this matter and he wrote to me:

I said it was difficult to get funds. In August last the Lord President of the Council was requested by the League of Nations to issue a special appeal. In the case of this appeal again it is to be regretted that the response was not as large as one could wish. Very considerable sums have been voted and promised. Greece has given £10,000, Japan £5,000, Switzerland £2,000, and other smaller sums which I could read as well as other sums promised. The Government of Canada, I understand, has promised $200,000.

It says pounds in the White Paper.

It would be interesting if the hon Gentleman would read the list of donations.

Greece £10,000, Sweden £3,000, Japan £5,316, Switzerland £2,150. Persia £2,000, Belgium £1,000, Siam £1,000.

France?

France has not yet given anything. In the United States it is being considered, but, I understand, under the Constitution of the United States it is not possible to make forward grants in anticipation of a decision of Congress.

Has Germany given anything?

Yes, Germany has. Canada has promised $200,000, Spain £40,000, Germany 1,000,000 paper marks, Holland 100,000 florins.

Does the same condition attach to Germany's donation of 1,000,000 paper marks as appears in Command Paper 1032, which is our only source of information?

Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to that later on. China £2,000, Uruguay and Peru sums in currency with which I am not familiar. It will be seen that with sums in hand and sums promised—and we need have, little doubt of the ultimate receipt of most of them—a sum approaching, I think, £225,000 is more or less available. It is confidently hoped that the example set by this country, supposing the Committee sanctions the setting of the example, will be followed speedily by other great Powers. One point which might arise in hon. Members' minds is as to whether there is this serious danger of typhus. I find that as recently as January, 1919, there was a great outbreak of typhus in and about Rotterdam. From my information there were 823 cases and 100 deaths, so that we find that even in what is acknowledged as one of the cleanest countries in the world they have an outbreak of typhus. We cannot ignore that.

I do not need to remind the Committee of the Article of the Covenant which enjoins all the members of the League of Nations to activities of this kind. It is not in the nature of an unavoidable obligation. Sub-section (F), of Article 23, says: he has reconciled himself to the existence of the League of Nations, would deny that this is work eminently suited to that great international body; nor do I think that any member of this Committee will deny my second proposition, that this country should set an example to other countries in support of such efforts. We occupy one of the greatest positions, if not the greatest position, of all in the world. One of the lessons which I have learned more than anything else while I have been at the Foreign Office is the enormous prestige that this country has in every part of the world outside Ireland. It is almost pathetic to see how much our example is depended upon by other nations, and it is rather an embarrassment to see how much they look to us for guidance and assistance in their difficulties. It is of prime importance that the League of Nations should be warmly and even generously supported in its activities, and especially in the early days of its history. There are many critics of the League of Nations, and there is a much greater body of doubters about the League of Nations; but I am disposed to agree with the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who said yesterday that if the League of Nations is not to exist or is a failure the late War has very largely been fought in vain. The subject matter of the Estimate represents one of the smallest and least important of the activities of the League of Nations, but I do warmly submit it to the Committee for its sanction. I trust that we shall be found in this matter setting an example and furnishing the League with our quota, and more than our quota, necessary to carry out the admirable work that they have in hand.

I beg to move that Sub-head "K" ( "Special Missions and Services" ) be reduced by £49,000.

1.0 P.M.

I confess that the hon. Gentleman places me in considerable difficulty, because it is almost impossible to quarrel with the way in which he has stated his case. With regard to the items which relate to grants to the Rev. F. W. North and Mr. Merrett, I should be the last to quarrel with that, because although I have not had the pleasure of intimate acquaintance with the work of these gentlemen, I yield to no one in my admiration for the great services they have rendered. If we oppose this Vote we are placed in a difficult position, because we might be seeming to oppose what we most strongly approve of in that respect; but I must with all deference join issue with the hon. Gentleman as regards the other part of the Vote, Item "K," for combating typhus in Poland. Our only authoritative document is Command Paper, 1,022, which was issued, I think, in December last, and which gave almost as much information as the hon. Gentleman has given, although it omitted certain subscriptions given for the purpose. I was very glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that other nations are prepared to do a bit in this matter. There are one or two grave objections to this item, and the first objection which presents itself to my mind is that any ordinary man walking about London to-day, or reading the newspapers, would see the urgent appeals that are being made on behalf of London hospitals and hospitals all over the country for money to help them to carry on. Scarcely a month passes that we do not see a letter in one of our leading newspapers appealing for funds for one of the greatest hospitals in London. We are told that unless funds are forthcoming within a very short space of time the hospital will have to close down, and that its research work and its humane, admirable work in the poorer districts of London will be brought to a stop. In face of that it does seem rather a tall order, if I may use such a phrase, to call upon the taxpayers of this country to provide £50,000 for combating typhus in Poland. There is so much disease at home on which the money could be spent with the object of combating the disease.

What will you do if you get typhus coming here?

There are other ways of preventing typhus coming into this country than by combating typhus in Poland. Let me not be supposed to say that combating typhus is not an admirable thing and that it would not be an admirable thing to do if we were in normal conditions and if this country was in a financial position to bear it. At the present time it is ill-advised. The hon. Member in introducing the Vote left several things obscure. I think he said there is no contribution from France. There is a paragraph in this Command Paper dealing with the appeal, and the lack of response with which it was received. It says:

"The Secretary-General was authorised to appeal at once to the Government of twenty-eight States for contributions towards the £2,000,000 required, and Mr. Balfour, who was the representative on the Council entrusted with this appeal on behalf of the League, endeavoured to obtain £250,000 for immediate use. He secured from the British Government a promise to contribute £50,000 to this preliminary sum provided four other Powers were also prepared to respond."

I would like to ask, does that proviso still hold good? Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that it is an unconditional gift of £50,000?

It has been advanced.

France replied that she would contribute on the same conditions as Great Britain, but I understand from the hon. Gentleman that she has, in fact, not contributed anything, though her proviso stands good. At the time of the Council meeting at San Sebastian, no further definite contribution of a parallel sum had been promised. As a result of this, Dr. Vaughan Morgan resigned the post of High Commissioner, in the absence of the funds necessary to start the campaign. A further appeal was then made, and various contributions were promised. In the Command Paper Canada is mentioned as having promised £200,000, which, I understand, is really 200,000 dollars, and various other sums which the hon. Gentleman has quoted. Then it was reported that Mr. Balfour had been obliged to inform the Council during the Session at Brussels that many of the Governments to whom he had appealed had failed to reply and that the funds required to begin the campaign had not been secured.

When I read this Paper I could not help taking the view that we had gone a great deal further than we should in promising the £50,000 even provisionally, but the proviso having been withdrawn does make the matter more difficult for me, because we have spent this £50,000, and as far as I can see we have not succeeded in interesting the other great Powers of Europe, let alone the United States, to anything like the same extent.

Spain!

I can see no trace of any contribution from Spain.

She has contributed £40,000.

It has been promised. There has been no contribution. It amounts to this, that various small sums have been actually contributed by Sweden, Japan, Persia, Siam, Belgium, Greece and Switzerland, there has been the promise of £50,000 from France conditional upon four other nations making the same contribution, and Spain has promised £40,000 also. But the fact remains that we here are bearing far and away the largest burden in combating typhus. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harmsworth), who disarms criticism by his admirable manner of presenting the case, says we give an example to the world in such a matter as this. It is an example, but it is a superabundant example, having regard to the state of this country in regard to its finances and also in view of the fact that hospitals have at the present time tremendously increased costs to meet for the larger and larger amount of research work which is being done, and I am informed by medical friends that we are on the eve of even greater discoveries. It does seem to me, however, that this contribution of £50,000, which might so well have been spent in this country for the purposes set down in this Vote, is a mistaken policy. I can only regret that the two Votes, the grants for Mr. North and for Mr. Merrett and this sum of £50,000 are in the same Vote.

After the speech of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, I had thought there would be no cavil about this grant of £50,000, but after the very moderately-phrased but rather revolutionary ideas of the hon. Member for Northern Cumberland (Major Lowther) I think it is worth while to say a few words in defence of this Vote for the suppression of typhus in Poland. He brought forward the cogent point that in view of the state of hospital finance in this country it was inadvisable that this large sum should be devoted to combating disease abroad. He also said he thought there were other ways of combating disease preferably to meeting it in the place where it was actually at its height. I think he has not fully realised the enormous value of the medical maxim that prevention is better than cure. If we can stamp this disease out at its focus we make a tremendous difference to the health of Europe, and the health of Europe means the trade of our own country.

I want to point out a parallel case in the typhus epidemic in Serbia in 1915. In the winter of 1914–15 Serbia was invaded by Austria. Conditions of great hardship and distress prevailed throughout that land and a tremendous epidemic of typhus swept Serbia from end to end. This country and some of the other Allies decided that we ought to send aid to the Serbians and stamp out this disease before it got any further, and although we were in the throes of a tremendous struggle here—and great as is the demand upon our resources at the present time, it is nothing to the strain when we were in the middle of the Great War—we sent specialists and money and we succeeded in stamping out typhus. In our own City of London here we fought for ten years day and night before we could make any impression on typhus. Epidemic after epidemic swept the swarming population of London here before we could get anything done. In three months' time we stamped out typhus completely in Serbia and removed that menace for ever from the health of the world. A few days ago the Prime Minister, standing at that Box, said the advice "Love your neighbour" was not only good Christianity, but it was good business. In three months' time we succeeded in removing this scourge from South-Eastern Europe, and I have no doubt that it was by seeing the value of what was done at this time that the little country of Greece was impelled to make a larger contribution of £10,000 to the fund for fighting this disease. The hon. Member who moved the reduction said we were bearing a disproportionately large burden. The hon. Member must have omitted to notice that the great United Kingdom out of its wealth has contributed £50,000 and that the little kingdom of Greece in its poverty is contributing one-fifth of that sum. Our contribution comes from a population of 46,000,000, and a little country like Greece contributes £10,000. I do not think it can be said that we are bearing proportionately anything like as great a burden as little Greece.

We have heard the results of research. Until 1900 we groped in the dark in the treatment of typhus. We thought it was due to dirt and overcrowding or famine, but we were not sure. Then we found that it was due to a louse, which bites an infected man and then goes to a healthy man, the typhus germ thus being conveyed from one to the other. That has a very immediate bearing on the question of our trade with these countries, because one of the chief factors in spreading a typhus epidemic is the railway. The railways of South Russia had a great deal to do with the continuous spread of typhus in that country. Every train was a travelling pest-house, for on the trains travelled the lice. The man who goes into one of these trains is going into a place as deadly as a den of rattle-snakes. How can we expect our traders to move freely in a country where the conditions of transport are such that a man entering a train is literally taking his life in his hands? It is of importance to realise that this is not merely a Polish question, but a British question as well; that this sum is in the nature of an investment, and that if we can extend credit for rolling stock, for cotton goods, and for rubber to these devastated countries, the extending of credit for health must be one of the most immediate and practical investments. I beg the hon. Member who moved a reduction of the Vote to consider these matters. I know he is deeply interested, as we all are, in the cause of economy in this country, but I ask him to consider that for a small sum we cleared the whole of Siberia of this disease, and that for this £250,000 it may be possible to clear the Polish nation also of the disease.

In discussing the question of epidemics I would point out that in this country, as a trading country, we are exposed permanently to the risks of disease. Up to 1870 there were thousands of deaths in London alone. This is a fertile soil in which the disease can nourish, and there is a possibility of epidemic diseases being spread from this mass infection in Central Europe. I need hardly emphasise the fear with which the medical world regards the lowering of the vitality of great blocks of population in Central Europe. If by any means we can do anything to root out the disease, it will be money well spent. We are not quite satisfied in the medical world that this sum is being properly and efficiently expended. We are not satisfied that there is that unity of command which is necessary for stamping out the disease. When we went into Serbia we had behind us the authority which is so necessary. Only the League of Nations can exert this authority. We are not satisfied that it is being exerted as it was in Serbia, where we stopped every train and not a wheel was allowed to roll for weeks at a time, while we were stamping out the disease. In three weeks' time the drop came, and the rolling stock was freed. We ask that this big sum of £225,000, which has been promised and given, should be expended in such a way that the campaign against the disease will be put under one central head, that it be backed with the whole authority, not only of the League of Nations, but of the Supreme Council, and that the whole thing be done in a business-like and autocratic way These new nations are not anxious to submit to authority; they need a tremendous backing, not only from the League, but from the Supreme Council. I hope that vigorous methods will be taken to disinfect the rolling stock of the country. If the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs can give us an assurance that unity of command will be arranged, we shall have still more pleasure than we now have in supporting him.

I rise to support the view put forward by the last speaker. The fact that I am on my feet is more or less due to the interesting descriptive account he gave of travelling in Russian trains. It recalls to my mind many happy moments I have spent as a traveller in Russia. There you find company you never expect. Sometimes I have spent four or five days in succession in a train. Your companions become so persistent in their attentions that you have to walk up and down the corridors father than stop where you may have expected to get a few hours of repose. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Lowther), who no doubt will be a Member of the next Government when the time comes, has overstepped the mark this time. I feel sure that on consideration he will wish to withdraw his proposed reduction. I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in the remarks he made concerning the next item in the Estimate.

As a reduction of the first item has been moved, we must leave the second item out of our consideration until we have disposed of the proposed reduction.

I shall vote against the reduction, for I think the Government have done wisely in asking the House to vote this money. You cannot stop the disease coming into this country merely by examination and disinfecting of people when they arrive. If it is the louse which carries the disease, it is most difficult to prevent it coming in. Once it gets in we run a great risk, unless we take such steps as will involve enormous expenditure and the raising of large sums voluntarily to keep our hospitals going for killing the plague. I therefore shall vote against the reduction, but I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw it.

After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), nobody would oppose the giving of this money. It is clearly fair and no one can seriously contest the necessity for voting it, but that is not what I find fault with. What I find fault with is that the money has been given before the sanction of Parliament and that is really a way of carrying on finance that we in this House must object to. It is quite true there may have been urgency and in this particular case there was a necessity for doing things at once, but if this House had been given an opportunity to consider this Vote before the money was given, the very point the Member for Lanark put, the efficiency of spending the money, would have been insisted upon by this House. The League of Nations, excellent body as it is, excellent in principle and ideals, is an untried body as far as any practical work is concerned and is in charge of this particular extinction of disease and money is handed over to it quite unconditionally without a Vote of this House, although it is a new item that has never been on the Votes before. There is no question of its having been suggested that this is going to be done to this House, but it is put down after it has been done. This is the kind of finance we ought to object to. Under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman ought to undertake not to have financial Votes in future put down like this for money might have been spent on far more mischievous things. I wonder we have not been asked to spend money on feeding the children in Germany and then have someone come and tell us afterwards it has been done. This system of spending money first and coming to Parliament afterwards ought to be stopped.

I do not at all agree with what my bon. Friend who has just addressed the Committee has said, and on behalf of the taxpayer as far as I can represent him I repudiate entirely the doctrine of the hon. Member for Lanark (Capt. Elliot). I am sure all he says about typhus is perfectly true. I realise the healthier Europe is, the better off is England. But that England should therefore sanitate all Europe is a totally different proposition. I see no use in supporting or moving the reduction because our money as usual has been spent against the promises of other people. Because we are 40,000,000 here, that we can finance sanitation all over Europe seems to me absolutely—I do not know how to express an opinion of that theory without using language which my right hon. Friend, the representative of the Foreign Office might describe as outrageous, and when so courteous a representative of so eminently polite an establishment as the Foreign Office described my remarks last night as outrageous, I must be very careful in what I say to-day.

Nevertheless, duty alone keeps me here to protest against this doctrine altogether. The hon. Member says the money spent on sanitation is well spent. The right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Fisher) says that money spent on education is well spent. That is not an answer to the taxpayer to say his money is well spent. You may take every penny out of his pocket and say it is well spent. Robin Hood and others in the past and Don Q in the present took away money from people who had it to spend it well. That such a theory should be tolerated in the House of Commons, where Members come primarily to represent the taxpayer, absolutely amazes me, and when I listened to the hon. Gentleman I felt inclined all the time, except for that shyness I have about interrupting, to remind him that we were not in Serbia but in the United Kingdom, and that Serbia is not even a part of the British Empire. What can our constituents think of us if we are discussing this Vote from the point of view of Serbia and upon an understanding that it is incumbent upon that wealthy taxpayer, of that wealthy nation, the British nation, to sanitate all Europe lest disease may come over to us. Why, of course it may be desirable to sanitate all Europe, but can the British taxpayer afford these counsels of perfection? Already he is groaning under excessive taxation himself because it has been incurred, as he believes, on account of the War and is unavoidable. In this particular matter I took the trouble before coming here to study the report of the League of Nations, which puts the best leg forward on behalf of that institution. I must be careful again or my right hon. Friend will reprove me. I believe the League of Nations to be the finest thing in the world, but I do not think this is the finest League of Nations. I have studied the Paper and heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Is it or is it not the case that the British taxpayer has paid away £50,000 against the comparatively small sums contributed in the lump by the other signatories of the League of Nations and more than twice the total amount contributed by all the others combined? Of course the British nation in this respect is keeping very expensive company. It is invited in the Article my hon. Friend quoted to endeavour to take steps—no more than that, and you may endeavour to take steps without putting your hand in anybody's pocket—in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease. The Lord President of the Council made two appeals and observed that this present appeal is for a preliminary sum of £250,000. What sum is required if we are going to accept the hon. Gentleman's duty of sanitating all Europe lest epidemics should reach our sacred island? This is only a preliminary £250,000. Of this we have paid away £50,000 or two and a half times the total sum actually collected from the other nations. As I read the list I am impressed more than ever with the exceedingly expensive company the country keeps in the League of Nations. How much help are you going to get from Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama? As a representative of the taxpayer I am very much cheered when I see the name of France, and I say, "Here is some companion who is paying her share." But then my hopes are dashed to the ground, because the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs tells me that France has not paid anything. I sympathise with him and I realise that, in defending this Vote, he is a kind of whipping boy and is not responsible for the expenditure which he so admirably—and I think I may even say to some extent whole-heartedly—defends before us. I should like him to state what is the total amount subscribed by nations other than England and absolutely spent as a part of this sum of £250,000 which is a preliminary to the sanitation of all Europe, which, it seems, is to be a duty of the British taxpayer. Will he kindly answer me that question, and also may I look to him and hope that he will, to some extent, discourage the sort of sympathy with which this matter has been treated? It was actually said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), and also, I think, by another hon. and gallant Gentleman that the whole world looked up to the British taxpayer. And well they may, when he sets this expensive example! I do not believe that the British taxpayer really appreciates that kind of adulation, and, as one of his representatives, I am exceedingly glad to see on the Treasury Bench the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, who is also actively engaged in emptying his pockets. I want, on behalf of the British taxpayer, in the most explicit terms, to repudiate, with all the emphasis I can, the whole of the doctrine of the hon. and gallant Member behind me (Captain Elliott), which may be most valuable in Lanark and in England and the United Kingdom perhaps, but when it is applied to the whole of Europe becomes an absolutely monstrous burden to attempt to impose on the British taxpayer. We are to occupy the greatest position in the world with other nations looking up to us, but what are we to do when all our money is spent and we are left with only this quixotic reputation?

I am reminded by the speech of the hon. Baronet who has preceded me that our function here to-day is something like that of a board of directors, voting away the shareholders' money. I do not know that that is regarded as exactly a desirable thing from the shareholders' point of view, and I believe that, in a matter of this kind, we should do better to consider justice first and be generous afterwards. There are, I think, two main objections to this Vote. The money may be well spent for an admirable end, but I think that, when we are called upon by the League of Nations to start this giving of subscriptions, we should lay down the principle at the start that all nations must contribute on some fair basis. If we start doing this business on charitable lines, with this board of directors voting £50,000, another board voting £20,000 and another voting £2,000, then we shall vitiate the whole future of the League of Nations, and we shall put it on a voluntary basis. I believe that, until human nature is a little more perfect than it is at present, we had better have this contribution to the League of Nations put on an equitable basis, so that no nation will look up to Britain at the expense of the taxpayers of Great Britain, but that the taxpayers of Great Britain and those of Honduras and Costa Rica will feel that they are all being treated fairly and equitably.

Another objection to this grant is that practically the whole of the trouble comes from Poland; the whole of this money will be spent in Poland. The Polish Government is the very last Government which one would desire to assist in stamping out typhus while they persist in persecuting Jews and other subject races within their own borders. The Polish Government, by their meglomaniac policy in regard to Lithuania and Ruthenia and White Russia in connection with their anti-Semitic pogroms, are creating the conditions from which typhus arises. We are exercising no control, and neither is the League of Nations exercising any control, over the method of administration of Poland, and yet they ask us to come in there and spend the preliminary £250,000 in doing work which the Polish Government themselves ought to do. For both those reasons—and, if you like, for the additional reason that we are told that this money has been spent before we were asked, and that we are now asked merely to confirm the spending of it—we ought to enter a protest against this money being taken from us and from the British taxpayer and squandered—perhaps I ought not to say squandered, but spent improperly—in Poland. We ought to express our disapproval by going into the Division Lobby and voting for the Motion for reduction. What is the good of our going to our constituents and saying we stand for economy, and then adopting this generous action, based on no principle except to enable the British Treasury to feel that they are making a more handsome contribution than other nations. How can we go to our constituents and justify that sort of conduct when, at the same time, there are 1,250,000 people walking unemployed through the streets of this country and paid a sum which is totally inadequate to keep body and soul together? For that reason, if for no other, we should put a check on the extravagance of the Treasury and of the Foreign Office in this connection, and for that reason, if my hon. Friend goes into the Division Lobby against this Vote I shall certainly support him.

In spite of the last speech, I rise to support this Vote, but, at the same time, I desire to make one or two very short remarks in connection with the methods which have been adopted; and in that respect I find myself in full agreement both with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cumberland (Major Christopher Lowther) and with the last speaker. It seems to me very unsatisfactory that the appeal should have been made and that our promise should have been given apparently upon definite conditions. As the White Paper stands our contribution was given on the strict understanding that the other great Powers of Europe should also contribute. I understand now that neither France nor Italy has yet made any contribution. I should have thought that France at any rate, whose influence in Poland and whose interests in Poland are greater than those of any of the other principal Powers of Europe, ought certainly to have made some proportionate contribution. I do not want in any way to say anything in criticism of the French action, but I should like to hear from the Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs how the matter actually stands now with France. Does France still stand by the proviso set out in the White Paper? If France does so stand by it what is at present happening? Is the Chamber of Deputies likely to vote a contribution? If the Chamber of Deputies is likely to vote a contribution and if France is going to assist in this work I should feel much happier about this Vote.

Then there is the other side of the case, the Polish side of the case. To some extent I agree with my hon. Friend opposite. I am not satisfied that the Polish administration at the present moment is sound.

Hear, hear.

I have never been able to see how a country which is as bankrupt as any other country in the world can maintain under arms an enormous army such as that which is at present mobilised in Poland. I do not mean that I agree with the hon. and gallant Member opposite when he said that the whole of this evil began in Poland. I do not wish to get into controversy with him, but I should go back a step and say that the whole of this evil really began in Russia. But setting that aside I should like to emphasise what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) as to the necessity for taking drastic steps to see that the administration of this fund is good, that the control is adequate, and that the money is not wasted. That is very important. What little one has been able to see oneself of Central Europe goes to show that, whilst there is the best will in the world, the administration of these relief funds is very often compromised and injured by the inefficient Governments that are in office in certain parts of Eastern Europe. The administrators of these funds are met at every turn by all sorts of ridiculous regulations and by a most hopeless want of organisation. I wish to see this money spent, but at the same time I wish to see it well spent, and I would like the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs to give us a few details as to how the fund is being controlled, whether there is one control over it, or whether each of the contributors is attempting to run his own small show, and whether he can really say that the Polish Government is doing everything in its power to assist the administration of this fund. If he can say that, I for one shall feel that there is no risk of this money being wasted, and I shall have very great pleasure in supporting the Vote.

I regret that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Estimate and defended this sum of £50,000 did not pay a tribute to two agencies that have done much in Poland and in Eastern Europe to wipe out this terrible typhus scourge. I refer to the Society of Friends, which is so much abused by hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I at once withdraw. The Society of Friends have done a very great work in Poland, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman quite inadvertently omitted to pay a passing reference to them. Another agency doing much on the borders of Poland in the Ukraine, and especially in White Russia, is the much abused Government of Moscow. I think the hon. Gentleman, as he is so anxious to see disease stamped out in Eastern Europe, might have had the generosity to say a word about them. I expect he knows the efforts of the Soviet Government of Russia, whatever he may say about their other misdeeds, have been very marked in this respect. They have gone in for most tremendous propaganda work, and have put up posters in all the towns showing a louse the size of a cow, and underneath they have written, "The louse is the enemy of the revolution." They are also using their very strong central government to force the people to exercise the ordinary rules of cleanliness and health, and they are insisting upon compulsory disinfection of all parts of the typhus-stricken area.

I am in rather a quandary whether to support this Vote or not. I am strongly in favour of international action, but this is rather a case as if the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stirred up a riot, had done a tremendous lot of damage, and then had pleaded for it to be made good and presented a long bill because of the unfortunate persons who had suffered from the riot. The trouble in Poland has been largely caused by Downing Street and the Quai d'Orsay. They have stirred up the Poles into all sorts of friction with the Germans, with the Lithuanians, and with Russia. Instead of tackling this tremendous problem to-day, they are spending vast sums on a huge army of a million men in arms with the mark standing at 3,000 to the £1 and threatening all their neighbours in turn. On the other hand, they are persecuting the Jewish doctors, and the Polish Government have practically made it impossible for those doctors to work. I quite realise the damage that is being done by this terrible epidemic in Poland, but at the same time the Poles are not taking the real step themselves to prevent it, but are really spreading the disease by their continual encroachment. I am particularly disappointed to hear that France, who has supplied such vast sums to Poland in the shape of cannon, munitions, and other means of war, has not seen her way so far to honour her pledge to give the same amount as we have. I am in a considerable quandary as I have said, but nevertheless I think the principle of helping these nations that are in such a terrible state of disorganisation is so valuable that I hope my hon. Friends will not press it to a Division.

I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that France did not give any pledge in this matter. It was a conditional promise, and as the conditions have not been fulfilled, France is not under any obligation. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark in regard to the unity of control in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) mentioned the same thing. I have in front of me a paper describing the machinery for dealing with this matter. I did not inflict it upon the Committee, and indeed it is a matter rather outside my range and scope, but if my hon. Friends would like to make themselves more familiar with the matter we could furnish them with copies of the document, and indeed any other Member of the Committee who would like to see it. I do not think it is worth laying as a White Paper. I shall certainly look into the matter of the unity of control, and if it is thought necessary will very respectfully direct the attention of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the representations that have been made by this House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull was a little hurt, I think, that I did not pay a generous tribute to what the Bolshevik Government have done. I regret to say that I am not so familiar with the activities of the Bolshevik Government as the hon. Member. If I had known, or had had present in my mind, their excellent activities, I should not have hesitated to bear testimony to them. The point was asked as to whether the German promise was unconditional. I understand that is so, but the Committee will realise that in all these matters I am speaking for a great organisation with which I am not in the closest touch. I must speak with a certain amount of reserve, as I am not in day-to-day con- tact with the League of Nations. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Warner) brings up the question of this money being spent before the sanction of Parliament has been given. I do not know that I can speak with full authority on a subject of that kind. It is very often done, and if the question is to be taken up, it should be taken up as a full-dress question with the head of the Government. I can assure him I am as strongly opposed as he is, in a situation of acute financial difficulty, to spending any money without the consent of Parliament.

How much have the other nations put up on the aggregate?

Given and promised, the sum amounts to £240,000.

How much has been paid?

The whole sum paid is £72,000 or £74,000. I understand the authorities of the League of Nations have complete confidence that the sums promised will be realised. They are, I understand, working and spending on that basis.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the French Government has definitely refused to give a contribution or is the question again being raised by the League of Nations?

I think it is only a Parliamentary difficulty in France. The authorities of the League have full confidence that France will make a contribution.

I certainly shall not object to this Vote, because I think the Government have taken a step that is not only very desirable, but very necessary in the interests of the Continent of Europe. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was perfectly right about the work of the Russians. Medical men are medical men all the world over, and the Russian doctors are just as noble in the carrying out of their arduous work as any others Dr. Shimaskow is at the head of the Russian Soviet Sanitary Service, and I certainly take it for granted from the information which I have and from what I saw that the Russian medical profession has made herculean efforts to deal with the problem that presented itself in the form of a typhus epidemic. They have had these announcements on the wall, they have had propaganda of various kinds and they have had compulsory cleaning of cities in which gangs and in fact regiments of cleaners have entered a town and cleaned it out from one end to the other.

2.0 P.M.

In the areas where typhus is raging there is also a kind of race feud. The Jews are accused by their non-Jewish compatriots in Poland of having played a double game during the War, and there is all the time going on a constant succession, not of outrages which lead to the taking of human life, but of little persecutions such as the cutting off of beards with bayonets—not a very pleasant thing—and I think it would be advisable that the funds should be administered and controlled if possible by the representatives of Western countries, because not only will the typhus have to be stamped out but steps must be taken in order to see that the administration is fair as between Jew and Gentile. I merely make this suggestion because I happen to know these things are going on, and it would be a very bad thing indeed if sums of money subscribed for beneficent purposes were maladministered because of religious or racial feuds.

I am sorry I cannot accept the proposition that we must have a full-dress Debate and go to the Prime Minister when Estimates come before us for money which has been already spent. This is a very real instance of money having been spent without Parliament having voted it. In all other cases where money has been spent before Parliament has voted it, there has been some indication beforehand that the money was going to be spent; but to go and spend money on something which has not been mentioned in this House and then to say "Oh, it is only the usual custom," is a thing that this House must stop. I am here in the interest of economy, but I am also here as a Member of Parliament. Having been many years in the House, I have never heard a more glaring instance of money being spent beforehand and the House of Commons being told afterwards. Our only remedy is that we must always vote against these grants. If it is a question of a full-dress Debate, we must make these things into a full dress business. It is the only way to stop it.

As a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that this payment was going to be made in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) as long ago as October last. Whether that is the regular method of making such an announcement, I do not know. I cannot myself promise, from my position in the Government, that the Government will spend no money without the sanction of this House. That is why I suggested it should be raised with the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Government.

I quite accept my hon. Friend's statement that he is not responsible, but I think there ought to be somebody in the House who is responsible when we are dealing with these Estimates. I am not cavilling over the old question of money voted, say, for the Army, and having been a little overspent, because the Committee would have been cognisant of that expenditure, and would have sanctioned it without any trouble, but to start a fresh grant is another matter. It is some palliation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have stated, in answer to a question, that he was going to make the grant, but after all, that is hardly the way such an announcement should be made. As there is nobody here on behalf of the Government to give any pledge that this sort of thing will not go on again, the only thing to do, so far as I can see, is for me to vote for the reduction of the Vote.

I am not going to oppose this Vote, but there is a considerable amount to be said in favour of the point put by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). It seems hardly right that a large sum of money like this should be spent, on whatever object, without the previous sanction of the House, and if there was great need to spend the money it should be of sufficient importance for it to be brought before the House for its sanction, and I feel sure that if there is need for money to be spent in this way the heart of the House and of the nation is such that it would not withhold a grant. At the same time, it is strange that the people who grudge spending a sum of only £50,000 on this very desirable object are the very people who condone injurious or extravagant military adventures, and who are constantly embarking on actions calculated to disturb the whole of the world Just as we have been called upon to give this grant to tackle a disease which might attack us and reduce our strength, then I hope that we will appeal to those hon. Members to reconsider their position and to agree to disband their exploits, which are in a large way responsible for the prevalence of the disease which is so rampant in countries like Poland, and to stop their policy of disturbing the world. There is a good deal in what an hon. Member said, that just as we have got to look to the needs of the sufferers abroad, then we have got to have consideration for the needs of our own people at home. Many of us who have had very considerable experience in hospitals and in infirmaries realise that there is likewise a need for expenditure for services at home in order to stamp out the disease which in a large measure is rampant in our own country, and the motives which have actuated this Department will, I hope, permeate through other Departments, so that grants will be given in aid of our hospitals at home which are without funds and without necessary services, and so that the huge masses of our people who want medical attention will have an equal consideration with those who are suffering in these foreign countries. There are thousands of people in our own industrial centres who cannot have their ailments properly attended to, with the result that they go from bad to worse, causing great expense, and adding enormously to our rates, whereas, if we set aside funds for dealing with them in their earlier stages, we would do much to raise the standard of health among our population and save a lot of unnecessary expenditure as well. I do hope that adequate grants will be set aside for these noble and humane services both at home and abroad.

Whether we are dealing with this particular item or not, the principle of it, at any rate, illustrates to us what I think would be one of the most beneficent activities of the League of Nations, and that is to co-ordinate the efforts of the civilised nations of the world to stamp disease for ever out of existence. I look at this more from the point of view that it is a matter of self-protection for this nation. In this country we have already practically got free of typhus, one of the greatest scourges in all history, coming from time to time and carrying away thousands of our population. We have practically got rid of it, and when I hear people in this House and elsewhere grudging money for combating things of that sort, I must say their zeal for economy is much misplaced. I look upon this as a measure of self-preservation on the part of the Government, and from the point of view of the interest of this nation itself, the money is well spent if the fund is being properly administered. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) objects to this expenditure because he desires typhus to spread in order to get rid of the League of Nations, and anything that contributed to crippling or even killing the League of Nations my hon. Friend would not object to. I think this is one of the finest activities of the League of Nations. I hope our highest hopes for the success of the League of Nations will be justified, and personally, I believe they will be. Two years ago I said I thought one of the most benevolent forms of activity of the League of Nations, in peace time as well as in war, was carrying the war on disease into the enemy's country, and on these grounds I support this Vote. I would like to have had more details as to the success of this work, and I would like to be satisfied that the work is being done with the co-operation of the people on the spot. You cannot eradicate typhus by a spasmodic effort, and you must get the people to remember that in this matter cleanliness is next to Godliness. Give them plenty of soap and water supplies in their homes, although we know this cannot be done in a short time. I hope we are now laying the foundation for a great sanitary effort which will go on till this disease is eradicated in Poland.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

I wish to ask a question about the estimated amounts which may be received on account of consular fees. Can the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote tell me what has been done on this question with a view of putting the British merchants on an equal footing with the foreign merchants abroad. I ask whether the fees can now be levied by British consuls abroad the same as those which are levied by foreign consuls in this country. Our British merchants have been handicapped by the heavy fees of foreign consuls in this country, and no such fees are levied abroad.

The hon. and gallant Member cannot go into the merits of the consular service on this Supplementary Vote.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether British commercial travellers in foreign countries can be put on the same level as commercial travellers in this country. I think they ought, because they ought to be put on an equality.

I wish to say a few words about the grants to Mr. North and Mr. Merrett. It is a little difficult to raise a question of this sort because there is always the suspicion that there may be some attempt to depreciate what has been done by these two gentlemen. I have no information which would lead me to refuse to accept what has been said by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in introducing this Vote to-day. I am quite certain that these two men have done good work in Russia, and that they deserve well of their country. I ask the Committee to look for a moment at the difference between the amounts which have been paid to these two gentlemen. The grant made to Mr. Merrett is for the repayment of a sum paid out by him on account of the Government, relying upon the Government reimbursing him for what he has done. Mr. Merrett spent money for the benefit of his fellow subjects in Russia when they were unable to help themselves, and it is right and proper that the Government should ask permission of the House of Commons to repay him what he has already paid out.

The question of the grant to Mr. North is on a different footing. Mr. North did pay out, in somewhat the same way as Mr. Merrett, large sums to British subjects in destitution in Russia, and I have no doubt he did them and the nation a good service. All the money he has paid out has been paid to him, and no one will take exception to the payment of that money. Here we are asked to pay out something further to Mr. North because he did well in Russia. In other words, we are asked to pay something because he did well in the War. If we are going to start that, if everyone who did well in the War is going to be compensated for what he did, I am sure we shall have a Budget twice the size of the next Budget. I am certain that we must take a Stand here and now against payments of this kind. I am not in any way seeking to cast any reflection upon Mr. North, who has done good work, but hundreds and thousands and even millions of people did good work in the War and never asked for any recompense, neither did they expect it, and they will not get it. Mr. North must be placed on exactly the same footing as other people. I therefore propose, in order to mark my sense of unfitness of putting this item into the Estimate, to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

The hon. Member cannot move to reduce £10 by £5,000.

On a point of Order, on the first Vote Mr. Whitley permitted—

There is no point of Order; it is open to the hon. Member to move to reduce item K3 by £5,000.

I beg to move that Item K3 be reduced by £5,000.

I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend for this reduction. In regard to the case of Mr. Merrett I have nothing to say. Apparently, in that case it is merely a refund of money which that gentleman expended on behalf of the Empire. The case of Mr. North is entirely different. The money which he expended has been refunded to him and now it is proposed, in recognition of his great services, to advance him a credit to the amount of £5,000. As the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Estimate said, Mr. North performed great services to this country without regard to personal safety. I accept that statement, but I must point out that there were very many people in this country who performed great services for the State without regard to personal safety, and if that is to be made a criterion for a reward of £5,000 our liabilities will become virtually unlimited. We cannot adopt the principle of handing out tips—for that is what it amounts to—to everybody who performs beneficent service for the country. Such an obligation would be never ending, and while I do not desire to deprecate in any way the services of Mr. North I entirely agree with every word said by my hon. Friend. Obviously that is a principle which we cannot accept.

Everyone, of course, agrees that the services of the reverend gentleman under discussion to the British prisoners in, Russia were extremely welcome, and entitle him to the gratitude of every Member of this House. I do not think the Under-Secretary will accuse me of having shown any lack of interest in the welfare of the British prisoners in Petrograd. I believe I was one of the first Members of this House to raise the question here. But with regard to this sum of £5,000 I think the Committee will be well advised to look at it twice. In the first place the previous grants to Mr. North have been very considerable, and in addition to that large sums of money were sent into Russia for the use of the reverend cleric for the relief of our prisoners. I want to know, was the whole of that money expended solely on our prisoners in Petrograd and Moscow and on distressed British subjects? I ask this because stories are going about which are not pleasant to hear, to the effect that the reverend gentleman, in his zeal, assisted political opponents of the Government in power. That charge has been made very freely indeed by persons who are not on the whole hostile to the Government. I think opportunity should be taken now by my hon. Friend to give us that information. We want to know whether this £5,000 is a recognition not only of his services in Russia, but of other services which he is rendering to the Foreign Office and the War Office. I am emboldened to press for an answer to this because I am informed that the reverend gentleman is working with a special section in Scotland Yard and is in daily touch with it in regard to Russian affairs. Has he been engaged in assisting in publishing the forged "Pravda," which the Home Secretary admitted has been sent out at the taxpayers' expense, or is he simply advising in regard to assisting British subjects still left in Russia? Before we grant this money, which after all is an amount very similar to that usually voted to victorious generals and admirals, I think we should have a little more information. With regard to Mr. Merrett's activities in assisting the escape of British subjects from Russia, the Committee may like to know that for the first six months after the Revolution of 1917—the Maximilist Revolution—British subjects in Russia were extremely popular and had every courtesy extended to them. But they began to be interned and imprisoned and interrogated when the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister for the Colonies, assisted by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), started attempting to overthrow that Government by force. Then when our objects in North Russia became only too manifest, assisted as they were by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea, not unnaturally, British subjects in Russia became objects of suspicion and, in some cases, were imprisoned and interned. Where they were badly treated I am very sorry for them, because in many cases they were the innocent victims of a wicked policy pursued in Whitehall and Chelsea. Where these innocent people were in danger of persecution and were assisted out of Russia at our expense, I do not think we can object, but I would like to know if any of this £3,000 assisted the escape of such persons as Sir Paul Dukes, who was employed there as a Government spy. Was he in touch with Mr. Merrett or with Mr. North? We are told that there were some peculiar happenings in the British communities in Petrograd and Moscow, and that certain persons there were not inactive. I would not say, without some further proof, that Mr North was in any way mixed up in this, but I would like to know if Mr. Merrett was in any way active in assisting the ingress and egress of agents of the Government.

The question is whether Mr. Merrett, who spent certain sums, amounting approximately to £3,000, in assisting British subjects to escape from Russia, is to have that sum repaid to him. We cannot go into the question whether British subjects were badly or well treated, or whether they were spies or not. The only question is, Did Mr. Merrett perform these services or did he not?

I submit with great respect that, if these persons were assisted out of Russia for the purpose of assisting the war which was in operation against Russia, it ought not to be in this Vote.

That is a subject which might be raised when the Vote for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is before the Committee. It cannot be raised upon the question whether or not a certain sum shall be granted to certain gentlemen who have expended the money in certain circumstances.

I am very much obliged, Sir Frederick, and of course I will not pursue that any further. I should like, however, before we vote this money, to ask this question. The original Vote included an item, for the payment of a Consul in Petrograd during the year 1920–21, of £1,600, and during the year 1919–20 of £1,100. The hon. Gentleman said that we had no official representative in Petrograd, and that by the unanimous wish of the British community Mr. North acted in some directions in that capacity. In addition to those salaries there is an allowance for office expenses of £1,150 in both 1919–20 and 1920–21. Furthermore, there is an item of £820 for a vice-consul for the year 1920–21 and £600 for the year 1919–20. If the hon. Gentleman says that there was no official representative in Petrograd, I would ask him what became of those sums of money that were voted by this House—I suppose in the expectation that we should be able to send our consuls there. We have not had official representatives there, and I want to know why that money cannot be produced as an Appropriation-in-Aid on this Vote, to meet the sums expended for British subjects, I think I am in order in asking, also, about the fate of those people who came out of Russia. I am told that many of them wish to go back, and there are some in my own constituency who are very sorry that they ever left.

I do not think we can discuss the question whether people who have come out of Russia would like to go back.

I have no wish to complain of the manner in which this reduction has been moved, because the two hon. Gentlemen who moved it have borne testimony in the most generous manner to Mr. North's services. I do not propose to repeat the remarks which I made earlier, but I do not think it follows that, because in an exceptional ease a grant is made by Parliament, it will be universally made. We know that such cases are exceedingly rare. It is for the Committee to decide whether the very special services rendered by Mr. North merit this exceptional mark of recognition on the part of this House and of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said that he has some misgiving as to whether this money that was spent by Mr. North and Mr. Merrett has been entirely devoted to the purposes named on the Paper. I believe that to be absolutely the fact. I have no reason to suppose that a single farthing of the expenditure incurred by Mr. North and reimbursed in December, or of the sum which it is proposed to repay to Mr. Merrett, has been spent on anything in the nature of political activities. It will be obvious to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the Committee that if anything of that kind had been done other methods of reimbursement are available at the hands of the Government. I am satisfied that no part of the money for which I am now asking has been spent on subterranean political activities. I do not know where my hon. and gallant Friend gets his information about Mr. North. I understand that, so far from being engaged in Scotland Yard, Mr. North is at present acting as British Chaplain at Helsingfors, and he cannot possibly be discharging both functions at the same moment.

How long has he been at Helsingfors?

I do not know.

I am not going to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Hull into the references which he made to me, but simply to ask two very short questions. I understand that there has been a good deal of correspondence with reference to the rate of exchange at which various gentlemen in Russia should be reimbursed for their expenditure on behalf of British citizens in Russia. I should like to hear whether this grant of £5,000 satisfies Mr. North's claim and that no grievance on that account still remains. It was a grievance which was felt acutely by one or two British citizens in Russia, and I should like to know if it has now been completely removed by this grant. There is this further point. Mr. North's services were in every way admirable. He did at Moscow a really magnificent work, but I understand from people who are well qualified to speak that there are one or two British citizens in Petrograd who did equally good work, and I should very much like to see a similar grant made to a British citizen like the lady Mrs. Froom who was at the head of the English hospital in Petrograd. I am told her work compares in every way with the magnificent work that Mr. North carried out, and I cannot help thinking that if the House is ready to give this Vote, as I feel it is, it will also be ready to give a Vote of a similar character to this gallant British citizen.

Could the hon. Gentleman reply at the same time about the heavy expenditure on the Consul and Vice-Consul at Petrograd?

I should like to say to my hon. Friend (Sir S. Hoare) that the question of the rate of exchange does not apply in connection with this grant of £5,000. It is a free grant sterling to Mr. North. The question of exchange has nothing to do with it. I am well aware of the splendid services rendered to the British community by others in Russia. I know that Mrs. Froom, the head of the British Hospital, also rendered the most signal services, and I hope they will be recognised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the item in our main Estimate representing the salary and expenses of the Consul in Petrograd. That is only a token. A considerable number of such offices are retained on the Consular and Diplomatic Vote. Until quite recently, I think, we had an item for the Ambassador at Petrograd. We cannot tell from day to day or from year to year what changes are going to take place. These things are kept on in a token sense, but the moneys are not distributed or spent by the Foreign Office. If they are not expended on those services they are returned to the Treasury.

Why is there an increase of £500 in the second year?

I could not explain off-hand. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

Are any of these people who have been mentioned receiving money from any other source?

Which people?

The Rev. Mr. North and Mr. Merrett.

No, I do not think so. Mr. North is at present British Chaplain at Helsingfors. Mr. Merrett is a private gentleman in regard to whose

resources I have no information. He is simply being paid back money that he has spent.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a propaganda is going on in Great Britain saying that some of these people are in the pay of the British Government carrying on propaganda against Soviet Russia?

Question put, "That Item K3 be reduced by £5,000."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 170.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The first item in this Vote is a technical bookkeeping entry rather than a Supplementary Estimate. There is no question of any fresh call upon the taxpayer. When the agreement about Nauru was originally made between the Governments, it was assumed that no stamp duty was required for an agreement of that character. Subsequently, as a result of correspondence with the Board of Inland Revenue, it was decided that it would be more correct if the stamp duty was paid. Therefore, stamp duty is payable from one Government Department as a debit to the credit of the revenue of the country. The amount of the stamp duty is £35,000, but the additional sum put down in the Supplementary Estimate is only £30,000, because there has been a saving of about £5,000 in connection with certain contingent payments to ex-officers of the Pacific Phosphate Company, which in the previous Estimate was put down at £16,000 and is not likely to amount to so much. In regard to the second item, for oil exploration in Papua, the Australian Government on evidence that there was a prospect of oil being found at Papua some time ago decided that it was unwilling to allow these oil resources to fall into the hands of private enterprise, and decided to investigate these oil resources itself with a view to their being retained in the public interest. It approached the British Government with a view to our sharing the expenditure involved in looking for oil, and boring for oil, and if oil were found we were to share in the advantage from the point of view of the Admiralty and of our shipping. The British Government agreed to join with the Government of the Australian Commonwealth in the expenditure involved in looking for oil up to a total sum of £50,000.

3.0 P.M.

When that was agreed it was arranged, on the advice of the Petroleum Executive, that the actual work of research should be entrusted to experts of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. That company is in this matter acting purely as the agent of the British Government and the Commonwealth Government, and is being repaid out-of-pocket expenses in this connection. It has no other financial interest in the matter. If it does discover oil, it has no claim on that oil in respect of its services. It is simply acting as an organised body which can perform the service of research.

Is it still going on?

Yes. Up to date, of the £50,000 we have undertaken to find, only £15,000 will have been spent within the current year, and that is the amount put down in the Supplementary Estimate. It is purely research work in looking for oil in Papua, and if oil is found it will be for the British and Australian Governments together to decide how to develop it, and how to make the best use of it for Imperial and Australian purposes.

There should be some protest made against our voting public money to a private company to explore for oil. I was relieved to hear that apparently the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is doing this simply for the fees it receives, and will not have any prior claims to the exploitation of the oil that may be found. That disarms some of my criticism, but it does seem to me a most dangerous precedent if we are to start spending public money in empowering a private company to prospect for oil in New Guinea or in any other part of the world. The whole dealings of the Government of which I have any knowledge in regard to oil deposits in any part of the Government are suspect. The whole policy of this Government reeks of oil. In Mesopotamia, and Turkey, the whole business seems to have been based very largely on oil, and we look with suspicion on any new departures in this respect. Of course, any new sources of oil for the Navy would be very welcome. That this powerful oil company, with its directors recruited from the higher branches of the public service in this country, and with money in it invested by the British Government, should be empowered to spend money in further prospecting seems to me altogether mischievous, and I think the matter is one about which we require more information than we have so far received.

I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.

I move this reduction in respect of the whole Vote, covering both items. Since the Armistice the money of the British taxpayer has been invested by the Government in dyes, dope, manure, and oil, and this Vote deals with the results of the speculation in respect of manure and oil. I think it is high time we put a stop to this practice of the Government going in for these highly speculative enterprises in strange and distant quarters of the globe.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I point out that the question of manure cannot be discussed. The question of manure arises only on JJ. On JJ all that would be in order would be to discuss whether the stamp duty should be paid, but LL deals with oil exploration in Papua, a new service, and the whole question of that can be discussed.

All I will say about JJ is that I object to the stamp duty being paid, and if I can succeed in preventing that stamp duty I hope the whole of this purchase will fail and that the phosphate will continue to be worked by the British Phosphate Company. I object to the payment of this stamp duty as the final act in what I regard as one of the most iniquitous transactions that has ever taken place. Look at the rates of this stamp duty, and look at the amount of the stamp duty The country has paid £3,000,000 for something that is worth considerably less than £1,000,000. We are let in, in this connection, for what I believe is a thoroughly worthless transaction, objectionable on every ground, and likely to lose this country a very large sum of money, as I am advised.

Now I return to the second point. Here, again, is an Estimate in which the money has already been spent. It is a typical example of how the Supplementary Estimate system is being abused. The whole theory of Estimates is that a Government Department shall not commence spending money until it has the authority of Parliament. That authority it gets from the Vote on Account of the general Estimates. Nothing that is not in that Vote on Account or those general Estimates ought to be spent until the House has passed the Estimates, and the expenditure ought not to begin until that Estimate has been passed by the House of Commons. Here, in this distant tropical island of the Pacific, we have employed as agents a company which belongs to us—the British taxpayer owns all the ordinary shares—and I say that we ought not to have done that. We ought not to be making payments to this company until the House of Commons has definitely authorised them.

Why should the Government go in for these speculative oil investigations Surely the Burma Oil Company and the Trinidad Company and the various other oil companies, including the Anglo-Persian itself, can very well afford to make their own explorations without the British taxpayer being called upon. Can anything further from the traditions of Gladstonian, aye and of Cecilian finance years ago, be conceived than the British Government employing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company as its agents to go into tropical forests in an island in the Pacific to look for oil? To my mind it is nationalisation run mad and I object to it in principle. If there were any reasonable chance of oil being found, there are plenty of British oil companies who would be only too delighted to make these explorations—these companies with their amazing geological knowledge, for these big oil companies have amazing geological knowledge.

I know I shall be met with the reply that if we do not get it as a Government, there is no guarantee that the Standard Oil Company or some other American company, will not get it. Papua is not even a mandatory territory. It is an old British colony, and therefore we have every right to say that no oil concessions shall be given to a non-British company. Have any of the British oil companies, and there are many of them, very rich and powerful concerns, been asked to do this work on their own? Why should the British taxpayer be asked to do it, and above all why should he be committed to it and his money used before Parliament has authorised it?

I thought I had made it clear in my explanation that this is Australian territory. The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia did not want to allow private enterprise to get control of the oilfield, but wanted to use it for national and Imperial purposes, and invited the British Government to take part in this exploration, and from the point of view of the Admiralty, who attach very great importance to having control of oil supplies, the British Government has co-operated with the Australian Government in this matter.

I most strongly object to that. Because the Australian Government, in the full exercise of its rights, approves nationalisation and approves spending national money in this way, that is no reason for binding the British taxpayer. It is said it is Australian territory. Then if Australia wishes to make this a nationalised concern, why should not the Australian taxpayer pay for it? Why should the British taxpayer be asked to pay for oil explorations in Australian territory? In this House we do not criticise the acts of the Dominions. They have absolutely every right, if they like nationalisation, to go in for it. But we ought to have nothing to do with it under these circumstances. They have objected to private enterprise. I object to State enterprise in this matter, root and branch, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby against this Vote.

This is one of the most debatable questions that could possibly be raised, and therefore it must be very objectionable from the point of view of this Committee that the Government should have incurred expenditure on such a thing as oil investigation before the qustion came before the House. The Supplementary Estimate is to a large extent already spent. This is one of the most debatable questions, because here we have Australia maintaining a policy, applicable, I suppose, to other territories as well as to the whole of Australia, that we shall have a State monopoly of oil. Are we as a people willing to endorse that policy? What is the effect? Eighty-five per cent. of oil at present comes from the United States. Does the United States prevent the Shell Company or the Royal Dutch Company from exploiting oil in the United States? I would be perfectly willing that the Standard Oil Company, in competition with the Shell Company or the Royal Dutch Company, should go into these territories and get as much oil out of them as possible, because it is oil we want and we want it as quickly as possible. We are adopting the slowest possible means of progression, and that is State enterprise. I want to see these oil territories opened to the companies of the United States, just as in the United States the Shell Company is able to buy oil properties and to prospect for oil. If we continue this policy I am sure that we shall raise around ourselves a hornets' nest of questions and that this will be one of the principal bones of contention with the United States in the near future.

This Supplementary Estimate shows what very little control the House of Commons has over the Executive. The agreement with which we are dealing was made on 17th July, 1919, and as under the agreement money was to be paid it must be paid. I do not think any hon. Member would wish to go against an agreement already made. I protest against the making of such an agreement without any reference to the House of Commons at the time. Surely before the Government made such an agreement they should have come to the House and asked its view? As the agreement was drawn up nearly two years ago it is very difficult for us now to enter into a discussion as to whether the agreement was right or wrong. If it was right, this sum can be spent. If it was wrong, there is no course that we can take, for we cannot cancel the agreement, and we have merely to vote the money. It is another instance of causing the House of Commons to be regarded as a farce, for here we are discussing an Estimate, the money for which has already been spent. I protest against the Government entering into agreement of such far-reaching consequences without any recourse to the House of Commons.

I hope that this discussion will not pivot upon the question of nationalisation as against private ownership, because if we do that we shall lose the real point of the arguments addressed against the Vote. My hon. Friend who spoke last very properly pointed out that this agreement dated back to 17th July, 1919. What I would urge upon the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that it is not treating the House of Commons or this Committee properly to bring this up for the first time after the moneys have been paid. It ought to have appeared in the Estimates of 1920, and not come up as a Supplementary Estimate in 1921, two or three weeks before the close of the financial year. If it had come up on the main Estimates there is no doubt that hon. Members who watch this kind of thing very carefully would have asked what are the terms of this agreement. No one knows what is in the agreement, and all we are asked to do to-day is to agree with the Government that they lave done rightly in paying £15,000 on account of a liability of £50,000. It is another instance of the way in which the Government are doing their financial business. It is another instance of complete and contemptuous disregard of this House. In the spacious days of 1919 the Government thought the House of Commons did not count at all. They said to themselves, "We can enter into any agreement we like and our docile majority will vote for anything we want." Those days have gone. We must take opportunities as they arise of demonstrating the fact that in these financial matters the House is determined to know what it is doing before it votes money. We must know more about this agreement than we have been told. I invite the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, before the discussion proceeds any further, to let us know what we are talking about.

I regret that I did not hear my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) move this reduction, but I should like to say something on the merits of the question. Everybody in this country to-day, whether employed in business or in pleasure, wants petrol at a lower price. There is no doubt that a high price is a serious obstacle to the conduct of business and travel all over the country. It happens to be the case that the control of petrol, which gives those who possess that control the power of imposing a certain price on all users, is in the hands of two united and great oil corporations in which the British taxpayer is not interested, at any rate primarily. The control is in foreign hands. It appears to me to be of the very utmost importance that a corporation in which the British taxpayer has a dominating interest, a corporation like the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, should develop its resources, discover new resources, and bring petroleum into use so as to be able to fight the combination of Dutch and American interests which at present have absolute control. I gather that one of the objections to the Vote was the delay that had accurred before this matter came before the House. As to that, I am in complete ignorance. I can, however, imagine what seems to me a fair reason for it. That is, where any deposits are awaiting development in any parts of the British Empire over which our own nationals have not got any preferential or exclusive rights it might very well be desirable, in order that the operation should have a fair chance of success and the development be carried through, that the operations should be kept from the public until they have been completed. I do not know if that is so, but it occurs to me as a good reason for the delay and I submit to the Committee that there are very good reasons for developing oil at Papua or anywhere else, where the British are in command of the situation.

I really do not know how to vote on this subject. I noticed in the Press this morning a large two-column advertisement of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, asking us to subscribe two or three million pounds for preference shares. I bore that in mind when I opened my Parliamentary Papers this morning and found we were asked to decide whether the British Government should back the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and find £50,000 for it. Naturally putting these things together it seems an application for the shares would be very desirable, but how am I to vote until I know whether I get an allotment or not? Of course the position of this company is enormously strengthened if we carry this Vote. Here are the great Governments of the world putting their heads together and pooling their moneys in order to develop the work of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It may be advisable to get more oil, to keep the Standard Oil Company and the Shell out of Papua, but above all it is vitally important to increase the security of the preference shares of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This is an illustration of what it means when the Government goes into high finance, how it alters the position of shares on the market, and how it facilitates the subscription of fresh capital. It should be a warning to the Government of the inadvisability of backing up any set of capitalists against any other set. It merely increases the hold of capitalism as a whole on the consumers of this country. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend opposite that when the Anglo-Persian have the monopoly they will not be any better off than under the Standard Oil or the Shell. There is only one way of dealing with these people, to get the monopoly entirely into national or international hands. I shall be told that this oil company is now a national undertaking. All the ordinary shares are in the hands of the Government, and the preference shareholders are behind them. The directors, however, are not the British Government, but private directors. If you are going to help a national undertaking in oil, then the sine qua non is that the directors of that company should direct it in the interests of the country that provides the capital and not in the interests of any private capitalist. It is for that reason and for the coincidence of the passage of this vote and the company's advertisement for new capital that I shall vote against it.

There is one point the Committee might consider with advantage. This sum which we are granting to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company represents money, as far as I understand, which has already been spent in research work. What has the British taxpayer already done for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company? He has provided it with capital in ordinary shares amounting to something between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. What sort of expenditure is the expenditure generally made by a company upon re-search work? It is capital expenditure, and I submit before the Committee agrees to provide further sums of money for this Company they would be satisfied as to the way in which the ordinary share capital which the taxpayer has already subscribed has been spent by the Company. We should not go into the business of providing large sums of additional capital for this Company until we are satisfied that this House of Commons has some control over the way in which the Company is extending its resources. Another point is upon the first item. I remember, Mr. Chairman, with some apprehension, your ruling, and I shall endeavour not to transgress it. This is the last opportunity that the Committee will have of protesting against a most iniquitous business transaction.

This "iniquitous transaction" has already been sanctioned by the House.

I bow to your ruling on that point. Even if we cannot avoid spending £30,000, at least we can avoid spending this £50,000 for which there is no justification for this Committee voting until we know how this Company is proceeding. The hon. Baronet for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) is a practicalist who judges things by results. Judged by that test, we have no right to vote this money. There is no result. If there is, what is it? The Committee should hesitate for a long time before they accept the suave assurances of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench that this money is an obligation of honour and that the House is bound to give it to this Company.

I cannot understand some of the arguments which have been advanced to-day. Unfortunately, a matter of economy is generally associated with principles which some of us hold dear. If this Debate was confined to the mere constitutional issue that money should not be spent without the consent of the House of Commons, I believe that every Member would be unanimous in support of that proposition, but this Vote is made the basis of an attack on the principles some of us hold as dearly as the hon. Members opposite hold theirs. We do not believe in subsidising capitalists but in the national organisation of industry. We do not believe in bureaucracy, in subsidising business interests out to rob everybody, whatever their nationality. If the list of the shareholders in this company were examined I dare say it would show a number of patriots whose nationality is rather doubtful. As far as this particular kind of subsidy is concerned, we are absolutely opposed to it. On the issue raised to-day, whether money should be spent on this vote, we as democrats believe that the House of Commons should be the controlling influence in the matter of finance. We feel most strongly that, in expending public money before the House of Commons has been properly consulted, the Government is not treating the House of Commons with the respect that it deserves. To that extent we are all united. In the district in which I reside I happen to be a member of a local authority, and I am certain that there would be a very big row on that body if the finance committee of that assembly passed expenditure and spent money before submitting the estimates to the authority concerned. What we are prepared to do in local matters we should be prepared to do in the House of Commons. If it is a matter of national policy all well and good, but if the Government wish to do certain things then they ought to consult the representatives of the people, and until that is done we can all unite in entering a most emphatic protest. But I do object most strongly to making these Votes grounds for attacks upon the principle of nationalisation. But on the principle of democratic control of public expenditure we are all agreed.

Some of the speeches to which I have listened have convinced me that my original explanation must have been very deficient in clearness. For instance, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ely (Captain Coote) appears to think that money is being paid to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to conduct researches in its own interest. I thought I had made it quite clear that the policy of the Australian Commonwealth was not to allow those researches to be conducted for the benefit of private capital, but if the oil resources in question are going to be developed at all they would be entirely developed by them in the public interest. I do not know that any hon. Member would be so en-amoured of the principle of nationalisation as to suggest that we should set up a joint Anglo-Australian Government Oil Department, but what we did do was to ask the Petroleum Executive, which after all is a Government Department, to make recommendations to the two Governments, and, as a result, the Anglo-Persian Company in which this Government has a controlling influence— —

How many shares are held by them?

I really cannot go into all those details, but an attack has been made on their control.

Do they control the board?

Certain of their experts are lending their services entirely at cost price and I do not see what benefit can possibly be derived to the Company from that fact.

They can get information.

If that information tells them that there is oil there, the Australian Government or the British Government are going to develop that oil, they will do so and not the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This is an instance of nationalisation or an instance of national expenditure which may be of financial utility, but is also of strategical value. The only reason why this Government agreed to go in with the Australian Commonwealth and to explore these oil resources was because the Admiralty attached the greatest possible importance to having local resources of oil supplies in the Pacific. The Admiralty attached importance to the question of getting oil depots in various parts of the world and they strongly urged the British Government to join with the Government of the Australian Commonwealth in securing control of such oil as might be found. It is entirely open to question whether there is any great amount of oil, but if there is it may be of the greatest possible stragetical importance.

To whom would the oil belong if it were found?

If any oil were found it would belong equally to the Government of the Australian Commonwealth and to the British Government.

Not to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

No. My hon. Friend (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) was moved to wrath against any form of investment by the British Government in any private undertaking. I think that hon. Members may be opposed to nationalisation, but surely no hon. Member on any Bench would lay it down as a root and branch principle that Government money may never be put into any private concern.

Not into a private company.

Do any hon. Members, root and branch, object to the money which Lord Beaconsfield put into the Suez Canal, and which is now bringing us in a very handsome return every year? The Government, for reasons of strategical security, put money into the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in order to secure control of that company, but, as a matter of fact, it has been a most remunerative investment, and in this current year the taxpayer of this country is receiving in relief of his taxes £427,000 from the company.

How much is he losing in dyes and dope?

I cannot tell, but on the practical question, quite apart from the primary object of strategic security, I venture to say that the Government have done a very good thing for the taxpayer in their investment in that company. We are not suggesting nationalisation as a general principle, but I claim that it would be equally absurd to lay down the opposite principle, that the Government can never put any money into or have the remotest concern with the activities of private companies.

Now I come to the more important point raised by several hon. Members and emphasised by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I should like to explain the position on that matter and to relate the circumstances under which the agreement was made. During the peace negotiations the Australian Gov- ernment brought before the Government of this country its point of view as regards the possible great importance of the discovery of oil at Papua. It was of equal importance in its eyes to see that those oil resources should be available primarily for strategical purposes, and for national purposes, and that they should not be merely private property, and as the result of their suggestion to the Admiralty and of the very strong Admiralty recommendation in the matter an agreement was arrived at. An arrangement was framed by which each Government put down, simply for research on the spot and investigation, a sum of money up to a total of £50,000. Beyond that neither Government was committed. If, in the course of spending that money, oil could be found, then the rights in that oil would fall equally to both Governments, and they could have come to any agreement which they thought desirable as to the actual working of that oil.

I come now to the reasons why it was impossible to put this matter before the House at an earlier date. I agree that, as a general rule, before incurring any expenditure the sanction of the House of Commons should be obtained, but it is also true that the Estimates come forward once a year and that there are, in the course of the year, occasions when it is necessary to spend money, and also occasions when you contemplate the possibility of spending money, but it is by no means certain that you will spend that money or how much you will spend. When the Estimates were framed last year no arrangements had been contemplated for the actual spending of this money. We were by no means certain that anything would be spent by this House this year, or if anything was spent in the closing months of the year, how much that sum would be. After all, it would be playing with the House if we were continually to put down speculative sums with regard to something we did not know whether we were going to spend or not. In this particular case less than one-third of the money which we thought would have been spent has actually been spent in the current year and it is always in the power of the House to stop the Vote, or stop further expenditure in this matter. But it does seem to me that it is pressing the point a little too far to suggest that if you are contemplating the possibility of expenditure towards the end of the year that you are bound to put down an estimate at once unless there is a reasonable and fairly assured prospect that you are going to spend the money. But in this particular case there was no possibility of framing an estimate on this matter when the Estimates were made up. On the other hand, when we did find that a party could go to Papua and begin operations before the end of the year it would have been very undesirable to stop them sailing for say three months or six months in order to put the sum on the Estimates. I think I have endeavoured to clear up the misconceptions as to what was intended by this Estimate, and also to explain why it was not really possible to put an estimate on this matter before the House at an earlier date.

I am sure the Committee is very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his very strenuous exertions to make the actions of the Government intelligible in this transaction. Before I come to the Papua question, I desire to say that I sympathise very much with an hon. Friend of mine in his difficulty with regard to Nauru, and I venture to take this opportunity of suggesting for the consideration of the Committee and the House that it would be very desirable, in the interest of public economy, to get rid of all these absurd and antiquated rules of what you may and what you may not discuss upon Supplementary Estimates. That would be a very serious deterrent to the Government.

To do that you must amend the Standing Orders.

I was merely explaining my difficulty in dealing with the Nauru question, but I quite recognise that it is one of the time-honoured pastimes in which hon. Members of this House indulge of discussing with the Chair what they can and what they cannot discuss. Now about Papua, I think the Committee will have gathered from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend that issues of very great importance are involved in this Estimate. He says in the first place that there is an agreement with the Anglo-Persian Company by which they are to do certain work on behalf of the Governments of Australia and of this country. We have never seen that agreement; we know nothing about its terms, but I do not think we shall be far removed from the truth if we suggested to the Government that the Anglo-Persian Company is not a philanthropic institution, and no doubt it has entered into this agreement for some excellent reason of a commercial character. It is going to get something out of it, but we do not know what. It may be distribution, or something else, we do not know. My hon. and gallant Friend recommends this partly with the kind of seductive appeal to the Labour Benches as an experiment in nationalisation. It is not an experiment in nationalisation in that sense. It is, as I understand it, a contribution by the British taxpayer to carry out a particular line of policy of which the Australian Government approve. I confess that seems to me a very objectionable proceeding. We ought to carry out our own policy in our own way, and we should not be asked to finance the Australian Government in carrying out what they may think a desirable method of exploiting their oil resources.

Then my hon. and gallant Friend says in addition to that that the Admiralty pressed very much that we should do this thing. I think we ought to know what the Admiralty actually have said. I cannot believe that the Admiralty are particularly anxious to enter into a speculative research for oil in Papua. It may be so, almost anything is possible, but I really cannot believe it. What they want—very reasonably, no doubt—is to obtain oil in the Pacific, and it may well be that they think it desirable to enter into some contract with whoever is going to develop the oil in Papua in order that they may have a share of that oil if possible; but that they should want to enter into an undertaking to prospect for oil in Papua I cannot imagine. But what I want to press upon the Committee is that we have a right to be told on a Supplementary Estimate of this kind what the contract between the Australian Government was, or what the contracts with other Powers are. Let me remind the Committee of the history of this thing. It was begun 18 months ago, during the Conference at Paris. I suppose it was the result of some negotiations which went on with the energetic and able Australian Prime Minister, who was in Paris at that time. We do not know what took place there, but it seems that a contract was arrived at that this country should be committed to spend £50,000 in order to develop oil resources. Why was not that contract submitted to Parliament?

This is an important matter which involves great questions of principle besides the actual sum of money involved. If it had been asked for the carriage of mails I understand that it would have had to be submitted to Parliament before it could be carried out, but because it involved researches for oil therefore it was not necessary to submit it to Parliament; but why should it not have been submitted? Why should it have been kept such a profound secret? Not only that, since then we have had a complete financial year. There is no reason in the world why it should not have been put into the Estimates of last year. I think that the Committee feel that the explanation of my hon. and gallant Friend is quite unsatisfactory on that point. Though he might not have spent the money it would have been paid into the national debt, and he could have put it on the Estimates of next year, and we could have discussed it before the money had been paid. I really do feel myself that it is useless for the Government to talk about economy when they perpetually in details of administration and finance set at defiance every rule of economy. It is time for the Committee to take a strong line and see that the Government take the question of economy in earnest. They cannot flout every economic protection and go in for extravagance, and then say that they really desire to save money to the State at a time like the present.

The whole question seems to me to be extremely fishy, because here you have a company which is controlled by the British Government, employed by the British Government to explore further oil-bearing lands in Papua. We had a statement by the Under-Secretary that the Government has made something over £400,000 which will go to the relief of the taxpayer during the next year. It seems to me that the Government are so fascinated by the little flutter in oils that they are going to extend their operations by employing the company to explore further oil-bearing lands in conjunction with the Government of Australia. I submit the whole system is most improper and most reprehensible. It was stated by an hon. Member opposite that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are not going entirely into this question for their health. It must be obvious that if a company is given Government facilities for exploring certain oil-bearing districts they stand at a very great advantage when it comes to developing these interests. I cannot protest too strongly against this system of dabbling in speculative investments. The whole thing should be put up to public tender and any company interested in oil should have an opportunity of participating.

This is a very important issue that has been raised this afternoon, but I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), that the most important question we have to decide on this Vote is the question of Parliamentary control over our finance. This is not an isolated instance. I do not suppose I am exaggerating when I say that at least one out of every three Supplementary Estimates contains sums that have already been spent without the consent of this House. Take the Vote we were discussing up to two o'clock this afternoon. We had a large sum there already spent, and the Government came down and asked for the Vote of this House when it had been already spent. It is so difficult when the money is already spent by the Government under an agreement to refuse them the money. But it is a wholly immoral system of finance for the Government to spend money and then come down and go through the solemn farce of asking our leave for the expenditure. I think it shows a want of respect for this House and for the privileges of the Members of the House of Commons when this happens time and again. What is the remedy? I really do not know. I honestly do not know how we are going to stop it. Who is responsible for it? Is the Treasury responsible, or is every single Department responsible for its own Supplementary Estimates? I should very much like to know whether the Treasury has submitted to it each Supplementary Estimate and whether it passes that Supplementary Estimate before the Department is allowed to present it to the House of Commons.

It does.

4.0 P.M.

All I can say is that then the Treasury is to blame. The Treasury ought not to pass any Sup- plementary Estimate presented by a Department if it contains money already spent. It seems to me that is the only remedy as far as the Treasury is concerned, but I do not see what this House can do. I have heard a hundred speeches in this House during the past year on this very point, and one can only go on repeating oneself. So far as I can see the only remedy, whenever we get a thing of this kind, is to go into the Lobby against the Government. So far as I can see it is the only thing that has any effect on the Government. A fortnight ago the Government were very nearly beaten and result a sort of Committee on Estimates was immediately proposed. I remember about six months ago the Government were in danger of their political lives on the Ministry of Health Bill, and a promise was held out that the Ministry of Health Bill would be cut down by three-fourths. Therefore so far as my opinion goes the only way we can deal with this question and prevent this scandal in almost every single Supplementary Estimate is to go into the Lobby against the Government, and for that reason I shall certainly vote against the Government on this question.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I want to say that for the third Friday I find myself in this House I find myself in very strong opposition to the Government, both in their methods, and in their principles. As regards their methods, I think it is very objectionable that we should have these Supplementary Estimates brought forward in this way when we cannot really stop the money. We cannot get out of this payment, because the Government has signed this agreement apparently 18 months ago. I think it is an insult to the House of Commons to treat it as a mere cash register which is not to be brought into the transaction until long after the bargain is struck. That is why I object to it in method. I object to this particular Vote in principle because the House has never been given an opportunity of deciding whether it

wants to go into these speculative oil ventures. There is a great deal of feeling in the country that the Government mismanages these industrial affairs. They are also so interlocked that we never know where they are going to land us. We had an example of the same kind of thing last week. The Government have got a very large interest in artificial silk, and I do not believe this House was ever consulted about it. We find that another public Department, the Ministry of Health, has been brought into the matter to push the sale of artificial silk by forcing people to wear far more lengthy and expensive bathing costumes. The Ministry of Health—

We are not dealing on this Vote with the Ministry of Health.

I was only mentioning the Ministry of Health and bathing costumes as an illustration. We are really in a great difficulty about this industrial speculation on the part of the Government. We have not seen this agreement; we only know that this Vote is part of an arrangement with the Anglo-Persian Company. We cannot really feel sure what are the motives of the company, and as far as we can make out, the Anglo-Persian Company have just come into it from motives of philanthropy. That may be so, but in view of our lack of information, and because I so much dislike Friday after Friday finding myself in opposition to the Government I suggest as a way out of our difficulties that we should report Progress and give the Government an opportunity of producing both the agreement with the Anglo-Persian Company and the agreement with the Australian Government, so that we can really understand the matter in all its bearings before we are called upon to commit ourselves and whitewash the the Government in this matter.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 168.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £44,900, be granted for the said service."

Like my hon. Friend, I must vote against the Government as a protest against the expenditure of public money without the authority of this House. But on the merits of the case, and the way in which the money has been spent, I do not share some of the ideas which have been expressed. It seems to me to be not only a sensible but an extremely wise thing to do to develop our Imperial resources in the best way possible for the use of the Empire. I notice that the opponents of anything in the nature of nationalisation have very curious ideas. They are opposed to nationalisation on anything where profits can be made, but on things on which no profit can be made they are extreme advocates of a very extensive system of nationalisation. They never appeal for private control of the Army and Navy—

Will hon. Members be at liberty to reply to these arguments?

I take it the hon. Member is only using them by way of illustration.

I am merely replying to the arguments which have been directed against the proposals of the Government, and pointing out there is a root and branch opposition to nationalisation. I am calling attention to the fact that this opposition is manifested only in regard to things in which there is no chance of making a profit. In the things that go to the protection of property we can have all the nationalisation and all the public payments we want from those Benches. I call attention to these facts because I do not want it to go forth that in voting against the Government on this occasion we are doing it because we object to the development of Imperial resources for the benefit of the Empire. We are prepared on these Benches at all times to vote for the fullest Imperial development under the auspices of the Empire, but we cannot, and will not, vote for any proposal whatever which is entered upon without the House having had a chance of expressing its opinion.

I find it difficult to understand for the moment where we are. I have never held an oil share in my life, but I ask myself, and I hope the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will tell me, if we want this oil. If we do, and have spent money in trying to get it, I think it has been a reasonable proceeding. A fortnight ago I voted against the Government, but I want to know now what is this opposition? Is it a party opposition? Is it intended to embarrass the Government on any reasonable grounds, or is it because hon. Members have not quite grasped the real state of affairs? Further, is it because they have an idea that they must be super-guardians of reasonable expenditure. I do not like Supplementary Estimates: indeed, I dislike them exceedingly, but I suggest you must take every Supplementary Estimate on its merits. This one will, I think, stand examination. It will be found that the Government are justified in spending the money. Even if the money has been spent and wasted in boring for oil, I could still vote for the proposal before the Committee, because I think it was justified. I am not going to deal with the question from the point of view of individualism or State socialism. Do the British and Australian Governments require to discover whether there is oil or not in these islands? The oil is to be used for the purposes of the Navy, a prime and, indeed, the best possible purpose. They put their heads together and say this: "Have we a Department, or any British Government organisation in London or in Australasia that will make these experiments?"; and the reply is that we have not. They think, however, that it can be done by a private company the majority of the shares in which are held by the British taxpayer. Instead, therefore, of putting up a fresh Department to deal with this boring, they go to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company will not get, so far as I can see, a shilling of profit out of any oil that they may find. I hope that they may find oil. We simply say to the company, "You are the trusted agent of the Government; the Government has full control of your shares; go ahead and find oil if you can." In the discretion which we must give to Ministers and responsible Departments, they have spent £15,000, and the Committee is now asked to authorise that action. It is really teasing the Government to come here now and vote against this £15,000. I will not be discourteous and say that it is nonsense, but it certainly is caution run riot, and as a business man I shall vote for the Government in this matter.

If this is for a strategic necessity that the Fleet should have oil in that part of the world, I intend to vote for the Government. I can understand that when you are drawing up a contract for the Admiralty or the War Office you do not want to put up notice-boards all over the world. We want oil in that part of the world, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us a little more than he has done, but I think that the Government are broadminded in this and I intend to vote for them.

Some hon. members appear to be mistaken in their ideas upon this matter. What we want is to get the oil. There is no evidence to show that other companies were not willing to go and prospect. I expect there were others, but our sole idea is to get possession of the oil. I shall support the Government because I think they are trying to do the best they can and I do not wish to embarrass them, but I do ask my hon. and gallant Friend for this assurance. What we want is that this shall be investigated, and that we shall not take a wrong course. I want my hon. and gallant Friend to bring this matter before the Colonial Conference. As far as I can make out, the British Government is not committed to a policy of nationalisation at all, but perhaps the Australian Government is, and will not allow any other country to go and explore for oil throughout the vast territories of Australia, Papua, and other regions. I want to get the maximum of light that is possible on this question, and, perhaps, to educate ourselves and the Australians in these matters. I ask the Government, therefore, to bring this matter before the Dominion Conference when it assembles in June, with a view to its being thoroughly thrashed out. We have taken wrong courses before. We took a wrong course on the question of all-British cables. I hope that we shall not take a wrong course on this question, which will be of vast importance in the future.

I rise more from a desire to have information as to how these shares are distributed.