I beg to present a petition from 230 seamen of the port of Hull, protesting against the new conditions of servitude imposed upon them by the Joint Maritime Board.

It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I ask the Leader of the House whether he can indicate what business the Government propose to take on the first day and the second day after we re-assemble.

The re-assembling of Parliament is a long way off, but perhaps the House will allow me to sketch out the first day's programme when we reassemble and I think the second day's business will have to be decided in the light of later events. On the first day I shall make the usual Motion to give the Government the time of the House. Then we shall take the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill, Second Reading; the Report stage of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]; the Second Reading of the Measuring Instruments Bill, and I hope we shall be also able to take the Second Beading of the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance Bill).

I was saying, when the proceedings were interrupted, how vital to the people whom I represent is this question of secondary education, and that, having surveyed their position for many years, I have come to the conclusion that the great weapon for raising them to better things is education. We send out of our schools every year a large number of exceptionally clever boys and girls. Whenever I pay a visit to my constituents, and attend one of their school festivals, I am more than proud when find what a splendid position these schools have been able to take in the educational competitions of the city. What becomes of these young Irish boys and girls who leave our elementary schools at 14 years of age? They come, as a rule, from very poor homes, and their parents, small as their incomes are, have necessarily to make their domestic budgets equalise. The result is that at that age these children are compelled to go to work. They have not the money or the time to be apprenticed to a trade, and, consequently, very many of them go into what are called blind-alley occupations; and boys or girls who go into blind-alley occupations are usually doomed to what is practically servitude for the remainder of their lives.

I will illustrate what a splendid lot of material is thus wasted, not only for the Irish themselves, but for the country in which they have found a home. A young lady, the daughter of a friend of mine, is a teacher in a convent school in London. During the War she was approached by one of her pupils, a little boy about twelve years of age, who began to talk to her about the then dominant topic of submarines, and she was astounded to hear this boy of such tender years give an exposition of the inner working of a submarine that was worthy of an expert. She was so surprised and, if I may use the word, so edified, by the talk of this boy, that she insisted upon his giving a lecture to his fellow-pupils on the submarine, and he proceeded to do so for an hour, illustrating the subject on the blackboard with a piece of chalk. A boy of twelve who shows such a precocious knowledge of machinery has in him the divine spark of genius, and it is a waste to the nation that that genius should not have an opportunity of developing. As a matter of fact, and as I anticipated, this boy has gone into a blind alley employment. I am hoping in some way or other to watch his future career and perhaps to help him to get out of the rut into which he has fallen. I hope it will be possible to make provision in Scotland Road Division which will enable a large number of boys and girls of the Irish race—I must first look after my own people—to have bursaries which will carry them along from 14 to 18 years of age, and if that project should succeed and my health remains strong, I may be able to take another trip to America to raise a fund for that purpose. If I am able to accomplish that we shall see a better educated and more prosperous Irish class in this country. With this project in the air the President of the Board of Education has come forward and aimed a deadly blow at the secondary schools, which are the best method of improving the prospects of the people of my race. These are the reasons why I have seen this Circular with great regret, and these are the reasons why I think all the education authorities of the country, as well as my own people, are up in arms against it, and I find it necessary at this late hour of the Session to add my strong protest.

I desire in my first sentence to associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. Friend, who speaks with such deserved authority for his fellow countrymen and his co-religionists, and it is perhaps not unfitting that the effect of this Circular upon those for whom he speaks should be the first aspect presented to the House. I speak from a slightly different angle, but at the same time in full accord with my hon. Friend, and I speak on behalf of all the local education authorities of England and Wales. There is absolute unanimity among boroughs and counties on this matter, and so far as I can do it I desire to present to the Government and to the House of Commons the essence of a grave situation. In the first place, may I, in all courtesy and without in any way diminishing my regard and affection for the President of the Board of Education, say that the method of procedure in this matter is gravely open to objection? The amounts of the grants to be available for secondary schools, whether they come from the Ministry or whether a proportion of the grant is made by the local authorities, was decided upon after prolonged discussion in this House, and the House may fairly be said to have taken its full share of responsibility in the matter, but to proceed by way of Circular, which has the force of law after it has been published in the "London Gazette" for a month, a form which cannot be altered by this House and which does not require a Resolution of the House, is to give the House of Commons the minimum of voice in the matter, and the least possible opportunity of making any protest or any suggestion. It is only your courtesy, Sir, and the willingness of hon. Members to make a House on the last day of the Session which enables any public discussion of this kind to be made, and now it can only be made in a way which permits of no Resolution and no decision of any kind, and I would say to my right hon. Friend, who knows probably better than any of us the extreme value of constitutional forms inspired by freedom, not to use his great influence to acquiesce in these methods which leave to the House so little opportunity.

My second point is that this is a most unfortunate time of the year to make financial alterations in education grants. Every local authority, acting in obedience to the directions that we have often had from the Government, makes its budget in the spring of the year. I should think before 22nd May, when this unhappy Circular saw the light—such light as was open to it—every borough and every county in England and Wales had already made its estimates for the year which ends at the end of next March, and they made those estimates, so far as regards education, on the faith of the considered policy of the Board, the Government and this House, and, therefore, if in the middle of the year a circular comes out which has the effect at once of diminishing by 20 per cent. the total grants available for non-provided secondary schools it means one of two things, either that they will have to go on to the rates, and, even then, it requires a supplementary estimate, or they will be neglected. wish to say, having, myself, the responsibility of being chairman of a county council, that it is very bad finance to force on any administrative body supplementary estimates half way through the current year. They are bad even here, in a legislative assembly. They are worse in a purely administrative body. I am sure my right hon. Friend sympathises in his heart, and I hope he will in his voice, when I put it to him that at this time of the year to bring in a change which diminished the money on which we are entitled to depend is mischievous financially, promotes bad administration and ought not to be done.

I desire now to deal with another matter, which is largely one of form and not of substance. A good deal has been said about the particular way the grants we are now talking about are paid. It is true that to a secondary school which is not maintained by a local authority help from public funds may come in two ways, one by a direct grant from the Board of Education and the other by a grant from a local authority. I am sure every one of us, from my right hon. Friend down to a mere backbencher like myself, could take up time and could use strong language as to the theoretical inconvenience of this double-barrelled method, and any correction of it, provided it did not involve the starving of this kind of education, would be a correction that all Members of the House would be prepared to consider, but it is no answer to the protest I am making to say that the present method of giving these grants is clumsy and awkward and not simple. We are not defending the present method of the double grant as being in itself good, and we do ask the Board of Education not to mix up the question of method and machinery as contained in the double grant, with the question of substance as to the total amount of the grant when it is properly earned by efficient schools. Therefore, any argument which may be addressed to us, or to the House generally, that the present method is open to every kind of logical bombardment, although it will be listened to with respect, will leave us quite cold, because we are not so much concerned about the double method as we are about the practical thing.

Having dealt with these three points of administration, I should like to deal with the merits of the case. What does this mean? It is done by the Board of Education, we understand, at the suggestion of the Geddes Committee. I desire to speak of the Geddes Committee with that profound respect with which one speaks of persons at once irresponsible and powerful, and, therefore, terrifying to the ordinary citizen, and the House will not hear from me any words of calculated disrespect. I am bound to say, however, that. when the Geddes Committee come to deal with education, they conceal their knowledge of education, or their interest in it, with such complete skill that it is difficult to realise that one is dealing with a Committee of highly-civilised persons. I have extracts from their Report, but I am not going to trouble the House by reading them. In effect, they say, "Here is a good deal of money given to non-provided secondary schools. You give it in two ways. Make the two ways alternative instead of cumulative and you will save money." That, of course, is quite elementary from one point of view, but hopelessly irrelevant from another. The question as to whether the money is deserved and whether it is money which ought to be spent, if possible, for the good of the community, is never grappled with at all by these admirable persons. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House more on that point, and I pass from this respectful consideration of their personality and their policy to deal with the substance of the matter.

The substance of the matter is, that there are in this country to-day some hundreds of secondary schools which are not provided by the local authorities. Many of them have an ancient and famous history. They are of varying type. Some of them represent the intense convictions of certain forms of Christianity awl of the societies concerned. Some of them are not specifically connected with any particular body of doctrine or religious tradition; but they all have this in common, that they represent the ancient civilisation of England and Wales in the matters of education. However good the policy of the Board, however earnest our local authorities, the new schools built by them and started by them can never acquire within a few years that which is best in the ancient tradition that clings to these other schools. There is nothing which is dearer to Members of the House of Com- mons, I am sure, than to bring all that is best in our historic civilisation within the reach of the children of the poor and most needy, and that can only be done if you make the ladder for the clever child of the poorest to these old schools easy to ascend, and with no gaps in it. Therefore, grants to these schools are matters which ought to be dealt with very tenderly and very sympathetically by the Board of Education and by the Treasury, even at times of rigid economy.

My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that the non-provided school, whatever its other qualities, does, so far as it takes the place of the provided school, save the country great sums of money. We have all been familiar with those arguments in times when educationists were divided amongst themselves; I would point out to my right hon. Friend, and to the House, that in this case that we are arguing to-day there is complete unanimity between denominationalists and their opponents and between all kinds of persons who are concerned over education, because, whatever may be our controversy as to the type of school there ought to be for every child in a place where only one school is possible—that we know is a very acute controversy—we surely all want the child who can benefit by further education not to he cut off from that particular type of education, under whatever religious auspices it be given, which enshrines so much of the best civilisation of our country.

The proposal in the circular cuts off at once 20 per cent. of that part of the grant which is given through the local authority, or the equivalent from the Government grant. Not only does it do that, but it proposes to go on from year to year cutting it down more and mere until, at the end of five years, there is a total saving of £500,000 a year, and something like a halving of the grants I hat have beer made. What does the Government want, and what does my right hon. Friend want? Does he want, in the true interests of education, that the ultimate £500,000 should be found from the rates instead of the taxes? If he does, I must, with great respect, tell him that it will not happen. There was never a time since we had public education in this country when it was so difficult to get money from the rates for education. If I live, I may have to go through the same experience next year that I have gone through during the last year. The difficulty of getting rates in my own county for imperative educational purposes has been enormous. Within the last few days, in regard to a needed educational reform in the county in which I live, one had to say frankly that it was impossible to go on with it in the present state of pressure upon the ratepayers. The pressure upon the ratepayers is every hit as heavy as the pressure upon the taxpayers, and it is more difficult to deal with, because the ratepayers are a smaller class than the taxpayers; they are nearer to the place where the rate is levied, and they can, therefore, use their influence more directly and more effectively. This unhappy and ill-considered circular has had an extraordinary effect in uniting in the criticism of it all educationists and the representatives of ratepayers and persons who are speaking for the ratepayers. Surely it cannot be for the good of education to fill its friends with depression, and to give barb and point and additional reason to those whose temperament would lead them to cut down expenditure upon education. I can conceive nothing more unhappy in its certain result.

If it be impossible, as I assure the House it is, to make up from the rates what would be lost in the grant from the taxes, what is the alternative? I have here communications from some of the leading cities in the country, and some of the more prominent counties. In Dorsetshire it involves nearly £10,000 more from the rates this year, and in a few years it will mean £17,000 more from the rates. The Dorsetshire authorities say they do not know how they can increase the rates further, and they think that they must curtail the income of the schools. There are similar statements from Liverpool, Birmingham, Birkenhead, Lincoln and Leeds. It is no local geographical disturbance. It is not associated with any matters of controversy or difference between towns and counties, or between one part of the country and another. It is a universal feeling that you cannot at this time, with the best will in the world, supply this money out of rates. On the other hand, if you do not, who will suffer?

The real educational tragedy is that the people who suffer are not people like the sons and daughters of many Members of this House, who will still be able to go to good schools, through the resources of their parents, and not the ordinary boy or girl, who cannot expect to go beyond the elementary school and the continuation school afterwards. Those who suffer are the cleverest and most promising children of those very classes of the community who can least afford to give them proper opportunities for their gifts. If there be economy in education, as there has to be, it is the most cruel and improper form of economy to diminish the supply of educational facilities to those who most need and are most likely to benefit by them.

Most of us are proud of the traditions of our country in education. Those of us, who, by the sacrifice of relatives or other people, have been able to take some share of what is best in these traditions, are anxious as far as possible that our less fortunate fellow citizens should have the same advantage. The limiting of this grant, at this time and in this way, makes it much more difficult to realise that desire. I hope that I have learned in this House that, however one presses the proposals which one thinks right, and however kind the House is in allowing expressions of feelings in criticising, one ought to conclude as far as possible with some definite constructive suggestion. Therefore I make this appeal to my right hon. Friend. Will he withdraw this until the end of the financial year and give Parliament an opportunity on the Estimates, early in next year, of discussing this matter fully and finally, and will he be good enough to confer with the representatives of the local education authorities on this matter? There may be particular points on which there may be economy. Some small part of these grants may he going in less desirable directions than I believe most of them go. it is the duty of everyone who can to help to secure economy where possible, but I do implore him not now, in the middle of the financial year when it is too late to re-arrange things for the rest of the year, to give the effect of law to this Circular. The result will be to make those who care for education sad, and those who care for local economy angry, and make a problem which is difficult now more difficult still to solve in future.

There is much in the two eloquent speeches to which I have listened with which I sympathise. I have certainly every desire to express my appreciation of the admirable work done in many of the Catholic secondary schools, and I am fully in accord with the eloquent tribute which has fallen from the lips of the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) to the work accomplished in many of the non-provided secondary schools of this country. I am sure that the House will readily appreciate that it was no particular pleasure to me to see any abatement of the sums available from public resources for the promotion of secondary education. At the same time, the two speeches to which we have listened do illustrate in a very clear, forcible manner the difficulties which confront the Minister of Education when he finds himself compelled by the financial exigencies of the country to abate the Parliamentary grant. He is at once met with an outcry from all the education authorities, and he is also met, and necessarily met, in view of our present system, with an outcry from the ratepayers. My hon. and learned Friend has concentrated principally upon the procedure which is being followed by the Board. He admits that the double grant is in form indefensible. He admits that the Board is justified in abolishing it, but he naturally thinks that some alternative form of grant, satisfactory to the local education authorities, should be put in its place.

I only disapprove of two authorities voting money simultaneously.

The hon. and learned Member does consider that the double grant as a form of educational finance is indefensible, but concentrates his criticism upon the procedure followed by the Board. In effect, he says that the local education authorities have not had sufficient notice, that they have made up their accounts for the year in the spring, and that it is unfair on the part of the Board, at this late period of the year, to launch a circular which in any way disarranges their calculations. My hon. and learned Friend has forgotten the fact that on 8th March I was asked a question by the hon. and learned Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst) as follows:

"LIEUT.-COLONEL HURST asked the President of the Board of Education to what extent the Board will continue to make grants to such non-provided secondary schools as receive grants-in-aid front a local education authority; whether he is aware that the Board's grant of £5,000 a year has contributed to the successful work of the Manchester High School for Girls; and whether he can give any assurance as to the continuation of this grant?"

To that question the following answer was given by me:

"I presume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the recommendation on page 115 of the first Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, that where a school receives financial assistance from a local authority, the direct grant from the Board should cease and no further grant should be made to that school except through the local authority as an intermediary. While accepting the recommendations in principle the Government have decided to spread its application, as regards existing schools and arrangements, over a period of five years. It will of course he understood that no extension of such arrangement will be permitted. The Board will issue a circular on the subject as soon as passible."

Therefore the local education authorities had notice as early as 8th March of the Board's intention to issue a circular in these terms. I think in these circumstances that there is very little substance in my hon. and learned Friend's complaint as to the procedure adopted by the Board. There has been ample opportunity for discussion on this matter. So much for procedure. Now for the substance. Let us attempt to form a picture of the financial consequences and implications of this proposal. I am told on the one band by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) that it aims a "deadly blow" at education, and I am told by my hon. and learned Friend that it is a "cruel and improper form of economy." Then we have lurid pictures painted for us of promising boys whose avenues to higher careers are cut short by this cruel and improper form of economy.

At the same time we are told that the Circular will impose a crushing burden on the rates. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If the ratepayer is to make good this deficiency, if he is to come forward and assist the schools, there is no "cruel and improper economy," and there is no "deadly blow" made at secondary education, and the secondary schools will be as well off as before. But we are told by the hon. and learned Member for Middleton that there is no chance of this sum of £500,000, spread over five years, being made good locally. I am not so sure. Let us consider what this sum means, spread over the whole country. It means that in five years' time the local authorities will be asked for an additional halfpenny rate on higher education. It means that this year, if they come forward entirely to fill the deficiency, they will he asked for one-ninth of a penny rate. My hon. and learned Friend is rendering, and has rendered, very great service to the cause of education in Northamptonshire. What will happen in Northamptonshire? In that county the effect of the Circular will be that there will be a reduction at the end of five years of £175. Spread over five years that is all the loss that Northamptonshire will incur.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not mean it, but his statement really has the effect of giving a most misleading impression. The fact is that at present we should be spending more money in this direction if we could possibly afford it. The fact that this is shut down upon us prevents our carrying on education in the way that we would desire. It is not fair to say that only £175 is at stake. That would be true if you stereotyped things and stopped everything where it is. The Circular hinders development, and the effect of it will be enormously greater than the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

The effect of the Circular is simply to abolish the double grants. If you consider the Circular in isolation, it has the effect upon Northamptonshire of reducing the sum available for secondary education by £175, at the end of five years. Its effect, therefore, will be negligible in that county. I would remind the House that a Committee is now engaged inquiring into the whole subject of grants in aid of education.

Why not leave this matter alone until that Committee has reported?

It is desirable that there should be some economy in education, and it is obvious that if you conclude that there should be some such economy it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the Board to retain a form of grant which is admittedly indefensible. How can you defend any system of public grants under which a certain class of secondary school receives £500,000 more than another class, not because the schools in that class are more efficient, but simply because they are aided? As soon as you look at the problem in that way, you see that the system is indefensible. The Board took the only possible course, which was to terminate so illogical a system of grant. I will take the effect of this Circular upon the county of Lancashire. It is a very important county. It has a number of important secondary schools. So far as we can estimate the effect of this Circular, it will mean the transfer of a sum of about £16,000 from the taxes to the rates, at the end of a period of five years. That is the "deadly blow" to secondary education in Lancashire. I submit that this whole matter of the abolition of the double grant has been invested with art importance which it does not really possess, and that, in relation to it, very exaggerated language has been used which cannot be sustained. In Lancashire there will be this year an additional charge, assuming that the locality makes good the deficiency, of one-ninth of a penny rate, and ultimately a charge of a halfpenny rate. The charge upon Lancashire will be exactly proportionate to the charge on the whole country.

I would naturally view with no little dismay the educational situation if the local authorities did not, during the course of the quinquennial period, make good the whole or the greater part of this deficiency. Let us assume, however, that that is not done; let us assume that the worst happens. Even so, the aided schools at the end of five years will be in a far better position, as respects assistance from public funds, than they were in 1918. I must give a few salient details in order to bring that proposition home to hon. Members. I will take three schools. Take the secondary boys' school at Clitheroe. In 1918–19 this school received from public funds £799 10s. Five years hence, assuming that the deficiency is made good by the local authorities, it will receive £1,640 from public funds. Take Lancaster Royal Grammar School. In 1918–19 it received from public funds £2,984 11s. 8d. Five years hence, on the same assumption, it will receive £5,464. Take the Ashtonin-Makerfield Grammar School. In 1918–19 it received from public funds £1,829 17s. 6d. Five years hence, on the same assumption, it will receive £3,860.

I think the House will recognise that in spite of the special strain of this period the Government have not been ungenerous to secondary education. I am well aware that our system of grants in aid of secondary education leaves much to be desired. It has in particular one defect. We have not yet seen our way to take into account the differences between the wealthier and poorer areas in making our grants in aid of secondary education, as we have in the case of elementary education. In the case of elementary education, we have, as the House knows, an arrangement which enables us to give more to the poorer area than to the richer area. We have not been able, so far, to introduce an arrangement of that kind into our grants for secondary education. This is a difficult problem, but I hope it is not insoluble. I am not by any means sure that the last word has been said upon secondary school finance. I am afraid, however, I cannot undertake, as my hon. and learned Friend has suggested—much as I should desire to fall in with the views of so distinguished an educationist—to withdraw the circular which has been issued. The estimates of the Board of Education are framed upon the supposition that this circular holds good.

As I have already explained, the circular involves this year a reduction in the Board's grant of £100,000, equal to a rate of one-ninth of a penny. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that we might have an exchange of views, or a consultation between the Board and the local education authorities. I am always very desirous of meeting local education authorities. I know how much the system of education in this country owes to the self-sacrifice of the men and women all over the country who work upon these bodies. I find it difficult to express my sense of the indebtedness of the Board to the work of men like my hon. and learned Friend and many others, upon our local authorities, and I am indeed sorry that any step which the Board has taken should involve them in any additional anxiety. At the same time the Estimates of the Board have been settled. They have passed the House and they assume that this circular will hold good, and in these circumstances I hope my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the reasons which make if impossible for me to accede to his suggestion. If he thinks that any good would come from any conference upon points of detail between the Board and the local education authorities, I can assure him we shall be very glad to have such a conference and to consider the situation.

In the course of a very few moments, I desire to support the appeal made to the President of the Board of Education to suspend the operation of this circular, at least until the Autumn Session, and until we have a conference of local education authorities upon the subject. The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is quite insufficient to meet the case which has been made out against this circular. I am not quite of the opinion that this dual grant is indefensible. I have some recollection of its origin. It was introduced in order to induce the governors of these secondary schools to submit their schools to inspection. In view of the country's anxiety to see that the schools were thoroughly efficient, the Board agreed, in co-operation with the universities, to inspecting the whole of these schools, and as a consideration for such inspection gave a grant of £7 per scholar. I want to know whether, if the grant is going to be withdrawn, these schools are still to submit to inspection by the Board of Education. If the grant is withdrawn, will they remain subject to the regulations of the Board in regard to secondary schools? I recollect that within recent years there were no regulations of the Board for the conduct of secondary schools. When the Board acquired from Parliament the power to give State grants to these schools, they were then able to impose certain conditions on the schools in order to secure increased efficiency. Are these conditions to remain while the grant is withdrawn? The circular throws no light upon the subject, and it is a very disturbing influence. The governors of the schools do not know what will be the future of the schools and the local authorities do not know.

I cannot square the answer given to-clay with the answers made to me earlier in the Session, on the question of grants to secondary schools. When we had the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill before us a few weeks ago, I understood that the grants this year in respect of secondary education to local authorities were practically the same as in the past year. Now, I gather, that under this Circular there will be a certain amount of reduction in the secondary schools grant. Really, we do not know where we are in the matter of secondary education, and the Session is closing down, leaving the situation in a state of grave uncertainty. I understood, for example, that the question of the number of free places in secondary schools had been brushed aside. Only this week I received an intimation that in the case of a new secondary school the Board has positively refused to recognise more than 25 per cent. of free places, and the number of free places is being reduced. I feel this is the worst form of economy which the Government could practice. It will fall upon a few of the brightest and most promising pupils in our public schools, and while I regret the immediate loss, I also look forward to the ultimate loss which the nation will incur, through failure to train its children. I gave a pledge I would not intervene for more than a moment or two, but speaking as a member of the largest education authority in England, I must say that we regard this position with grave apprehension. I hear from Mr. Leslie, secretary to the Association of Educational Authorities, that they are gravely disturbed by this proposal. The headmasters are wondering what is to be the future of the schools.

These schools are in a desperate condition at this moment. When the President of the Board refers to this as a mere bagatelle, a matter of £100 here and a few score pounds there, he does rot appreciate the position of some of these schools. Many of them have heavy overdrafts which they see no prospect of meeting. Fees have been increased to a stage beyond which increase is impossible. The burden is falling very heavily on the middle classes who are striving to pay these fees. The local authorities have given the utmost they can out of the rates, and I agree that it is quite impossible to get further sums from the rates at the present moment in support of popular education. Not only that, but this grant from the State is, in a way, an equalisation of the rates throughout the country. People are called upon to contribute through the State grant who do not contribute through the rates, although they profit by the education which is given in the schools. We have always felt that when we have argued the case in regard to rate aid and State aid. These schools are in serious difficulties, and the withdrawal of a portion of this grant now, and the ultimate withdrawal of the whole of it, will place many of them in grave financial embarrassment, but it is not a question of a few pounds. They do not know the conditions under which they will have to serve; whether they will have to conform in the future, as in the past, to the Regulations of the Board, their income becomes absolutely uncertain, and what is it all for? For what is called an economy. It is no economy. It is a transference of a burden from one pocket to the other.

It is the complaint that I have made here again and again, that the economies recommended by the Geddes Committee are not real economies in the way of avoidance of expenditure; they have been merely a transference of burdens from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, and I cannot regard that as any real economy. Nay, more, I do not think it is justified, because the charge which falls upon the taxes is more equitably distributed than that which falls upon the rates. Therefore, in these quite brief and imperfect sentences, I join in the appeal that this matter shall be held in suspense, and I will say this last word. In my judgment, the distribution of Parliamentary grants should be determined by the House and not by any Ministry. We are told, again and again, that Parliament ought to exercise control over expenditure. We have had no opportunity of exercising any effective control over this expenditure. An answer to a question was the notice given to the local authorities. The Government take the time of the House. Measures of greater importance arise from day to day, and we are driven to the last few hours in order to raise a question of grave public importance, not merely from the educa- tional, but from the financial point of view. I therefore feel very strongly, indeed, that this matter ought to be adjourned, or held in suspense, until the House of Commons itself can pronounce a judgment upon the matter, and when that judgment is obtained, I have no shadow of doubt that the whole House, irrespective of party, will determine that there shall be no stinting of funds for the promising child, that genius shall have the opportunity of going forward, although in its youth it may be clad in rags.

I can only speak again with the permission of the House, but as the hon. and gallant Member has asked me a question, perhaps I may answer him. He appears to be in doubt as to whether the effect of the circular may be to dispense secondary schools from the necessity of inspection by the Board. These schools would still receive the £7 grant, and, consequently, they would still be subjected to the inspection of the Board and the regulations of the Board. I cannot see how there can be any possible doubt on that subject. Then the hon. and gallant Member alluded to the restriction of the number of free places, and said there had been a considerable increase in that restriction. Let me give the figures. In October, 1913, there were 61,266 free places, and in October, 1921, there were 121,646 free places. In other words, the number of free places has increased.

I am quite sure that to-morrow, when those who are associated with the local authorities throughout the country, read of the decision of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, that the circular cannot be postponed, there will be grave, and, indeed, bitter disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he would draw a picture of the effect of this circular. Will he allow me to take one particular school, a school of which I have knowledge. He himself knows Plymouth College. Here is a school, typical of many others in the country, established by a number of public-spirited men, who have dipped heavily in their own pockets from time to time and maintained the school, not for a great number of years, not for more than 20 years, I believe. They applied to the Plymouth Council for assistance, and the Plymouth Council, after a great deal of discussion, gave £1,000. Later on that sum was increased to £2,000. I agree that there is the greatest difficulty in getting those on a council who do not believe in education to join with those who do in order to give grants when necessary. That £2,000 has been secured with the utmost difficulty, and now the effect of this circular is that, whereas in the past Plymouth College has received £2,000 in the course of a year, this year they will actually receive only about £1,606, and that amount, which they have received from the Plymouth Council, aided as it has been to the extent of 50 per cent. by the Board of Education, will be progressively reduced, until that £2,000 has been made £1,000. It will be quite impossible to get that from the Plymouth Council, because of their pressure at the present time, harassed, as they are, through continual unemployment, with a rate that is giving a great deal of difficulty. Speaking as a member of that council, I know very well that this is an impracticable proposal. The only effect will be to maim and to injure this school. The only effect will be that some of the lads who have had the opportunity through that school of getting a fuller and better education will be excluded from that advantage, and all for a mere £100,000 during the present year—the minimum of economy, with the maximum of disturbance throughout the whole country. I associate myself, if I may, with respect, with the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) in urging upon right hon. Gentleman the wisdom of, at any rate, postponing the decision upon this circular.

I rose to bring before I he House in the course of a minute or two another subject that I think was discussed last Friday in this House, perhaps with a little more heat than light. It is this question of broadcasting, and I think that before the House separates for the Recess there should be an opportunity of clearing up one or two points that were then raised. I think the Postmaster-General had not the opportunity last Friday of dealing with all the points that were raised, and there are certain particulars in respect of which, perhaps, the public mind might be enlightened. I do not approach the subject with any expert knowledge. I have no more knowledge of it than that of the man in the street, but I recognise that this is a startling development. A very considerable change is to be brought about, and it is ail the more necessary that we should proceed upon sound lines. The points upon which I would like to ask the Postmaster-General for further information are these—what progress has been made with the formation of the proposed combine of the interested companies, who will have the determination of the terms of admission into that combine, and what protection will be given to the smaller man, the man of no great financial resources, who wishes to join that combination? The Postmaster-General has already announced that in associating himself with those who are connected with this proposed company, it is not intended that any of the receiving apparatus in broadcasting is to be of foreign manufacture.

I want to approach that question simply from the standpoint of a possible individual user. If I wished to acquire this receiving apparatus, my first concern, of course, would be to get it as cheaply as possible, and to get the most efficient instrument I can at the price. Will the right hen. Gentleman let the House know how the several companies that are to enter into this combine will be reimbursed? I understand that part of the reimbursement for their enterprise will come from part of the licence fee, but will any portion of this reimbursement come from the profits on the sale of the receiving apparatus? If so—and I assume that will be the result—what power will the Postmaster-General have to see that this reimbursement is no more than fair? What control will he have over the price that is to be charged? What power will he have to protect the individual citizen from being forced to buy, perhaps, a dear and an imperfect apparatus, instead of a cheap and an efficient apparatus, if he be able to go practically to the whole world? I know the fiscal issue has been raised. I do not think those on this side are responsible for raising it. I think it was, in fact, raised by the Postmaster-General, who spoke of the necessity of keeping these communications in the hands of our own people. As far as I can see, there is no more reason for insisting upon the receiving apparatus being made by a British firm than for insisting upon a motor car, or boots, or any ordinary article being made by a British firm. Of course, a considerable argument may be used that, as far as broadcasting stations are concerned, they should be kept under Government control. But, as regards the apparatus itself, which might be made by a clever amateur, why should he not be able to go to the whole world to get his material? The indignation of the Postmaster-General last week is a little discounted by the fact that he has only allowed this condition to run for two years. If it be wrong to have a foreign apparatus at all, why not exclude it altogether? Those, I think, are one or two of the questions concerning a movement that is interesting the public mind very considerably, and upon which the Postmaster-General may be able to give us some enlightenment.

I will reply at once to the hon. Member, not because I want to interfere with any other Member who desires to speak on this subject, but because I understand that those interested in the question would like me to reply immediately, so that they may have an opportunity of making any observations on what I may say. Every occasion on which this subject is discussed in the House is, in my opinion, of real value to the promotion of wireless broadcasting, which is in its infancy in this country. It was only a toy at the end of last year. Within 12 months—I do not think I am too sanguine—it may become one of the most valuable sources of communication, within certain limitations, at our disposal. But I make this general observation at the beginning. We must have regard to two things. One is that broadcasting has the defect of its qualities. For individual communication it is, I think, impracticable, but for distributing forms of information of common interest to great numbers of people, it may indeed prove to be a most valuable resource both for education, and, possibly, for political propaganda. It may be convenient if I give what is the history of this question so far as I have been connected with it. The first movement was in January of this year, when the wireless societies throughout this country asked permission, and were given sanction by the Imperial Communications Committee, to transmit wireless telegraphy signals.

The question was considered again on the 5th April, when the Wireless Subcommittee of the Imperial Communications Committee agreed that broadcasting by wireless telephony might be permitted from certain specified stations, the stations being centres—they may not be in the exact positions I indicate—in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow or Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and Plymouth has now been added. It was decided that licences should be granted to broadcast on a wavelength of 440 metres up to a maximum input of 1½ kilowatts. On 22nd April, representations were made to us that that limitation of 440 metres might seriously retard progress, and it was then agreed that a band of wave-lengths 350 to 423 metres should be used for broadcasting, on the condition that the Government, when necessary, could order broadcasting to cease for a short period on such occasions as manœuvres or the danger of interfering with important Government communications. The hours, provisionally agreed upon during which broadcasting should be permitted, were between 5 and 11 p.m. on week-days arid all day on Sundays. On 18th May, a conference was held at the Post Office, presided over, I think, by the Secretary of the Post Office. I myself was not present.

At that conference 24 firms interested in the production of wireless material were present. It was recognised by all the firms, and by all the officials of the Post Office, that if the thing was to succeed, you must have efficient, reliable and continuous services of broadcasting. Unless you can secure that, people are not going to interest themselves, and the drawback, I think, up to the present in this country has been that the sort of information and the sort of programme which has been broadcasted has been of the driest and most unattractive, and, I think, least beneficial character. If the best use is to be made of this new form of communication, it must touch life at many aspects, and one of my principal desires, so far as I have been associated with laying down the conditions, has been to see that thoroughly informative and valuable in- formation is broadcasted. It was recognised by all the technical people who were engaged in the discussion that it would be impossible to have a large number of firms broadcasting. That is physically impossible. It would result in a sort of chaos, only in a much aggravated form than that which has arisen in the United States of America, and which has compelled the United States, or the Department over which Mr. Hoover presides, and who is responsible for broadcasting, to do what we are now doing at the beginning, that is, proceed to lay down very drastic regulations, indeed, for the control of wireless broadcasting.

It was, therefore, necessary that the firms should come together, if the thing was to be efficiently done. You could not have 24 firms broadcasting in this country. There was not room. Physical laws would not permit it. They would all be getting in one another's way, and no good at all would be done, but only harm, and it. was suggested to them that., for the purpose of broadcasting information, whatever it might be, they should form themselves, if possible, into one group, one company.

At this point, I wish the House to draw this distinction, which is very necessary, and which, I am afraid, has been overlooked, between the broadcasting services and the provision of instruments. They are totally distinct. So far as the provision of instruments is concerned, any qualified firm of electrical manufacturers—and the more the better—can provide them, and make them, but you could riot possibly have that in connection with the broadcasting service. I hope that distinction will be kept clearly in mind. The firms met on the 18th May. They came to the Post Office again on the 16th June, and they then told the officials of the sort of progress they had been able to make in arriving at agreement as to provisions of the broadcasting service. Frankly, I am disappointed at the progress they have made. If a Government Department had been as slow as this the whole country would have rung with it. But I am glad to say that at last there is a prospect of getting on. I think that prospect will be realised within the course of the next fortnight, and that they will have come to an agreement amongst themselves in regard to the company or companies—there may be two, I hope myself, in the interests of broadcasting, there will be only one—in regard to the company or companies which will have control of the broadcasting services. I have laid down certain conditions which must govern the operations of the company, and must be expressed in their articles of association. These latter will be subject to the approval of the Postmaster-General. There will he no limit to the extent of the individual holding. Any bonâ fide British manufacturer of wireless apparatus must be allowed to become a member of the group on taking a £1 share. I think that ought to satisfy every manufacturer in this country who is capable of producing wireless apparatus at all. The licence for a broadcasting company is to be subject to the maintenance of an efficient service, and if, in my opinion, the services fail and are not efficient, I shall have authority to withdraw the licence. A contribution is to be made towards the broadcasting expenses of a portion of the licence fees for receiving sets. That is one way in which the expenses of the station will be met by a share of the licence money. It is also agreed that there shall be out of the charge made for every set that is sold a contribution to the expenses of the broadcasting company, so that there will be two forms of revenue available. One is a share of the annual licence, and the other a contribution to be made out of the receipts from every set sold. The profits of the broadcasting company—and I would ask hon. Members to distinguish between that kind of company and the manufacturers of receiving sets—the profits of that company—

Is that share in addi1 ion to the protective duty?

There is no protective duty. I know nothing at all about that. The profits of the broadcasting company are to be limited to 7½ per cent. We have had a good deal of difficulty in getting companies to agree to that limitation, and I think it will be admitted to be a very drastic limitation in what is necessarily a new arid difficult undertaking. But I am glad to say that I think we have got the companies to agree to that very drastic limitation upon their profits, though I do not think there is going to be any raging and tearing hurry on the part of the general public for an investment of the sort. The receiving licences are limited to types submitted by members of broadcasting companies and must conform to certain technical standards of the Post Office. Now I come to what is really, I think, the only ground of criticism which I have heard.

There was a question whether there would be any control of the price of receiving instruments to guard against a combine of the makers if there is no foreign competition.

I control the price here. Every manufacturer in this country capable of producing wireless instruments will receive a licence from the Post Office if he conforms to the standard laid down by the Post Office. What you have to fear in this is not monopoly; it is more likely you will have cut-throat competition. Anyhow, that is the protection. Every manufacturer in this country who produces an instrument up to the standard laid down by the Post Office will be free to put the instrument on the market, once he has taken his £1 share in the company responsible for the broadcasting. The principal point of criticism is in regard to my decision to limit for a period of two years the licensing of instruments to those made in this country. In taking this decision, my attitude was not coloured at all by fiscal considerations. On the contrary, I was entirely guided by what I thought was in the best interests of wireless broadcasting in Great Britain. I am satisfied, and I believe everyone will be forced to that conclusion on careful consideration of these technical and practical aspects of this question, that without such a limitation you would never get an efficient broadcasting service established in Great Britain. Be it remembered that the whole cost of these broadcasting services is to be borne by the manufacturers in the group, and it is not reasonable to suppose that they would go to that expense and take that risk, with the limited profit, if some manufacturer on the Continent gets the whole or a large portion of the benefit without having made any contribution. That really is not sound business.

The first essential is to make a successful and efficient broadcasting service, and you certainly will not get that, believe me, unless you give some period of time to introduce a provision of this kind. My own opinion is that anyone approaching the problem from the angle from which I am bound to approach it would have come to that conclusion. I think this covers most of the points put by hon. Members. The main considerations which any Government ought to have in view in dealing with this problem seem to me, first, that the broadcasting services are efficient. That I have already mentioned. There must be regulation, so as to prevent any interference with the military and commercial services. We must be able to ensure compliance with international wireless agreements, and international wireless agreements are becoming increasingly important. There must be safeguards against monopoly. I think I have secured these safeguards in the conditions which I have outlined to the House. You must be able to get the benefit of any invention wherever made. I was not at all debarred by the fear of the fiscal question being raised from dealing with this question. My anxiety was rather that, if you got anything like a monopoly, you would sterilise developments, and that broadcasting in this country might be deprived of the benefit of inventions. If that had not been the case—the fear of development being sterilised—I should certainly not have made these conditions. But it must be remembered that if any new invention is discovered abroad of which we have not the benefit in this country, it will always be open to our manufacturers to obtain the patent and to develop it and use it here.

Supposing a foreigner take out a patent in this country?

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right. That is a case which has arisen frequently in respect of our own manufacturers. They have used the patent. The present Prime Minister when he was at the Board of Trade made provisions in regard to this matter.

I know the Act very well. It was simply this: that if a foreign patentee did not use his patent, you could. But you are proposing not to allow a foreign patentee to use it at all.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find on further reflection that it is possible for the manufacturer in this country to obtain, on terms, the benefit of any change and exploit it in this country. I can assure the House that I gave great attention to this matter because I realised that it was the principal danger. With regard to the other dangers which have been referred to, ram satisfied that they will not in fact operate, and that was why I agreed to this provision. I think I have now covered all the points raised, and I will conclude by saying that in dealing with this problem throughout I have had no other desire than to see that this important form of communication should be developed in this country to the greatest possible extent.

I do not agree that the communications of any country are on exactly the same plane as the supply of boots or any ordinary commodity. The communications of the country have always been regarded not only as a key industry, but as being much more fundamental. You must keep your communications in your own hands, and you should be able to improve your own people in the practice and provision of every device which would improve your form of communications. Here is a new form of communication which is in its very infancy, and from the point of view of the Postmaster-General, I regard this new form in all its aspects, both broadcasting and the provision of the instruments, as something which should be under British control. The hon. and learned Member opposite thinks that I am wrong on this point, but I am prepared to leave the matter to the test of time.

There is a great deal with which we all cordially agree in the statement just made by the Postmaster-General. He has pointed out that this is a very great advance in the means of communication, and we are all agreed upon that point. The second point upon which we agree with the right hon. Gentleman is that you must have Government control of broadcasting messages, because you would, otherwise, have a powerful means of communication passing out of the hands of the Government. Therefore, there must be control and power to prohibit the sending of messages. We must act forget, also, that there are times when the air is required for the service of the Government, and I would suggest nothing for one moment which would go contrary to that. That is where the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the postal telegraphs and the other things he mentioned, must be in the hands of the Government.

I wish to inquire who in the Broadcasting Association is going to protect the interests of copyright. Is he going to allow those whose copyright has been infringed to sue the broadcasting company, and is he at the same time going to protect them? I think this is a very important point. Up to now we are in general agreement that the system is a great invention and that the stations of transmission must be under the control of the Government. This is where we part company with the Postmaster-General. When the right hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "means of communication" he includes the people who listen in, and there is absolutely no reasons of State why anyone should not be permitted to listen without any control whatever. The right hon. Gentleman cannot interfere with such communications, and it would be as reasonable to base his argument for broadcasting on the argument of public necessity of the control of communications in regard to receiving apparatus as it would be to say that while the Post Office must keep in the hands of the British Government the distribution of letters, it will not permit any foreigner to receive the letters. The necessity for controlling this matter lies in the centre.

I come to the arrangements made by the Postmaster-General for receiving. I am relying upon a newspaper report in the "Times" on this question, and I understand that in France the Committee appointed by the Post Office there has decided that the broad principles to be followed is that receiving apparatus may be freely used after full registration. There is not a word of any sort about interference with the manufacture, or any sort of limitation of the position of the manufacturer. The Postmaster-General is better able than anyone else to say whether that is correct or not, but if it is correct it would seem to show that the French are dealing with this matter in a much more broadminded way.

What does the Postmaster-General propose? His proposal is to set up a monopoly of all the firms engaged both in broadcasting and the making of receiving instruments. The people who broadcast want to be paid for sending out the messages, and they are to be paid by means of a portion of the licence fee paid for the receiving instrument. In the case of the man who receives the messages on an instrument, it is not unreasonable that when he pays his licence fee a part of it should go to the man who sends the message. The Postmaster-General says that nobody may buy and use a receiving apparatus unless he buys it from a limited field of manufacturers, and that is a monopoly.

How is the broadcasting station to be dealt with? In part it is to receive a fraction of the licence fee and also a share of the profits from the manufacture of receiving instruments. The interest of the broadcasting station is to get as much money as they can through the higher price at which the receiving apparatus is sold, and the more they get the better they are pleased. The interest of the seller of the receiving apparatus is also to get as much as he can, but he is protected from competition outside, and therefore, owing to this combination, he is safe in raising his price. Therefore you have here the essential elements of a combine and a monopoly which may be operated against the interests of the public. The Postmaster-General has spoken about the whole of this enterprise as being a difficult thing to get started, and he says it needs all the encouragement we can give it. May I remind the House that last week the right hon. Gentleman told us that £6,000,000 were going to be spent in two years in the production of receiving apparatus. I think it is a sound business proposition to go into such a combine, the receipts of which are estimated at a sum which the Postmaster-General puts at £6,000,000 during the first two years. I come to a point which has not been answered, and it is, how is the Postmaster-General going to enforce these conditions, and how is he going to prevent importation? Is he going to prohibit the importation of foreign sets?

No.

Is he going to prohibit the sale of foreign sets by anyone who cares to sell them?

No.

Then is he going to take the person who buys a foreign set and impose the terms of the licence upon him? In that way he will not prevent the sale of these sets. Supposing a man receives one of these sets, and puts it up, how is the Postmaster-General going to stop that kind of thing? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying, "I have something up my sleeve which I cannot reveal, because I have to enforce the terms of the licence." The right hon. Gentleman cannot leave this matter to the Marconi Company. If the terms of the licence are going to be observed and infringements prevented, this will involve a considerable increase of staff in the Postmaster-General's own Department. I may say,' in passing, that another Department is imposing a tax of 33⅓ per cent. on wireless apparatus. Last Friday we asked that there might be a Committee appointed to go into this question, and I received a reply from the Leader of the House that he has seen no indication of any demand from those who provide such service for such a Committee. I am not at all surprised. "I see no indication of a demand from a monopoly for an inquiry which will break down that monopoly." Then he goes on to say that he sees no demand from those who use it. If the demand of the representatives of the consumers, namely, the Members of this House, he not a demand, how is it to be put forward? This is the demand on behalf of those who use broadcasting apparatus. The only representatives of the users and consumers are the Members of this House. That is why this House ought to prevail over all commercial monopolies and interests of all kinds.

The Postmaster-General says that he is giving this boon to this limited class of manufacturers for two years. Is there anyone, in the light of our experience of the last four years, who will say that these fiscal advantages once given are ever withdrawn? Never! Whenever we ask for their withdrawal, we are told that it is not a suitable moment. The Postmaster-General himself, I think, anticipates that it may be necessary to continue this after two years. He cannot say that he will not. In point of fact, when asked the question in Committee, he said that he should be justified, if there were a monopoly, in reconsidering it, and he should certainly reconsider the position with regard to the period after that. So far from it being a two years' limit, it is going to be for two years anyhow, and then it is going to be reconsidered. If anyone thinks that after two years the people who have lived cut of this monopoly are going to submit without a protest, and a successful protest against the deprivation of these privileges, he is to be congratulated on his hope. While the Postmaster-General is perfectly and obviously right to control the sending of messages, he is imposing, in deference to the fiscal opinions of others, adoptive in this case, congenital in the case of others, restrictions which will hamper a growing science, because all the great names associated with telegraphy are not British names, and it is perfectly absurd to set up a Tariff Reform system in science. What the people want is the freest intercourse of the scientific ideas of all the nations of the world.

It is always interesting to hear my hon. and gallant Friend, when there is any question of protecting the interests of foreigners. Perhaps a little more education may bring him to the conclusion that it is advisable to look after the interests of our people at home. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made, and that is likely to be made, with this system. It might be an education to my hon. and gallant Friend to know that in commerce, if a foreigner has any patent to sell, he knows the market where it can be utilised. I am glad to hear that the Postmaster-General is not going to have any of these instruments made abroad, and I am sure he will be coo of the first, if there be any advantages with regard to actual patents, to look after the matter. As to talking of this enormous combine, I say at once, so far as I am concerned, that, as a business man, I would not dream of putting any money into this undertaking, which is of the highest speculative character, if I were told that forthwith, subject to a limit of a small percentage, I am to have no chance of making any money.

I want to refer to another matter that affects London very considerably, namely, the licensing hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that I have the sympathy of my hon. Friends, be- cause, after all, it is from the working men that I have received many complaints with regard to the hours for partaking of refreshment on Sundays. The Bill of 1921 went through this House as a compromise. I am going to stick to the arrangement that was made and not ask for any extension of the actual number of trading hours. But the South of London has been treated in a most extraordinarily ungenerous manner. I have looked carefully into the licensing statistics for 1921, and I find some very interesting information. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State far the Home Department has studied the map that is published there. If he looks at it, he will find that north of the Thames there are a lot of black marks which indicate that the hours of opening on Sunday evenings are from seven till 10, and that some of the houses are compelled by the decision of the magistrate to open at six and close at nine. In the whole of the south of London there is not a solitary case in which the people have an opportunity, if they are desirous of doing so, of remaining on licensed premises after nine o'clock. We say that is unfair, and that what is right for one part is right for another. We met and arranged nine hours for London, but we did not think that we were going to be taken and coddled up by the licensing magistrates, who say to the people in the south of London: "We are going to look after your interest, and you have no right to remain on licensed premises on Sunday after nine o'clock." I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman's sympathies must be with these people, because I do not suppose he is desirous of limiting the hours in an unreasonable manner. I do not think he intended, when the Bill went through the House last year, that Regulations should be enforced requiring these licensed premises in the south of London to close on Sundays at nine o'clock. I think it was the general intention of the House that in the provinces the closing hours should be 10 o'clock on Sundays and 11 o'clock on week-days. The number of hours of trading on week-days were absolutely limited to nine hours in London and eight hours in the provinces, except in eases where an extra half hour was given or supper arrangements were made. On Sundays we were to have five hours' trading. We do not ask for any more, but we do suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider the advisability of putting us in the position on the south side of the Thames of saying we will open if we desire at seven o'clock on Sundays and close at 10.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is in the power of the Home Office to grant an extension of the hours?

That is the point with which I was dealing, I cannot help thinking it is one on which my right hon. Friend sympathises with us.

It appears to me that the hon. Member is out of order, as it is not in the power of the Home Office to do what he desires. However he has already made his point.

I maintain, with all deference, that I am in order. This is a matter which comes directly under the Home Secretary. According to the Licensing Bill we were to have these hours. There was no mention that on one side of the road the houses should close at 9 o clock and on the other side they should close at. 10 o'clock. That was not suggested when the Bill went through this House, and therefore, with all deference, I say that it is a question which can be dealt with by this House, because in 1920—

Anything which concerns administration would be in order, but what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking in this case would require legislation, and it is not in order on the Motion for Adjournment to propose fresh legislation. If the Home Secretary had discretion in these matters the hon. and gallant Member would be in order, but I rather gather that he has not.

It may be necessary to have fresh legislation, but if we do not have an opportunity of bringing these matters before this House in order to show that legislation is necessary there is not the slightest possible chance of our securing it. In 1920 there was legislation in this House and the hours of trading were extended by arrangement; by agreement with the Home Secretary they were extended from the 5th July, 1920, to the 31st October in the same year, that being what is called the summer period. We then said it was absurd and unreasonable that houses should be closed at 9 o'clock and so the Home Secretary arranged—

I am afraid I must rule that this is out of order. The hon. Member is not entitled, on the Motion for Adjournment, to bring up matters which require legislation.

I would ask my right hon. Friend to look into the various anomalies that do exist, and if it is only necessary to bring in a one Clause Bill, surely that could be done, and we could overcome many of the difficulties with which we are now faced. I am sorry it is not possible, under the ruling of the Chair, to pursue this discussion, because I believe that in this matter I have the support and sympathy of the vast majority of the Members of this House.

We quite realise that, owing to the ruling of the Chair, the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot press his point, inasmuch as the hours are fixed by the licensing justices and not by the Home Secretary, the matter is out of order. There are two other points I desire to bring before the House, the first arises out of some disturbances which took place in Camberwell a week or two ago, when two men, named Rust and Dallas, were arrested and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. I have brought the cases to the attention of the Home Secretary, and I am only raising the matter now because the end of the Session is so near, and I would like to get some reply. The disturbances arose in connection with some houses that were condemned by the Camberwell Borough Council as unfit for habitation. They were filthy and insanitary places, without the ordinary amenities of sanitation and water supply, and it was only under the direst stress that people could be expected to live in them. The action of the borough council meant the eviction of certain ex-service men with their families, and they had nowhere to go to. This was resented by a number of the unemployed, who turned up in the neighbourhood with a view to doing all they could to hinder and hamper the evictions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in any way saying anything in the nature of censure or condemnation of the action of the police. We know that they carry out their many difficult duties with a consideration, tact and courtesy which is the admiration of all sections of the community.

At a time when you have many thousands of man and women in all parts of the country unemployed, and when there is a great limitation of housing accommodation, it may happen that people who cannot profitably employ their leisure time or find work to do get a little out of hand. It may be the case, too, that the police may get. a little edgy. Still we have to admire, not only the conduct of the police, but, in view of the circumstances, the manner in which the unemployed of this country have conducted themselves under very trying circumstances one is tempted to wonder whether they would not have received better consideration if they had been a little more demonstrative in regard to the conditions in which they find themselves. To return to this particular case. There was considerable disturbance, in the course of which a barrel of oil was upset and the contents lost. One of the men arrested was a young fellow named Rust, whom I happen to know personally, and who is a member of a very respectable family. What I want to bring before the House is that this man was not present when the actual disturbance took place. News was brought to him of the disturbance and he went to the spot to see what it was about. He was promptly arrested by the police, although he was not there when the disturbance actually occurred. Rust, I may mention, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in the second division. I think there has been some mistake there, and I would suggest that he ought to have the benefit of the very considerable doubt which exists. With regard to Dallas, his case is somewhat different. It was stated that at some former period he had been charged with using language of an inflammatory character. There has grown up in this country a condition of affairs involving secret reporting and a limitation of the freedom of speech—a condition of affairs which has been hitherto deemed alien to the traditions of this nation. It is, in fact, a very dangerous condition of affairs. What occurred was that when these men were brought to trial, the witnesses for the prosecution were actually in the. Court before they were called upon to give their evidence, and a protest against that was lodged at the time with the Police Court officer by some of the persons present. I suggest, quite temperately and dispassionately, that here there is a case for reconsideration. It would seem as though there has been some mistake, and at least the men ought to have the benefit of the doubt. They have already paid for any mistake they made by their association with people of a class who may not be thought to be altogether desirable.

This sort of thing, which is continually going on—the chasing from pillar to pest of these people who happen, unfortunately, to he out of employment through no fault of their own—is not calculated to improve the relations between the administration, the police and the citizens themselves, and I would ask the Home Secretary to give this matter some consideration with a view to seeing if he cannot make further inquiries. I gathered from the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood (Mr. Halls) yesterday, that he was not inclined to recede from the position he has taken up, but I can only imagine that he has not had the facts of the case put fully before him. There are quite a number of persons who can swear that Rust was not present at the time of this disturbance. I am inclined to think that people who are a little down do not always receive that consideration and courtesy which they would receive if their condition were a little more prosperous, and I am afraid that that has been, to a large extent, the case here.

The other point that I desire to bring before the House was to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). It concerns ex-Inspector Syme. I understand that to-day he is due to return to prison under what is popularly known as the Cat and Mouse Act, a form of torture which was invented for the purpose of repressing the suffragettes. The passage of time has proved that the suffragettes are, after all, quite respectable members of society, and the torture which was then applied to them is now being applied in other directions. I understand also that, if report be true, ex-Inspector Syme owed his few days of freedom to representations made from the very highest quarters, and, if that be true, those representations are all the more magnanimous because of the rumoured threats that had been extended in that quarter by ex- Inspector Syme. So far as my information goes, this man was dismissed the Service for acting in defence of two of his subordinates, whom, he stated, were being treated unjustly. All those who are associated with him agree that he is a man of high personal character and probity, and that he is entitled to call public attention to his case in order to get an inquiry with regard to it. The accusation that he has threatened high personages with violence is denied, and it is stated that he merely said what he did say in order that he might attract public attention. That end was gained, as the personage whose attention he hoped to attract did take notice, and, I believe, conveyed a desire that he should be set at liberty.

I want to suggest, in the first place, that it is not in keeping with the ordinary canons of the administration of English justice to carry out a form of refined torture on prisoners because they find themselves in disagreement with those in authority. The great crime of this man seems to have been that he had the temerity, and one might almost say the foolishness, to run up against officialdom in this country, relying on the supposition that mere justice was going to stand him in good stead. He has probably learned by now that he wants a little more than mere justice when he runs up against authority and against those who are in high stations. This man, I understand, even since his dismissal, was offered reinstatement in a lower post, with all the usual amenities that accompany an established position. If that be so, it does indicate that there could not have been so much in the case as has been maintained all along, and that there is something worthy of inquiry. I want to submit to the House that such inquiry is worth while, considering that this man is being shadowed by no less than six members of the police and detective forces. Attempts have been made to get from the right hon. Gentleman a statement of the cost involved, but at any rate, if one reckons it by the year, it cannot cost less than £2,000 or £2,500 per year, and that money might be better spent in other directions at a time like this. There is no need to follow this man about as he is being followed. From all quarters with whom he has been associated he receives the very highest character, and I do submit that, at a time when people are talking about economy, the waste of public money in this way is simply scandalous. The whole matter could be settled amicably if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to appoint some committee of inquiry to go into the allegations and see whether an injustice has been done. I am sure it would redound better to his credit, and that of the House of Commons and the nation, that, if an act of injustice has been done, we should attempt to put it right and allow the man to have an opportunity to make good.

I was not aware that the case of Rust was going to be raised this morning, and, therefore, I have not the exact details.

I sent the right hon. Gentleman a note yesterday.

I understood that the case was to be raised yesterday, and I was prepared yesterday, but I have not the particulars regarding it with me this morning. I think, however, that I can recollect sufficiently what happened. The hon. Member says that Rust was not present at. the time when the assault, or whatever it was, took place, and that he only came up later. That was attempted to be proved at the trial, and there were witnesses on both sides, in the one case swearing that Rust was there and in the other that he was not. Both sides were heard with the greatest care by the learned magistrate, and the learned magistrate assures me that, having listened to both sides most carefully, he has no doubt whatever that Rust was there. I am not a Court of Appeal from the learned magistrate; I cannot retry the case. It is suggested that in some way there has been persecution of unemployed, but there has been nothing whatever of the sort. Any unemployed person who has been interfered with by the police has been interfered with because he was breaking the law. The hon. Member said that a system had grown up of suppressing freedom of speech. No such thing. But if people develop from freedom into licence, and make inflammatory speeches inciting to violence, of course the police are bound to deal with them. In this case, so far as the Courts are concerned, Dallas had been, I believe, convicted of inflammatory language and incitement to violence. With regard to what is said to have taken place at the police court, I am assured that no such thing occurred—that the witnesses were not in Court until they gave their evidence. It may very well be that a number of witnesses for the prosecution were seen together in Court after they had given their evidence, because, when they have given their evidence, they may remain if they choose. I am assured absolutely, however, and I have made careful inquiries, that the witnesses for the prosecution were not in Court, and certainly no one suggested to the learned magistrate at any time that anything irregular had taken place. So far as that case is concerned I looked carefully into it. I am not a Court of Appeal from a magistrate, and it would be really most improper if an executive Minister of the Crown were to interfere with the decision of a Court of Justice. Very often it happens that I have approached magistrates' and other Courts to point out reasons why I should like to shorten a punishment or something of that kind, but certainly it would be most improper for the Home Office to attempt to override judicial tribunals, which ought to have full independence of action.

Can you take steps in that way in this case?

I have done so. The moment a question was asked me I made full inquiries. With respect to Inspector Syme, there again the hon. Member put forward a very plausible, indeed, almost a pathetic story. That story is very good until the true story is told. What is the true story with regard to Inspector Syme? He claims, I gather from the hon. Member, that he has been dismissed the force because he stood up for two subordinate officers, and all he demands now is a public inquiry into his allegations. The first statement is not true, and the second statement is unnecessary because he has had a public inquiry. What are the facts of the case? So long ago as 1909 it was quite clear that at a certain police station where Inspector Syme was engaged, things were not working at all smoothly, and it was decided at that time to transfer him from that particular division to another. It was carefully pointed out to him that this was no disciplinary matter at all. It was simply in order to obtain smooth and efficient working. It is a thing that is done every day. If two men do not get on you move one somewhere else. Inspector Syme was very angry that he was moved, and he at once proceeded, not to protect subordinates at all, but to make very grave charges against his superior officers. Those charges were gone into by a disciplinary board, which found that there was not a shadow of foundation and that they were maliciously made, and in consequence Inspector Syme was reduced to the rank of station serjeant. He would not accept that. He proceeded, while still remaining in the police force, while still being an officer, to start a Press and Parliamentary agitation against his superior officers which, of course, is a breach of discipline absolutely impossible in any police force, and the whole matter being gone into by Sir Edward Henry, who was then the Commissioner, he was dismissed the force.

At that time the present Lord Gladstone was Home Secretary. He went carefully into the matter, and was absolutely satisfied on all the points I have mentioned. Then the present Secretary of State for the Colonies became Home Secretary. He was approached by Inspector Syme, and he was told the inspector was a wrongheaded man, but possibly be might see sense if the Secretary of State would see him. My right hon. Friend saw him, went most carefully into the whole case, heard all that Inspector Syme had to say, and came to the conclusion that his allegations were wholly unfounded, but he said, "If you will be sensible you may come back as station sergeant and work your way up again." This Inspector Syme flatly refused to do, and he then proceeded with the agitation which has gone on. He was prosecuted for threats of violence several times in 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913. Finally, in 1914, he issued a pamphlet making the very self-same allegations that he is making now against Sir Edward Henry and his superior officers. At once an opportunity was given him to prove his allegations in public, and he was prosecuted before a judge and jury for a libel contained in a pamphlet. He justified that libel, which means that he set up the same allegation he is setting up now, and endeavoured to prove them before a judge and jury of his countrymen. The trial lasted for five or six days—a very long, careful trial—and the jury decided that there was not one shadow of truth in all the allegations he was making. He took it to the Court of Criminal Appeal and was there told that he had had a most patient and careful trial, and that he must be content with the finding of a jury of his own countrymen.

2.0 P.M.

That is the position. What has he done? During the War he was prosecuted for endeavouring to hinder recruiting. Since then he has persistently uttered threats of damage and has done damage. He has broken windows. He has now proceeded to threaten royalty. It cannot possibly be denied. It has been proved in Courts of Justice more than once that he definitely threatens to molest His Majesty, Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family. Unfortunately, he is a man who carries out his threats—we have known that in the past—and, therefore, when he is at liberty it is impossible to leave him alone or unattended. If we let him alone, the moment he is not watched, he is outside Buckingham Palace waiting for a royal carriage at which to throw a brick. He has his weapons in his pocket, and it is absolutely impossible to leave him alone. He is a dangerous man in that way. If his friends would try to persuade him to see sense, to give up these wild threats, to realise that he has had a fair trial before a judge and jury and cannot expect another, Heaven knows we should be only too glad to leave him alone for ever, but as long as he goes threatening His Majesty and members of the Royal Family, we must protect them. That is the whole of the case. He persists, when he goes to prison, in hunger striking. The doctors say you cannot efficiently forcibly feed him. I protest against the suggestion that we are torturing a man who deliberately persists in starving himself. We provide him, when he is in prison, with good, wholesome, tasty food. He will not touch it. That is not our fault. I protest against the suggestion that we are responsible for anything he suffers. He is absolutely responsible himself. I am told he is now hunger striking out of prison. We have no concern with that. If he does not eat out of prison, he must take the consequences himself. But to suggest that he has not had a fair trial by a jury of his fellow countrymen is to say what is absolutely inaccurate.

It is not my in tention to pursue the subject which has occupied the attention of the House during the last few minutes, but to claim the indulgence of the House while I raise one or two points on the White Paper, issued under the auspices of the Minister of Labour, relating to the administration of the Trade Boards Acts of 1909 and 1918. Owing to complaints made against the administration of the Trade Board, chiefly by employers, a Committee was constituted, over which Viscount Cave acted as Chairman. The Terms of Reference were, "To inquire into the working and effects of the Trade Board Acts, and to report what changes, if any, are required. The objection to the administration, in fact, to the existence of any Trade Board whatsoever from the employing side, in my view, was just that opposition which always comes when people are desirous of improving the conditions of labour in factories and workshops. For instance, the Cave Committee itself states that the principal charges made against the Trade Board system by representatives of the employers are "that the high level of the minimum rates fixed by the Board, together with the absence of any provision for differentiation in regard to special local conditions, have caused loss and dislocation of trade and the closing down of workshops and have contributed to the prevailing unemployment." This statement reminds me of speeches delivered in this House that I have read in the OFFICIAL REPORT, where employers in the cotton mills of Lancashire used to say, nearly a century ago, that if you took away children of eight and ten years of age from the textile industry, that industry could not possibly be carried on at a profit, and the statements made by employers, particularly in the distributing and allied domestic trades, before this Cave Committee, are just of that type which are made from age to age by bad employers in all parts of the world. This Committee issued a Report and made recommendations. On this Committee, we shall be told by repre- sentatives of the Government, there were several Members of the Labour party, and that the Committee reported unanimously. That is true—

But what I want to come to is the White Paper to which I have referred. It indicates the policy that the Minister of Labour intends to pursue as the result of those recommendations. The Minister does not adopt all the recommendations, but this is one of the points in the recommendation that he proposes to adopt. He states that "In accordance with the recommendations, it has been decided that no trade board is to be set up unless certain conditions are satisfied, and then only- after public inquiry." The two conditions, apart. from t he public inquiry, are, "that the Minister of Labour shall apply the Trade Board Act in cases where he is satisfied that the rate of wages prevailing in the trade or in a branch of the trade is unduly low as compared with those in other employment," and "that no adequate machinery exists for the effective regulation of the wages throughout the trade." I want to bring to the notice of the House and of the Minister that when he lays down three specific conditions like these before he proceeds to establish a trade board. I think I am right in saying that no trade board will be established. These three conditions are, in the view of some of us, so drafted as to make it absolutely impossible for a trade board to be established in future. Take the case covered by the words

"that the rate of wager prevailing in the trade, or in a branch o the trade, is unduly low as compared with those in other employments."

Who is going to decide what is "unduly low"? If it were left with the Minister of Labour, it could he said—I have cases to prove it—that the Employment Exchange in June,1921 offered to an adult woman work as a lift attendant in Tottenham Court Road at a wage of 15s. a week for about 65 hours. If the Ministry of Labour can, through an Employment Exchange, offer that wage to an adult woman in Jane, 1921, when the cost of living was approximately 120 per cent. above the 1914 rates, I for one have not very much faith that the Ministry of Labour will consider, in a generous way, what is meant by "unduly low wages." Who is going to say what. is "efficient machinery for regulating wages"? Take the distributive trade of this country. It has had a trade board in existence, and although it has laid down rates of wages, the Minister declines to adopt them, and put them into operation. With regard to the regulation of wages in the distributive trade, the Minister of Labour will probably be aware that there are employed in the domestic and allied distributive trades in this country about. 1,500,000 people, mostly women and girls. There are two trade unions, in the main, covering the distributive and allied trades, but these two trade unions cannot, at the moment, cover more than one-fourth of the people engaged in the distributive and allied domestic trades. In that case I take it, that the Minister could, under the policy outlined on page three, say: "We are not going to put the trade board scales of wages into operation here, because there is efficient trade union organisation in existence." The employers, apparently, on the other side, so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, will also be regarded in the same category.

The three qualifications set up are, in my view, an impossible trinity. I have heard them described as the infernal three; and I feel sure that the Minister of Labour, when he comes to carry out this policy, will find himself up against considerable difficulty. What woman engaged in any of these sweated trades would go to a public inquiry and expose her employer, because he is paying her 12s., 13s. or 14s. a week? If she went to the inquiry and gave such evidence, she knows full well that she would be dismissed next week, or probably the next day. That is one point against the policy of the Government as outlined on page three. Now I come to point two in the White Paper, where the Minister, as pat of the policy of the Government in this connection, lays it down that he will expedite the machinery for the regulation of rates of wages and conditions. He declares that he will, within 14 days, issue an Order. Why did it take the Minister six months to confirm Orders when wages were increasing?

It was because of the law.

Yes, but strange to say the Minister, in this White Paper, gives an interpretation of the law which I feel sure he cannot sustain in a Court of law. When wages were increasing all over the country, and employers could not avoid increase of wages, it took the Minister six months to confirm the rate of wages laid down by the Boards, but now, because wages are descending, he says in the White Paper: "I will confirm the rates of wages within 14 days." A good way in which to deal fairly and generously with employers of labour! On page 4, the Minister, as part of his policy, is going to intimate to the present trade boards that they can proceed to appoint district committees. District boards in some cases, and district committees in others. Supposing we had a district committee or a district board in Liverpool and another district board in Manchester. What would happen? These two committees would wait, in common parlance, "to see how the cat. jumps," and you would get nothing done. We plead for a continuance of the policy already adopted, and that when a Trade Board lays down rates of wages, those wages should apply to the whole country in respect of that trade. The trade board system is in operation mainly in connection with those trades that affect our own people only. Very few trade boards affect those occupations which manufacture for foreign export. Therefore the argument cannot be used that this country cannot compete with Continental countries because we are hampered owing to the high wages imposed by the trade boards.

I would like some explanation from the Minister of Labour in regard to Professor J. H. Jones. I am credibly informed that Professor Jones, who was one of the members appointed in connection with the metal and hollow-ware trades by the Ministry of Labour, and proved a. very efficient and intelligent member, was dismissed, and for some reason, which has never been given by the Minister, and in spite of the fact that every member of that Board asked the Minister why he dismissed this professor and appointed another man in his place, no adequate reason has been given. It is only right that this House should know the reason why an eminent man like this, who served the State so well, has been deposed. After this opportunity has been given to us to discuss a topic as important as any that has been raised on the Adjournment, I want to pay some tribute to the work of the Ministry of Labour, done by the present Minister of Labour and by the trade boards, who have rescued at least 3,000,000 people, mainly women and girls from the sweating carried on in this country some years ago. I trust that the time will arrive soon when the State will lay it down that no person shall be employed in any capacity below a living wage, and shall not work more than eight hours a day. When people say that this country, and its industries, cannot afford this, I can tell them to look through the newspapers to-day, and see how six or seven men have made about £14,000,000 profit, mainly by manufacturing cotton and putting it on wooden reels. It is wrong to say that we cannot afford to pay these wages. I trust that, after this discussion, the Minister will, if possible, alter his policy, make it more generous, and give no heed to those who are employing thousands of women and girls and exploiting them. There are at present in the City of London women, employed in cafes at 10s. a week, for more than 48 hours a week, who are being sweated. I trust that the House will take heed of what has been said on this subject from time to time and will help the Minister of Labour to prosecute the object of laying down a universal minimum wage.

I am very glad that this subject has been raised. It enables me to get things into their true bearing. I know that my hon. Friends opposite, and their friends in the country, say," Here is an utterly reactionary Government trying to scrap a great piece of social machinery which was set up to protect the workers in badly organised trades against the kind of employment which was called sweating." There is not a shadow of foundation for that charge. It is a charge which men, who have been glad to devote their best energies to the amelioration of the social conditions of the people, are entitled to resent, and do resent. On the contrary, as I hope to show, we have rigidly, and in spite of the greatest difficulties, adhered to the true historical purposes of trade boards, and, further, if the system has been kept alive, it is due to the action which the Government have taken.

I am afraid that I cannot deal effectually with this without a little rehearsal of history. As my hon. Friends are aware, the original Act to deal with this matter was passed in 1909. It was the result of a growing feeling in the country, crystallised, as will be remembered, by the Anti-Sweating League, that there existed in certain trades social conditions which were no longer tolerable. That being so, it became the duty of the State to intervene, and this intervention first took form in the scheduling of four trades in which, by general agreement, the working classes required special protection. These trades were tailoring, box making, machine made lace and net finishing, and chain making. In addition there was power, by special Order, to apply the machinery of the Act to other trades, and nine additional trades were included under the original Act between 1909 and 1918. The Act could only be applied to trades where wages were exceptionally low, that is, to a sweated industry, and the main object was to provide a bottom level below which, in such industries, no worker should be paid, and machinery was devised with this end. It set up a board representative of the workers, and representative in equal number of the employers, with three or more impartial persons added to prevent a deadlock, and the boards existed to fix minimum wages which, if confirmed by the Minister, were enforceable by the criminal law upon all employers covered by the definition of the trade.

That Act remained in force for nine, years and evoked little notice. In spite of the criticism which later developments have brought about, there is a general feeling that the principles of the 1909 Act are sound and must be maintained. In 1918 the position was considerably altered. War experience had altered completely the wages position. The then Minister of Labour the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) introduced an amending Act which took a much wider sweep, and, under that Act, there was a considerable and rapid extension of the trade board system. The establishment of trade hoards proceeded rapidly under my immediate predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave notice of his intention to apply this Act to the distributive trades, a wholly new departure and a step which, in view of the special work of those trades, presented rather more difficulty than the case of directly productive trades. However, there was very little criticism of that extension until you come to September, 1920. That period was one of prosperity, artificial if you like, but times were profitable and things were of such a character that employers were not concerned to look closely into the machinery of the Act.

With the arrival of the acute depression which came upon us in the first instance in September, 1920, and from which we had been suffering ever since, things took a very different turn. Certain defects of the machinery, which I freely admit, became manifest, and, in hard times, were resented. The result was a strong agitation against the trade board system and there was a contention that trade board wages were in fact causing unemployment. My hon. Friends opposite pooh-poohed the idea—the last speaker has done it to-day—that trade board rates of wages were bringing about unemployment. They have pooh-poohed the idea all the time. I wish I could have done so, too. But I knew this—that I should be doing an ill-service to the people whom I sought to assist if I merely helped them into the streets to swell the already alarming ranks of the unemployed. I do not say that the criticism that trade boards were causing unemployment was not sometimes stated too emphatically. I do not say that some employers were not attributing to trade boards what really belonged to industrial depression. But that there was considerable force in the contention and that I was justified in giving full weight to it, is established by paragraph 42 in the Report of the Cave Committee. As a friend of the trade board system, and believing in the necessity of its continuance, I decided that I must go slowly in these times of depression. Accordingly, during 1921 and 1922 only three new trade boards were established under my regime, and those in very small trades. I exercised the greatest care and took every precaution to examine as far as I could the possible objections to confirming rates submitted, always bearing in mind the possible effect on the unemployment problem. My hon. Friends opposite criticise me in the House and out of it. But I am confident that if I had gone full steam ahead the whole thing would hare foundered. That is my profound belief. I do not wish that any more than they wish it. Notwithstanding going slow, and notwithstanding the setting up of such few trade boards, the agitation continued and the criticisms grew in volume.

In September, 1921, I appointed a powerful Committee, under Lord Cave, "to inquire into the working and effects of the Trade Boards Acts, and to report what changes, if any, are required." That Committee was a powerful Committee, with strong representation of both employers and employed. Who were the members? Among them there were my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. John Bell, M.P.), Secretary of the Oldham Weavers' Association: Mr. E. L. Poulton, ex-Chairman of the Trade Unions Congress and Secretary of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives; and Mr. A. Pugh, Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Federation, to say nothing of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), to whose sound progressive thought in all these matters I cheerfully bear testimony. The Committee did its work with great thoroughness. I would like to repeat the tributes I have paid in the past to the work it did. But the most striking thing is that its report was unanimous. It is suggested that it was a reactionary piece of work. I may he a hard-faced man, and a reactionary, though I must say that I am sometimes charged in his House with tendencies of an entirely different character. But is it not rather silly to suggest that the gentlemen I have named would sign their names to an obscurantist and reactionary report?

What are the facts? This reactionary report begins by asserting that the principle of trade boards embodied in the Act of 1909 is right and deserves support. That does not sound particularly reactionary. They then go on to inquire what has led to the volume of criticism which the later administration of the Acts has encountered. They call attention to three main points, which I will state quite shortly. They call attention to the lack of elasticity and adaptability in the working of the boards, as a result of which rates cannot be altered with sufficient speed to suit changing circumstances. They call attention to a tendency on the part of boards to depart from their original function of protecting workers against sweating and becoming wage-regulating bodies. They call attention to a tendency to ignore special local circumstances and local needs. As a result of their examination of the problem they made elaborate, closely-knit and well-conceived recommendations.

To give effect to many of these recommendations legislation would be required. What did we do? We proceeded immediately to examine the proposals with a view to preparing a Bill. We found, upon examination, that it would not be possible to put a Bill through during the present Session. Such a Bill calls for great care if it is to be made an effective piece of machinery. The experience of the past showed that. Therefore, I have taken action upon the lines recommended by the Cave Committee, in so far as such action can be taken by me with my existing powers. In the meantime the Bill is being carefully considered by a Cabinet Committee. One of the most important of the proposals that do not require legislation is to speed up operations. I have issued an order that that should be done. I rather gathered that that is something in the nature of an offence to my hon. Friend who spoke last. I should have thought that by common consent the machinery was far too cumbrous and slow and creaky, and that we ought to work more swiftly. Apart from the administrative changes, the most important recommendation of the Cave Committee is that relating to the powers exercised by the Boards in respect of the fixing of wages. I do not think I can deal with that point better than by reading paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Report. They say:

"Is it the intention of Parliament that the coercive powers of the State should be used to prevent the oppression of the worker by forcing him to work at wages below the level of subsistence, and under conditions injurious to his health; or is it desired that they should be applied (through the medium of the Trade Boards) to the general regulation of wages? In other words, is the intention of the Act of 1909, which we believe to have been directed to the prevention of sweating, to prevail; or is effect to be given to the interpretation widely put upon the Act of 1918, namely, that it is to be used as an instrument for the public regulation of wages throughout the industries concerned? In our opinion the former is the correct view."

Paragraph 54 says:

"It appears to us that while the coercive powers of the State, and particularly the criminal law, may properly be used to prevent the unfair oppression of individuals, and the injury to the national health that results from the sweating of workers, the use of those coercive powers should be limited to that purpose, and that any further regulation of wages should be left as far as possible to the processes of negotiation and collective bargaining."

I wonder whether a single hon. Member will dissent from that proposition.

What about those cases where there is no organisation?

They go on to say:

"It is one thing to say drat an employer shall not pay to his adult worker a sum insufficient for his or her maintenance under the conditions of the time, be the sum 35s. 40s., or 50s. per week; it is quite another thing to Provide that he shall not pay to a, skilled worker of a particular class less than 706., 80s., or 90s., even though the worker is prepared to work at a lower wage, and that if he does so, he shall be liable to fine or imprisonment. It may be desirable that the higher wage should he paid, and it may not be unreasonable for a trade organisation to insist on that wage being paid and to enforce its decision by economic means; but to compel the payment by the threat of criminal prosecution appears to us to he an oppressive use of the powers of the State."

I think that any endeavour to force the trade board system along the line of fixing standard rates is bound to fail, whereas the protectior of the lower-paid worker is, by common consent, its proper function. It seems that some of my hon. Friends opposite, in their zeal for State direction and State control, are inclined to put trade unionism on the shelf among the antediluvians. What is happening is that where there is organisation an attempt has been made to use the trade boards to do what ought to be done by the trade unions themselves by collective bargaining. I conceive the trade boards to be a provision by the State for the protection of the worker, but I draw a distinction between that and the use of this machinery for the purpose of fixing standard rates of wage. The Government policy and the Cave Report are denounced from the political Labour party platform as further evidence of an alleged conspiracy to screw down wages below the barest subsistence level. That ridiculous contention would be blown out of the water if I had the time now to rehearse to this House, in detail, the actual rates which I confirmed during the present year. I have not the time to do so, but I can summarise them in this way. In the present year the rates confirmed by this reactionary Minister, who wants to screw the workers' wage down below the subsistence level range, in the case of men, from 78s. a week, a special rate in the stamped or pressed metals trade, to general rates of 48s. a week in the general waste trade. As regards women, this year the rates confirmed vary from 42s. special rate in the stamped or pressed metals trade to 29.s. a week in the hollow-ware trade.

These figures show how utterly wrong is the contention that there is any desire to take part in any conspiracy to screw these poor people down. If time permitted I should have dealt with this matter in greater detail because I resent the suggestion very strongly. It is my desire to utilise this great social instrument for its proper function. In my opinion it has been utilised outside its proper function, in so far as it has been used to do what ought to be done by collective bargaining and by Whitleyism, if I may respectfully use that expression. Regarding the case of Professor Jones, I gave an answer On Thursday to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean Division (Mr. Wignall). Professor Jones was appointed a member of the Stamped or Pressed Metal Wares Board for a period of two years. At the, end of that period, after careful consideration of all the circumstances and in the exercise of the discretion given to me under the Statute, another appointment was made. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has discussed the matter with the board and they have been informed that the decision already taken cannot be varied. It is net for me to say even half a syllable in regard to Professor Jones's great distinction as an educationist. I agree he is a great educationist, but here we are dealing with the stamped or pressed metals trade, and it does not always follow that a great professor, a great lecturer, a great student of pedagogics, is necessarily intimately acquainted with all the practical details of that trade; so in his place we have appointed Mr. A. B. Pilling, who has considerable business and public experience. I think on reflection my hon. Friends opposite will agree that we have done the right thing.

Before leaving this subject, I wish to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the gravamen of our charge against him. I believe he knows it and has deliberately evaded it. Whether the Act of 1918 was good or bad, we have no right to repeal it by administrative action instead of by Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to substitute the action of a Department for the action of the House of Commons, and he has no right to do so. The case he has made out to-day against the. Act of 1918 would have been much better made out had we a Bill before us repealing that Act, and then we might have known exactly what the Act was and in what respect it required amending. Instead of that we have merely had. ex porte statements. There was nothing to be said for the Act which the right hon. Gentleman's own Government passed four years ago. Of course, this Government generally gives its Acts of Parliament a lease of life not so long as four years, but they generally have the decency to introduce a Measure repealing an Act of Parliament when it has passed that period. Had it not been for the fact that we were able to raise this question on the Adjournment this Act would have been repealed, the policy would have been reversed and the good old sound policy of 1909 reverted to, without this House or the country having a word to say about it. We are justified in complaining of action of that kind. The policy of the Government may not be perfectly correct, but we should have it put before us in the correct way. The right hon. Gentleman told me privately that the blunders that had been made in the. Woolwich Employment Exchange—

Not "blunders."

Shall I say "policy" adopted at the Woolwich Employment Exchange, had been dealt with? As I understood, this policy has now been reversed at the direction of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. If that policy has been pursued in other Employment Exchanges, has it been put right in the other places also?

Yes.

hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I change the subject. I will only refer to the subject with which he has been dealing, by saying that the right hon. Gentleman made the usual exhibition of himself as a well-meaning but rather inefficient brake, just preventing the Government coach from plunging over the precipice of reaction. An opportunity is provided by the present conditions of trade for the unscrupulous employer to sweat his workmen, and I think I shall be doing a service to the workmen if I try to point to one cause for the depression of trade to-day. May I say that I am speaking now either as a Turcophobe or a Greekophobe, but I am speaking on behalf of a national and Imperial interest, namely, the employment of the inhabitants of the cities of these islands, and especially my own constituency. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not making any sort of attack upon my hon. Friend who represents the Foreign Office. In fact, I want to go out of my way to say that the recent replies that he has given in regard to the question of Asia Minor have been frank and statesmanlike and a great improvement on the attitude of other sections of the Government.

Yesterday we had the usual defence by the Prime Minister, when the foreign policy of this Government is attacked, that it is not his fault that things go wrong, but the other boy's. He did not want to sign the Treaty of Versailles, but M. Clemenceau insisted on it. In spite of M. Clemenceau's great courage, it appears that he could not tell the French people the truth, and therefore they signed the Treaty. Or it was President Wilson, of somebody else. It was the usual excuse of that sort, and the Prime Minister will now, of course, again do the statesmanlike thing and think of his Allies. I will now deal with a matter in which the position is the precise reverse, in which long since peace, with all it means to British trade, could have been made if the only countries concerned had been France and Italy. I refer to the great question of Asia Minor and the present state of affairs there, and I think it is right to raise this point very briefly, before we disperse for a long Vacation, because many serious things may happen there. At the present time British troops are marching and being sent to man the lines of Chatalja, because of the impudent threat of King Constantine. British ships are steaming up and down the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous instead of being at their proper stations, and this is a matter which certainly concerns the House of Commons. We had a great Conference at Genoa, in which the Prime Minister, I must say, made very laudable efforts to do something to restore the trade of Europe. I am going to propose to him a policy which will do much to restore our trade in another area, namely, in the Levant and Turkey, a country with great possibilities for British trade and where in the past we have had a sure and valuable market., a country in which 30 per cent. of the trade went to this country in the past, and which is of great importance, particularly to the textile areas of this country.

First of all, in spite of it having been stated before in this House, I must remind the Prime Minister, because I am going to criticise his policy, of the pledge that he made in the spring of 1918, in the Central Hall, Westminster, I believe, to a meeting of trade union leaders, who had been disturbed by the reports of what our War aims were, by the publication of secret. Treaties, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman assured them of the cleanliness of our war aims, and he particularly dealt with the question of Turkey, and before doing so, he said he had consulted the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and Lord Grey. This pledge of course, was that we were not fighting to deprive Turkey of her capital or of the rich and ancient lands of Thrace and Anatolia, the homelands of the Turkish race. That message mollified the trade union leaders at the time, and they went off heartened. It was also of great value in our Moslem dependencies in India. It was circulated throughout India, placarded in the bazaars, and it did much to reassure our gallant Moslem fellow subjects, who formed such a great part of the British armies, and who were gravely disturbed by what they called the threat to break up the ethnographical territories of Turkey. That was a pledge, and one thing that we used to be proud of was that the word of a Britisher was respected. Whatever our faults, we had that reputation. That was what enabled us to rule India with 1,200 civil servants, that the right hon. Gentleman rightly boasted about on Wednesday—faith in the word of a British statesman.

How has that been proven in this case? I need not go into the details of the Greek landing at Smyrna and what happened there. Greece was not our Ally in the War. Greece waited till the War was over. It, was only the threat of the British guns, and an occasional shot fired in the gardens of the Palace at Athens, that kept Greece out of the War on the side of Turkey. Greece was sent to occupy Smyrna. What happened there has been described by a Committee of Inquiry, the members of which were Admiral Bristol, of the United States Navy, General Hare, of the British Army, and two very distinguished Allied generals, one Frenchman and one Italian. They have made a Report on what happened, the slaughterings, the excesses, and the outrages that were committed there—a Report which has been suppressed. That, of course, roused all Turkey. It brought thousands of men to the banner of Mustapha Kernel, and to-day the gentleman who is referred to occasionally by Members of this Government as some rebel general is the great national hero of Turkey, and is looked upon as the wielder of the Sword of the Faithful.

Might I, in passing, say a word about Armenia. To-day Armenia, I am sorry to say, is being used as an excuse for Greek Imperialism. I give way to none in my desire that the Armenian people should have the promises so freely made to them. The Armenians stood by us in the War, and rose against their Turkish masters and embarrassed the Turkish armies. That is why they were massacred. We ought now to fulfil our pledge to them, but I believe I am right in saying that at the present moment there is a Republic of Armenia set up, that it is recognised by the Turkish Government, and that Treaties have been exchanged, and I understand that the Turks are willing to give further guarantees against the scattered colonies of Armenians in places outside the Republic of Erivan. Provided we will give them a fair deal, they will play the game and look after these people and see they are not proceeded against. But all the killings of Turkish peasants in the Villayet of Smyrna by the Greeks, the bombarding of Turkish ports by Greek warships, the blusterings of Constantine at the gates of Constantinople, do not protect the Armenians. Do not bring in the Armenians, therefore, as a red herring across the track in this case. We shall be told by the Prime Minister, I suppose, that the Christian minorities will all be massacred unless the Greeks remain where they are. I am now talking of the Greek minorities. They have lived there for 500 years when the Turk was supreme, and not only that, but they grew to great positions of wealth and influence. A large part of the wealth and great positions were held by these Pontine Greeks, and the Greeks in the Villayet of Smyrna held honourable positions until the intrigues of the Imperialists in Athens, with the sympathy, open or covert, of the right hon. Gentleman, led them astray.

When the French, after their agreement with the Kemalites, left Cilicia, a great many Greeks and other Christians evacuated the country in terror, very largely, I am afraid, because of the propaganda. The evacuation was supervised by French officers, and the advance of the Kemalist army was also accompanied by French officers. I believe that there are not 20 cases of killing or other maltreatment which can be produced, and the occupation of the evacuated territory was carried out peacefully and with good results, considering the fearful state of fanaticism and war spirit that prevailed. I say that in passing, because, in answer to a. question of mine in the House this week, the Government said that when the opposing Governments were invited to an armistice this year, the Greeks accepted and the Turks refused, and that, therefore, the Turks put themselves in the wrong and our support of the Greeks was justified. But I understand that, although the Greeks accepted, they had armies far beyond any just limits of Greek territory, and the Turks said that, before there was an armistice, the Greeks should begin, at any rate, to retreat and that the retreat should be supervised by Allied officers. I think that is perfectly fair. For a long time we refused overtures on the part of the Germans until they evacuated Belgium, and we did make them evacuate it before there was any sort of peace negotiations. I do not think that is unfair.

3.0 P.m.

I now wish to turn to two aspects of the question. The first is the extraordinary demand of King Constantine and his Ministers that the Greeks should be allowed to occupy Constantinople in order to bring pressure to bear upon the Government. Constantinople has been occupied by the British at enormous expense. In Angora, which is now the capital of the Turkish Nationalists, there is a representative of every Moslem community in the world. There are ambassadors from Persia, Afghanistan and every independent Moslem State. Even the Moors in Morocco are represented. I got this information a month ago in Paris from French gentlemen—men of repute—who have recently returned. No Englishman has been there for many months, except my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend). Any Englishmen going outside the range of the guns of the English warships at Constantinople are likely to have their throats cut, and those are the people who had 30 per cent. of the trade of the country in their hands, and are now in danger because of the hostility aroused against us. It is true there have been faults on both sides. One of the reasons why the French left Cilicia, and came to terms with Angora, was the advice of the Governor-General, who told us in Paris that he could not go into the most remote village in Southern Morocco without the headman coming and saying, "What are the French Government doing in Angora Are they helping the Turks?"

We have this tremendous demand that Constantinople should be occupied by the Greek armies, and, I suppose, King Constantine should be re-crowned as Emperor of Byzantium in the mosque of St. Sophia. Could they have had any opportunity of occupying Constantinople if we had not beaten the Turks, largely with the aid of Mussulmans? I am astonished to see that we have landed troops, and have had to send special ships from Malta to Constantinople. During the War, the only argument which the Greeks seemed to understand was a fleet at the Piræus. If ships have to leave their stations at Malta, let them go there. It will have more effect than moving a few extra troops to Constantinople. I see that the British Government have issued a very stern warning to the Greeks against any such venture, but it shows the effect of our policy that such a thing should be ventured upon. A much more serious matter, however, is the apparent intention to imitate the example of D'Annunzio and Zilogowski in an attempt to set up an independent Ionian State in Smyrna. Apparently the Greek Army is going to remain there and we are to be defied as in the case of D'Annunzio and other advemurers, I am sorry to say, with success.

I hope we shall make it clear to Athens that any announcement of that sort is going to bring severe retribution on the Greeks. Without the connivance of the Powers with sea power, it will be impossible for the State of Ionia to be maintained from the mainland, and there will be no excuse if we permit it. I do ask the Prime Minister to recognise that the atrocities committed by the Turks, which are the excuse put forward by the Lord Privy Seal and other Members of the Government, are not sufficient for encouraging a continuance of war in Asia Minor. There have been, unfortunately, terrible excesses committed on the other side as well. War in that part of the world means excesses. The only way to stop them is to stop war. May I trouble the House by reading from independent reports of neutral observers? There is Professor Arnold Toynbee who has written most strongly in the "Manchester Guardian" and elsewhere, about the excesses committed by the Greeks in Asia Minor. Miss Allen and Billings, two American ladies, and Mr. Gehri write about villages where the Greek armies were hospitably treated and which were burnt by the Greek armies when they retired after defeat. This is the signed report of those two devoted American ladies:

"When the Army went through here we did everything they asked us to do. We gave of our butter, our egg our chickens; we baked bread. But what good did it do? This (the ruined houses) is our reward!"

Later it is said:

"As we were about to leave the village, a group of women surrounded us, telling us of the various happenings. One said: It was my sister-in-law who was shot when she tried to escape from the hands of the soldiers. My daughter-in-law was seized and violated. I begged the soldiers not to burn my house, and their reply was: "Is not your husband a Kemel soldier? Get your rights from Kernel."'"

No, their remedy should come from us who loosed these fanatical intolerant, bigoted Imperialists on these defenceless peasantry. There have been equal, or worse, deeds done on the other side—in greater volume, no doubt. The opportunity has been greater. But two wrongs do not make a right. I am perfectly certain if, in his reply, the Prime Minister makes it clear that we are not going to support this War of aggression, for such it is in Asia Minor, that we are prepared to throw ourselves on the side of Greece, with the French and the Italians, that peace will come. The offers made by the Kemalists are quite fair under the circumstances.

Recently the Prime. Minister addressed a great meeting in London, ably assisted, of course, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I refer to the gathering of the Free Churchmen. The right hon. Gentleman said to that assemblage that he proposed to, devote his life to the cause of peace. It was an admirable sentence. Is the right hon. Gentleman going, in face of that, still further to estrange us from the great world of Islam? There is a generation in Turkey that are taking an interest for the first time in national matters, and they know for what they are fighting. For the first time, an observer who has recently been in Anatolia has paid a tribute to them, and says there is a recrudescence of Turkish national life. Are we alive to the dangers of force? The worst thing that can happen to us of the British Empire would be a great victory. I beg the Prime Minister now to have the courage that he praised in Lenin and to change his policy. We have been in the wrong in this matter. It is not a question of Cross against Crescent. It is not a question of helping the underdog. In this case the under-dog is the Turk, disarmed, rendered helpless by British arms, before Greece. I beg the Prime Minister to take his opportunity of restoring a great market, and perhaps to pave the way for a reconciliation between our ideas and the great world of Islam.

I was surprised that the tone of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not more constructive to bring about that settlement at which he aims, because it seems to me that it is the business of this House and the Government to do everything possible to put an end to these mutual atrocities, and to try to find some common ground by which peace can be re-estab- lished and trade set going. The difficulty experienced by the Turkish nationalists is that if they demobilise their Army they will lose control over large numbers of men for whose actions they cannot then have any responsibility. They are anxious to see peace established and trade set going. These men of the Turkish Nationalist Army want to be re-established on the rich and fertile soil of Anatolia, cultivating their farms, and working, with the Greeks, as they have done before. The Greek's function is that of a trader. Without him the Turk cannot market his goods. The Turk is a very bad trader, but an excellent cultivator. If we refuse to recognise the fact that large masses of Greeks and Turks, no matter what the Allied Powers may say, or whatever any Peace Conference may do, have to live cheek by jowl, both in Constantinople, in Asia Minor, and other places, so much the more our attention should be directed, not to work up passions, but to re-establish trade and try to wipe out the passions of the past. It is a little ungenerous of Members here to throw stones at the British Government, because, so far as I can understand, they have endeavoured over a very long period to bring about peace in Asia Minor. It may be a defeat for this country, although 1 rather doubt it, if the Greeks gain a victory. But I am perfectly certain that if the Turks gain the victory that it would not be a victory for Christianity.

We have got a very solemn duty to perform. It is this country that gave the Greeks their freedom. Our history, and the history of the Greeks, is bound up. Let us not forget the deeds of Byron and the words of Mr. Gladstone which combined our action with Greek destiny. Personally I believe that M. Venizeios was one of the most remarkable men that came to the front during the late War. M. Venizeios, however, is not a Greek, he is a Cretan. I believe, that all the trouble has been that M. Venizeios' ideals of Imperialism were on such a very high level that a great many of the Greeks could not follow it. I am convinced that when we backed up the policy of M. Venizeios we did so in good faith, and that the reaction over which nobody had any control occurred, through the death of the young King of the Greeks from the bite of a monkey was a terrible catastrophe that could not have been foreseen. But is it not our business to interfere with Greek domestic affairs and their form of government when we are always saying that it is our right and duty to help small countries to work out what Constitution they themselves think they should possess?

I would ask the Prime Minister, if he can possibly do so, to reconsider the difficult position in which the present Greek Government are placed. I had the good fortune to be in Athens a short while ago, where I met Venezelists and Royalists. I found one very curious thing displayed in that country as in this —the impossibility of the older politician to forget past differences and to work for the common good. The younger men want to allow for the discrepancies of the political ideas of the past. I was struck by the younger Venezelists and the young Royalists who saw quite clearly that the financial position of the Greeks could not stand indefinitely against the present strain. They believe, just as the Prime Minister himself believes, that the future of their country can best be served by forming a Coalition Government. If you can fuse the interests of Venezelists and Royalists and get them to pursue a similar policy, the Greeks will walk hand in hand with the Great Powers. I should have thought our association with the Turk in the past would be a sufficient guarantee that we could not allow the Turkish position to suffer by being guided by our advice. Obviously, as the hon. Member for Central Hull said, we must consider all the Moslems who are our fellow-citizens, but it is a curious fact that those whom I met who were Turkish Nationalists, and who tried to bring about a rapprochement between the Allies and the Turks were at once disowned by the Turkish National Government. It is extremely difficult to know to whom you can go and whom you can meet as a real representative of the Turkish Nationalist Government. Again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke about a famous French administrator for whom we all have got the highest admiration, but he will find that at Fez there is a Moslem university from which they send out emissaries to every part of the world, who carry on propaganda against the Western civilised nations of the world, and stir up trouble and heap coals of fire on the smouldering embers of Moslem feeling against Christianity. I think if the Prime Minister could recognise the position of the Greek Government and adjust that position, it would be found possible to have a Coalition Government in Greece. Anybody who will inquire will find that the younger Greeks and Turks are both ready to combine economically and forget the past and proceed along lines of peace, yet at present it is too much to expect that we should demand of the Greeks that they should evacuate their own people, and leave them defenceless against men who have shown no inclination to respect them.

I hope it may be possible for League of Nations to take some part in the settlement of this most difficult problem. I know there was at the Versailles Conference an idea that Constantinople should be in some way brought under the administration of the League of Nations, and it is curious to note now that although the League of Nations is established at Geneva yet the sovereignty of the Swiss Government is in no way affected. I should like to see a branch of the League of Nations established at Constantinople, with control up to the Maritsa, forming a buffer state between Greece an Turkey. If the British wish to have a strong policy, it is high time that this country, which has taken such a prominent part in guiding the destinies of the nations of the Middle East, should again come to the front and help to establish prosperity amongst those peoples. We want neither a pro-Turk nor a pro-Greek but a strong pro-British policy. If we have that without pushing selfish interests at the expense of people who are trying hard to extricate themselves from terrible difficulties, I believe we shall have contributed towards history as we did in days of Mr. Gladstone.

My remarks are always noted for their brevity, and I do not propose to depart from that golden rule on this occasion. I happen to have an intimate knowledge of Turkey and Greece, and I wish to say that I think it most unfair to the people of those two countries that no definite peace has hitherto been brought about. This is not the time to discuss the Turkish Treaty, or to allude to the con- ditions which some of us consider were a gross injustice to Turkey, nor do I wish to animadvert upon the preferential treatment shown to Greece, a country which has done very little to deserve it. I do claim, however, that in the interests of tranquillity and trade, an end should be put to the very unsatisfactory state of affairs existing in the Near East. That is all I wish to impress upon the Government, and I hope they will redouble their efforts to obtain peace.

I think there is very little in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with which I can say that I am in agreement. He made, however, one observation which I will accept—that it is desirable, before we separate, that there should be a discussion on the affairs of the Near East. The Government have nothing to conceal in their policy. I agree with the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gateshead (Brigadier-General Surtees) in the very shrewd and sensible speech which he has just addressed to the House, in which he said it is desirable above all things that peace should be established in that portion of the world. The Government have no other desire. There is, however, one very important consideration, and it is that the peace must be a just and fair peace, and one which is likely to be enduring. There, I think, I shall also have the assent of my hon. and gallant Friend.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull seemed to present the case to the House of a friendly Turkey alienated by the policy of His Majesty's Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull seems to have forgotten the very recent history of that country. He has forgotten that eight years ago, when we were engaged in a very deadly struggle with the Central Powers of Europe, when the Dardanelles, the Bosphoros, and free access to the Black Sea were very vital to us, this very friendly Power slammed the gates of the Dardanelles in the face of the two countries without whose continuous assistance the Turkish Empire would have not been in existence. We fought one great war to preserve Turkey against her enemies. Before that we had constantly intervened to protect her against those who attacked her, and, as late as 1878, the whole power of this country was mobilised to protect and save Turkey from the consequences of a disastrous defeat inflicted upon her by her old enemy.

In August. 1914, when we were engaged in a struggle of life and death, when Turkey should have assisted us without hesitation, as a result of a conspiracy into which she entered before the War with our greatest enemy, she did us the greatest dis-service any country could have done. And I have no hesitation m saying, from my knowledge of the War, and I am sure that I am confirmed in it by everybody who has ever read the, history of the War, that the action taken by Turkey then had the effect of prolonging the War by probably a couple of years. I will go beyond that, and say that the collapse of Russia was almost entirely due to Turkey, and would probably never have happened, had the Black Sea been free. And the same applies to Roumania, because, in other circumstances, we should have poured a sufficient amount of ammunition into those countries. The difficulties we had in supplying Russia in 1915 was almost entirely due to the fact that we could only get to Russia through Archangel during a few months of the year. There was only one line which we could use for a few months in the year. We could not pour ammunition in, and the failure of Russia was entirely attributable to that fact. That was due to the action of Turkey, which for a whole century, by finance, by diplomatic influence, by military support, and by the blood of our sons and the blood of the sons of France had been kept alive. That was the payment we got in August, 1914. What is the use of talking of the friendliness of Turkey a few years ago?

There is another illusion under which the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be labouring, entirely through ignorance of the facts. He is under the impression that the occupation of Smyrna and the proposals of the Sèvres Treaty were entirely the work of Great Britain. He clearly cannot have acquainted himself with the facts. What was done there was due to a Commission appointed by the great Powers, upon which France, Italy, Japan and ourselves were represented. We were represented by one of our greatest Dominion statesmen, Sir Robert Borden, who, in addition to being a man of very great breadth of mind, was a great jurist. He represented Great Britain with the aid of the officials of the Foreign Office. We never interfered with that Commission. We left it to them to recommend, and they recommended, upon the facts, that Smyrna and the adjoining villayets ought to be handed over to Greece, because they were predominantly Greek in population, in interest, and in history. That was not our decision. France took the same view. America took the same view. The only Power that expressed no opinion was Italy, for very obvious reasons. Italy was claiming Smyrna herself at that time. That was why this part of Asia Minor was assigned to Greece. It is perfectly true, for reasons which are thoroughly well known, that France has changed her mind since, but it was not our action alone. It was action in which the jurists and experts of France agreed with ours to put Smyrna under the control of Greece that led to the occupation.

But they went there to restore order, according to the dispatch. They were sent there because of alleged atrocities, which were afterwards found to be false.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now getting away from the point he made. The point which he made was that we are responsible. I am answering that by saying that it is not in the least consistent with the facts. It was the report of a Commission upon which we were only one out of five who made that recommendation. It was not our action. The only change has not been a change of policy on our part. Such Change of policy as there has been has been a change of policy entirely on the part of other Powers. I want to make that perfectly clear. What is the position? The position is that the fall of M. Venizelos and the accession of King Constantine has produced a certain chilliness of opinion in France, and also, undoubtedly, in this country, towards Greece. It made a very considerable difference to French opinion. I do not believe that you would have had any of this trouble at all had M. Venizelos still remained at the head of affairs. His influence, as one of the greatest democratic statesmen in Europe, would have been sufficient to keep French public opinion loyal to its original decision in this respect. But King Constantine had been responsible for certain acts of hostility to the Allies which hurt France very deeply, and I am not at all surprised at the fact that French opinion felt angry with Greece because it elected to stand by its King. If Greece is loyal to her King, that her business. We must judge the whole question upon its merits. But it did produce a modification of the Treaty of Sèvres.

Two efforts have been made to try and get the parties to agree. The first was in London where very considerable modifications were introduced into the Treaty of Sèvres, and there was good reason to believe that the representative of Angora was, on the whole, in favour of accepting. I have no doubt that if they had accepted, Greece Also would have accepted. I have good reason to know that Greece would have accepted the terms then proposed. But the Angora Government repudiated its representative, and the failure to come to terms was entirely the failure of Angora. Then another effort was made by my Noble friend the Foreign Secretary to secure another modification n Paris which would secure peace and tranquillity in this region. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gateshead that this is highly desirable in the interests of everybody. It was proposed that there should be a meeting of all the parties somewhere in the East—Turkey, and Greece as well as the Great Powers—but as a preliminary it was stipulated that there should be an Armistice. I. should have thought that that was a most obvious condition to impose. How could you sit in Ismid, Brussa or anywhere else to discuss terms of peace when the belligerents were engaged in cutting each other's throats somewhere outside Brussa? It has been the condition of every conference of peace that has ever been held. Therefore, without any hesitation, the Powers were perfectly unanimous in imposing this condition upon both parties. Greece accepted; the Angora Government refused. The Constantinople Government were, I believe, prepared to accept, and that is where the Sultan is; that is where the Caliph is. That is where the head of Islam dwells. Mustapha Kemal may be a great general and a great patriot; but the head of Islam is in Constantinople. He is the Caliph. Mustapha Kemal refused, with the result that nothing has been accomplished. He insisted upon preliminary evacuation by the Greeks. He professes to desire peace, but the Turks were encouraged in their refusal of the one condition which the Powers sought to secure from them. That is not the road to peace. The Greek Army said, "We cannot evacuate the position, and leave our people behind, until we know what provisions have been incorporated in the Treaty for the protection of those people." That was not unreasonable.

The hon. and gallant Member admits frankly that there have been atrocities committed by the Turks. He has dwelt with great indignation upon one or two isolated instances of Greek atrocities, but I did not notice the same tone of indignation when he referred to the Turkish atrocities. His anger is reserved for the Greeks. Has he read the Official Report? It is perfectly true that in some cases there have been deplorable outrages by Greek soldiers. It is almost inevitable in that part of the world where there is war. It happened in Macedonia, in conflicts between various nationalities. There have been inquiries instituted by the French, Italian, and British Missions. The Report, says:—

"There is no doubt there have been a large number of atrocities, and that those on the part of the Turks have been more considerable and more ferocious than those on the part of the Greeks."

But all the indignation the hon. and gallant Member had was reserved for the atrocities committed by Greek soldiers.

I wonder whether the hog: and gallant. Member has acquainted himself with the Report of the American Mission with regard to the atrocities in Pontus. There have been individual cases of outrages by the Greeks in the war region, but in Pontus there was not the slightest suggestion that there was any rebellion or preparation for rebellion, and, indeed, it would have been an act of supreme folly on the part of the population to have acted in such a manner. Under the conditions that obtained, I cannot imagine they would have done so, for whatever the Greeks lack, they do not lack intelligence. What has happened there? Not individual instances, but tens of thousands of men, women and children have been deported, and tens of thousands have died. The reports with regard to the women are perfectly horrible, and all these outrages were committed without any rebellion, and without any provocation. It was pure deliberate extermination. "Extermination" is not my word. It is the word used by the American Mission.

It was open to the Greeks to say, "Before our troops retire from the lines which we have occupied after driving the Turks out with great loss, leaving 500,000 men, women and children of our race behind us, we want some guarantee that the same thing may not happen here as happened in Pontus.' Our business is to hold the balance justly and fairly between both parties. It is not a question of Mussulman versus Christian. I want to make that perfectly clear. Supposing the Armenians were in control of Asia Minor, and supposing they had been guilty of these atrocities, these wholesale atrocities against Mussulmans, we should have been bound to intervene. We should have been bound to use the whole of our influence as a great Mahommedan Power. Scores of millions of Mahommedans are our fellow subjects, and we should have been bound to intervene on their behalf. It is a pure question of humanity. After all, the responsibility for the defeat of the Turks was our responsibility. They were our troops who overthrew the Turks, and, therefore, the responsibility for the establishment of peace in Turkey must be our responsibility. We cannot abrogate the predominance which has been won by the sacrifice of our own people. We have a right to say that without some guarantee we will make no peace which will place hundreds of thousands of poor defenceless people who are looking to us for protection at the mercy of those who have been guilty of the deportations and outrages in Pontus.

These outrages have undoubtedly modified, and profoundly modified, the position. First there is the fact that the Turks have refused to accept the conditions imposed by all the Powers quite unanimously with regard to an armistice. We could not allow the war to go on in that very important quarter. We could not afford to allow the trade of the district to be kept in a condition of disturbance and uncertainty. But the Turks have deliberately insisted on it. In addi- tion to that, they have disturbed the balance of the Paris proposals, after having shown that they cannot be trusted with complete sovereignty and sway in a quarter like the Smyrna Vilayet, where there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who would be entirely at their mercy. The Turk is an Oriental. He knows many things. He does not always know, perhaps, the value of time, but he always plays for time in diplomacy. He hangs on in the hope that the other party will give way first. It ought to be made quite clear that the terms I have mentioned are not indefinitely open to the Turk, who is saying to himself, "If I hold out, I may have a chance of getting everything I want, and if I do not, the worst that can happen to me will be that I shall get the Paris terms offered to me." That cannot be the case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted what I said at the end of 1917, or the beginning of 1918, about a year before the end of the War. That was a definite offer to Turkey to go out of the War, and she did not. The same offer was made, I believe, privately. There were the usual approaches, coming, perhaps, from an authorised person—I cannot tell. It is very difficult to tell when a war is on whether a man is authorised or not. At any rate, we got the same proposals. Turkey went on for a year. She went on until she was completely beaten, and had added scores of millions to our debt, and tens of thousands to our casualties. Turkey thinks that she is entitled to the same offer a year later as was made to her at a time when there was a good deal to be gained by getting her out, and it was worth our while to give her better terms.

Of course, if it was a just offer. Why not?

The question whether it was a. just offer was tried by this Commission, and this Commission—a perfectly fair, reputable and honourable Commission—gave that decision, and we abided by it. I forget who it was who said that we were not fair as between the parties. I am not sure that we are. What has happened? Here is a war between Greece and Turkey. We are defending the capital of one of the parties against the other. We must not overlook that fact, and it is a very im- portant fact. If we were not there, there is absolutely no doubt that the Greeks would occupy that capital in a very few hours, and that would produce a decision. There is only one way now in which the Greeks can have a decision, and that is by marching through almost impenetrable defiles for hundreds of miles into the country. I do not know of any army that would have gone so far as the Greeks have. It was a very daring and a very dangerous military enterprise. They established a military superiority in every pitched battle. They were barred by the conformation of the country, and the fact that they had to maintain lines of communication that no other Army in Europe would ever have dreamed of risking.

But there was one way in which they could have established a decision. If we were simply holding the ring between them and said, "There you are, light it out," they would have marched to the capital, and taken it, I will not say to-morrow, but in a week. Who is preventing that? British troops, French troops, Italian troops, and the British, French and Italian navies. It is quite right that we should do so, but do not let us say that we are unduly favouring the Greeks, that we are giving then) some sort of preferential treatment.

There are even suggestions, not altogether, perhaps, without foundation, that the Kemalist forces are being re-equipped from Europe. The Greeks, under other conditions, would have been entitled to blockade the coast of Asia Minor. Had it been any other belligerent, they would have been entitled to search ships and to prevent arms from going to the Kemalists. They are not allowed to do that. That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls "preference for the Greeks." On the contrary, one of the unfairnesses of the situation is that we are driven, by the position we occupy there, into not giving a fair field and no favour to fight the issue out. Peace the Kemalists will not accept, because they say we will not give them satisfactory armistice terms: but we are not allowing the Greeks to wage the war with their full strength.

We cannot allow that sort of thing to go on indefinitely, in the hope that the Kemalists entertain, that they will at last exhaust this little country, whose men have been in arms for 10 or 12 years, with one war after another, and which has not indefinite resources. That is the position. We only want to see a just peace established. Facts which have occurred during the last few months make it clear that, whatever happens, there must be adequate efficient protection of the minorities in this part of Asia Minor, as an essential part of any settlement which Great. Britain can accept. By these guarantees I do not mean the word of Angora. That was given in Armenia. What has it been worth? It has not saved the life of a single Armenian or Greek. The protection must be an adequate one, which will take form and effect in the very constitution of the government of this particular province.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about events in the past history of Turkey, when the Greeks were not massacred and the Armenians were not massacred. Yes; that is the change which has come over the policy of Turkey in the last 30 years. There is no doubt at all in the mind of anyone who has watched what ha happened that a sentiment has grown up that there is only one way by which Turkey can get rid of her embarrassments with non-Mussulman populations, and that is by deportation or extermination. Abdul Hamid was very largely responsible for that policy. Millions of Armenians have been exterminated, and the same policy is being applied to the Greeks. What does the Turk say? He says, "As long as these people are here, Europe will interfere. I shall be receiving diplomatic notes. I have been threatened constantly. I cannot always control my Pashas and my Beys. Therefore, the best thing is to get rid of them, and to get a homogeneous population." There is no doubt that that is the policy which is governing and controlling a great many Turkish officials, and it is written in blood in the history of the last thirty years in Turkey. It is now extending to the Greeks. It is no use referring to the Turkey of a hundred years ago, or even of fifty years ago—certainly not to the Turkey of 200 or 300 years ago. There has been a complete change in their attitude. I agree that there was a Turkey which was tolerant, which, on the whole, was indulgent in its treatment of people of a different religion and race. But there is a new spirit which is inspiring a good many of those who direct the policy of the country, and we must take that into account in every settlement that is made.

There is one word which was said by my hon. Friend behind in his most interesting speech, that Greece is suffering undoubtedly from the unfortunate division amongst her people, the division between the followers of Venizelos and Constantine, which is paralysing her activities. It is remarkable that she has been able to accomplish what she has. She has maintained an army, and a large army. I am told there are men who have not been home to see their families for 12 years in Greece—peasants drawn from the soil—and they are prepared still to go on for the liberation of the men of their race. They have made financial sacrifices which are almost incredible. There is that ingenious device, in order to extricate themselves from financial difficulties, by which notes were halved, one half remaining currency at half the original value of the note and the other becoming a forced loan to the country. It is a device worthy of the ingenuity of the Greek mind. By that means you enforce loans of half the currency in cash circulating throughout the country. It was accepted without a murmur by the whole of the population, and it has enabled them to keep their sons still longer in the field. A people who have done that are worthy of consideration at the hands of any country, and therefore I earnestly trust that, whatever happen, we shall see that the Christian populations of Asia Minor are adequately protected against a repetition of such horrible incidents as have disgraced the annals of that land.

There are just two minutes in which I might contribute very briefly to the very useful Debate which has taken place. Whatever may be said about my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), he has rendered a service in inducing the speech from the Prime Minister in regard to a. most difficult problem in the Near East, with which I desire to say that I find myself in substantial agreement. The great tradition of the great party to which I belong has been, I am glad to recognise, fully reflected in the speech which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon. I am glad that the Session closes this afternoon, not on the note of mere pounds, shillings and pence, but on the note of humanity and of our obligations towards the oppressed races of the Near East under the heel of a nation which, after all the lessons which have been read to it during the past few years, has learned nothing if anything at all.