asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information showing which are the countries in Europe where wages of agricultural workers are regulated; and will he state Whether it is by the State, and what the regulated wages are?

In a number of countries in Europe the wages of agricultural workers are regulated under some system of State control. In Hungary and Esthonia the machinery appears to resemble the Trade Board system in existence in this country. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such particulars with regard to the various countries as are in my possession. I have no definite information as to the current rates of wages.

The following is a summary of such information with regard to the regulation of agricultural wages in Europe as are in the possession of my Department:

The particulars have been collected from various sources, and must not be taken as necessarily complete.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a large amount of British capital has been invested in Austrian railways, some of which have been taken over by the Rumanian Government; and will he say whether the Rumanian Government intend to accept the liabilities attaching to such railways as to the payment of interest and for capital liability?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Repeated representations have been made to the Rumanian Government with a view to an arrangement being made between the Rumanian Government and the companies concerned in accordance with the terms of Article 320 of the Treaty of St. Germain, but hitherto without result. This question is being discussed by the Austro-Rumanian Commission now sitting at Vienna, and until the Commission has concluded its labours, it is not possible to return a definite reply to the second part of the question.

Can the hon. Gentleman say that he will continue to take steps to protect British interests in this matter?

Yes, Sir, I think I can say that.

I propose to raise the question of correspondence between the Government and the Dominions in relation to the Treaty of Lausanne. I can assure the Members that I am not bringing up this question in any controversial spirit; and I know that the time available for this debate is limited. I therefore wish to take up as little as possible of the time of the House. A very important question has arisen in regard to the negotiation and signature of the Treaty of Lausanne, and attention should be called to the importance of the precedent set up. I think if possible, this House should determine that that precedent should not be followed in future, but that we should return to the practice laid down in regard to the Treaty of Versailles and all the Peace Treaties that followed the Treaty of Versailles. When the Treaty of Lausanne was introduced into this Parliament we were assured that it had universal approval; that it had been accepted and welcomed by the whole Empire. The facts have come out by degrees. They have been hard to elicit. It turns out that they are very different.

The essential fact, which was not revealed at the outset, is that the Dominions were not invited to send plenipotentiaries to the Treaty negotiations at Lausanne. From the very outset Canada called attention to the importance of this change in procedure, and at the end of the year 1922, she had said quite definitely, in view of the great change of procedure, that she could not be hound by any negotiations carried on at Lausanne and could riot be expected to accept them unless they were submitted first to her own Parliament. When the Treaty was finally made public, Canada refused to nominate a plenipotentiary to sign the Treaty, and the other Dominions took the same course. The result is that we have in the Treaty of Lausanne the only Treaty of Peace that is not signed by the Empire as a whole. It is signed only by an English diplomat, Sir Horace Rurnbold. I make no reflection whatever on Sir Horace Rumbold. He did his work with all the skill and training for which he is well-known. But the difference between the weight of an instrument signed only by an English diplomat, and the weight of an instrument signed by the Dominions as a whole, must be very obvious to the House.

The question must be asked: how has this occured? Both the British and the Dominion Governments are obviously concerned in the whole course of procedure since the Conference of Lausanne, but I imagine that everyone will agree with me that comment upon the procedure adopted by the Dominion Governments is not proper in this House. I propose to make no reference whatever to the course taken by the Dominion Governments, although it is obvious the responsibility for what took place is not entirely with the British Government, but it is shared by the Dominion Governments. What is clear, however, is that the main responsibility for what has occurred rests upon British Government, because it all arises from the fatal initial error that the Dominions were not asked to send plenipotentiaries to the negotiations at Lausanne.

The despatch which, has been issued shows that the Dominions were informed that an agreement had been come to with France and Italy that each Power should be represented by only two plenipotentiaries, and they were asked whether they would agree to allow Lord Curzon and Sir Horace Rumbold to represent the British Empire. They were given no option in the matter, and they accepted that procedure, but they were given no alternative. The immediate result was that Canada telegraphed to say that she could not associate herself with the results of the negotiations, and on 31st December she made it quite clear that she would not nominate a plenipotentiary to sign the Peace Treaty at Lausanne nor would she regard herself as being bound by that Treaty unless it were first submitted to the Canadian Parliament.

Compare this history with that of the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was negotiated by a complete British Empire Delegation, and every important feature of that Treaty was adopted by that Delegation before it was accepted. The British Empire Delegation sat at Paris throughout the negotiations and participated in every important decision, and at the end the signatories of the whole of the Empire Delegation were appended to the Treaty of Versailles. What happened in the case of the other Treaties which followed? It is true that the British Empire Delegation broke up before these other Treaties were, completed, but the whole principle on which they were based was laid down in the Versailles Treaty and the other Treaties simply followed the principles adopted in the case of the Treaty of Versailles. I am perfectly certain that there is no Dominion statesman who will not say he did not play the fullest part which he desired in the negotiation of those other Treaties.

The proof of the matter is, that there was no question whatever about the Dominions appointing their plenipotentiaries and signing those other Treaties just as they had signed the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Sèvres was negotiated later. The British Empire Delegation was not sitting during the negotiation of that Treaty, but the Dominions were given every opportunity of appointing plenipotentaries, and Sir Robert Borden took a. prominent part in some of the preliminary settlements of principles on which that Treaty was framed. There is no doubt the Dominions were completely satisfied with the procedure then followed, because, once again, they appointed their plenipotentiaries, and they signed the Treaty of Sevres. Their names are in the preamble, representing all the Dominions and India, and they signed as plenipotentiaries on behalf of each Dominion.

So far the precedent was unbroken. It was followed once again when the Empire was confronted with the delicate negotiations undertaken by the Washington Disarmament Conference. It is no secret that there we were then confronted with a very great division of opinion within the British Empire itself, but the British Empire Delegation, under the chairman ship of Lord Balfour went to Washington. and the result of sitting as one family under Lord Balfour's most distinguished chairmanship was that all disagreements were resolved and there was unanimous approval of the Treaties ultimately negotiated. I think that proves conclusively that up to the Treaty of Lausanne the precedent that Treaties of this importance, Treaties of Peace involving the obligation, in certain contingencies, of going to war have been negotiated by the British Empire as a whole, and the signatures of the whole Empire have always been secured before ratification.

I have only two more observations to make on the history of the Treaty of Lausanne. In the first place, since it departs entirely from the procedure of the other Treaties, and that fact was known when the Imperial Conference met last year, why was the subject not raised there? Here was an Imperial question of the deepest gravity. There was real disagreement as to the manner in which the Treaty was negotiated, and an absolute certainty that the eldest of the Dominions would not sign that Treaty, and yet the question was not raised at the Imperial Conference. If important questions like this are to be burked at Imperial Conferences in that manner, what is the use of Imperial Conferences?

In the second place, I think it is important to call attention to statements widely made in Canada that the reason why our Government agreed that only two plenipotentiaries should be appointed to represent the British Empire at Lausanne was due to the fact that the French Government stated that if the British Empire went there as a British Empire Delegation, France would have to bring a delegation of her own, including the Sultan of Morocco. That statement has been widely made in Canada, and it is really believed that that objection was made by France. What would it mean if the British Government really paid deference to this objection on the part of France? It means that they set aside all the precedents established by previous Treaties of Peace. Not only that, but they surrendered the status definitely given to the British Empire in the Covenant of the League of Nations. If you look at the list of Original Members of the League of Nations, you will find France named, but it does not mention Morocco and other potentates. Compare that with the names representing the British Empire. The British Empire is the first heading, then Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India. Why was that position given away at Lausanne? It was given away from the moment we accepted any reason for not taking the whole British Empire Delegation to Lausanne on the ground that another Power would bring a subordinate potentate.

I do not wish to trespass too long on the time of the House—[HON, MEMBERS: "Go. on"]—but why is this status secured by us in the Covenant of the League of Nations of so much importance to the British. Empire? Just consider what the British Empire ie at the present time. I am thinking now, not of the Asiatic Empire or the dependent Empire, but of that part which consists of Great Britain itself and the self-governing Dominions. Great Britain and the self-governing Dominions at this moment constitute an actual league of nations acting together on the very principles to which the wider League of Nations aspires. It is a family of free nations, and there is no question of competition in armaments between them. Indeed, our very co-operation means that our individual need for armaments is reduced. We are seeking the utmost co-operation in trade and business. We have the same institutions, we have the same Sovereign, and we desire to act together to protect our civilisation and to provide for all its moral and material needs, and, in particular, for raising the standard of life throughout our communities. We desire to defend our legitimate interests, and we desire, above all, to act together to maintain the peace of the world. The British Empire, then, is an actual league of nations; it is a practical experiment in international cooperation, and it is an example of what the great League of Nations itself aspires to become. This may be said with confidence—that if the league of nations represented in the British family of nations cannot act together in the conditions in which they are trying to act together now, then there is no hope indeed for the wider League.

What is the crux of our problem at the present time?—It has been quite definitely established that co-operation inside the Commonwealth is perfectly compatible with the fullest internal self-government in this country and in every Dominion. There is no question whatever about that. But from the very outset the Dominions have always made it clear that, while they have sought complete internal autonomy, they have never regarded that as inconsistent with the most complete and thorough Imperial loyalty. There is an incident in the old history of New South Wales which illustrates the spirit of the Empire in both forms. I believe it was in the seventies, when Lord Salisbury's Government had written a despatch to the Government of New South Wales endeavouring to compel them to admit certain Chinese immigrants who were pressing to enter the Colony, and were then in ships in Sydney Harbour. The new South Wales Legislature sat all night, and during that night they passed resolutions absolutely refusing to be bound by Lord Salisbury's despatch, and declaring that the Colony had the right to choose of what component elements its population was to be made up. That was a complete declaration of local autonomy. But at the end, as the daylight came through the windows of the old Legislature, to show that there was no lack of loyalty in their decision, the whole Assembly got up and sang "God Save the Queen." That is an example of the spirit in which autonomy has been worked out in the British Empire.

There is no question that full local self-government is established everywhere. But full national self-government does not mean local autonomy only; it does not mean internal self-government only. It means also some adequate control over the relations of the nation with foreign powers. It means, in particular, absolute freedom of choice in the great issues of peace and war. When the Great War broke out the Dominions had, as a matter of fact, no choice. They made no complaint of that. Our Treaty with Belgium, which brought us directly into the War, was negotiated a, whole generation before Canada became a dominion, and two generations before any other Colony became a dominion. There could have been no question about consulting them when that obligation was incurred. As a matter of fact, the crisis of the Great War came so suddenly that war was declared in this country before the Dominions clearly understood what it was all about. Nevertheless they sprang instinctively to our side. I am reminded by my right hon. Friend that Canada actually came to our side before war was declared. But in every Dominion it is widely held, and the democratic spirit requires, that such a thing shall never happen again. If Canadian lives, Australian lives and the blood and treasure of all the other Dominions are to be sacrificed, that can be done only by the decision of their own elected representatives sitting in their own parliaments, and not by the representatives of the British Isles in this Parliament.

If this country is to incur obligations to go to war and those obligations are not endorsed by the Dominions, what is the result? When we ourselves find that we have to go to war as a result of obligations we incur, whether they like it or not, the Dominions are then in a state of war. They may or may not participate, but they are in a state of war. It does not need any exposition now, after the experience of the Great War, to show how greatly even countries not actively participating are affected by hostilities once they break out. But not only that. Take the obligations in the Treaty of Lausanne. Who can say that if the casus foederis contained in Article 18 of the Straits Convention arose, and we were compelled by our own decision, or by the decision of the League, to defend Constantinople and the demilitarised zones—who can say where the hostilities thus started would stop? No man can say where they would stop. These things grow like a prairie fire. Although the Dominions might not participate at the outset they might find that participation was inevitable at a later stage. The only alternative which they would have to being involved in a state of war and probably ultimately in active participation, entailing maybe the sacrifice of many millions, and, what is of more importance, their sons—the only alternative would be to declare their neutrality and to secede from the Empire.

I am sure that every member of this House will agree that it should be the first principle of British statesmanship to avoid putting the Dominions in a dilemma, in which they would either have to enter war by our decision, not by their own, or else to declare their neutrality and secede from the Empire. There is, I believe, only one way of avoiding that, and it is the way laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the negotiations at Paris and afterwards at Washington. It is by making sure, when Treaties of this importance are being negotiated, that the whole British Empire is represented in a British Empire Delegation, and that the responsibility is not laid on purely English representatives speaking for the Empire as a whole. The democratic movement in this country is requiring more and more that obligations of this kind shall be submitted to this Parliament. If we require that in our own case, we must admit it to be equally just in the case of the Dominions. They must have a voice just as we claim a voice; their Parliaments must be able to decide just as this Parliament decides. I hope, therefore that the result of the publication of this correspondence on the Lausanne Treaty will be to lay down that in future we will not adopt that evil precedent, but will adhere to the sound precedent laid down at Paris and at Washington by my right hon. Friend.

I hope that the House will not consider that it is improper for me to intervene at this moment, although I think it is really more an opportunity for the Government to reply to the speech which has just been made. As far as I am concerned, I can be perfectly content to rest upon the reply that was given on this particular question by the Prime Minister when the House was called upon to ratify the Treaty of Lausanne. I understand that the Prime Minister will speak later, and unless his reply be very different from the speech which he made on the occasion to which I have alluded, I certainly would have very little to say in addition to that. But as the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken said in the course of his speech the main responsibility for what we regard as a very important departure from precedent rests upon the British Government, and as a member of the British Government at the moment when the Treaty of Lausanne was negotiated, I should like at the present moment to say something on the subject. I do not intend to follow in any way the interesting exposition of the hon. and gallant Member in the greater part of his speech as to the general constitutional position of the different parts of the Empire. I do not think I heard anything with which I disagree, and I imagine that the general principles which he laid down are probably accepted by every Member of this House, at all events in general terms. I do not quite understand, apart from the opportunity of laying down these general principles, what the purpose of the hon. and gallant Member was in bringing this matter up on this occasion. Supposing—I do not admit it—but supposing for the sake of argument that there had been in the course of the negotiations a misunderstanding between the Imperial Government and one of the great Dominions, I should have thought that the more patriotic course was not to have dug it up some time afterwards with a view of emphasising any differences that may have existed between the views of the two Governments.

I must, first of all, entirely traverse the contention of the hon. and gallant Member that in this particular case there was a departure from universal precedent Let the House remember that the negotiations for signing the Treaty of Lausanne really were a continuation of the negotiations for the Treaty of Sevres. The latter Treaty was duly signed by all parties concerned and it was only because owing to the lapse of time it was found impossible to put it into execution, and it therefore required to be modified, that it was necessary to negotiate a fresh Treaty at Lausanne. I am not going into the reasons why the Treaty of Sevres was not carried out. I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) who I see is amused, and those sitting beside him, would have been the first to desire that the waters of Lethe should pass over that transaction. However that may be, let me remind the House of what actually took place. It was not possible to carry out the Treaty of Sevres before some modification had taken place. How was the Treaty of Sevres negotiated? In the former Debate in the House it was contended by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and especially by the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), that the representatives of the Dominions had taken part in the negotiations for that Treaty. Since that I have gone carefully into what happened. The negotiations for the Treaty of Sevres may be divided into several phases. They begun by two sets of conversations which had taken place in London at the end of 1919. The first of these conversations was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister at Downing Street, and M. Clemenceau came over from Paris to take part in discussing the preliminary principles. It was a purely Allied conversation at Downing Street. Subsequently, I suppose because it was found that greater detail was required, there was a second set of conversations which took place at the Foreign Office and was presided over by Lord Curzon. That was a meeting of the Ambassadors of the Allies. Up to that point there never had been any suggestion that the Dominions should send representatives. They had in fact not sent representatives and they had never suggested themselves that they ought to be invited to do so. These conversations produced the first draft of what afterwards became the Treaty of Sevres. The venue was then changed to San Remo, where conversations took place and the draft made in London was gone through Clause by Clause and line by line, and it reached its final stage in that Conference. At San Remo again there was no representative of the Dominions present; we never invited any, and it was never suggested that there was any reason why they should be present. The next stage was that the Turks were then invited to send their representatives to Sevres not for discussion, but to sign the Treaty, and it was at this stage for the first time that there was any question of the Dominions participating. The hon. and gallant Member laid great stress on the difference between being asked to sign and being asked to participate. He laid great stress on the importance of the Dominions being asked in all these Treaties both to negotiate and to sign. But even as regards the signature of the Treaty of Sevres so little importance apparently, from the great constitutional standpoint brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member did the Dominions attach to it, so much did they accept it more or less as a matter of formality, that their representatives who came to sign at Sevres were not independent statesmen sent from the Dominions to represent their Governments, but their High Commissioners in London, who went over from here to sign on behalf of the Dominions who had taken no part in the previous negotiations. One Dominion, indeed, was content to be represented by the Counsellor in the British Embassy at Paris. He signed on behalf of New Zea- land, and it was Only in that way that the signatures of the Dominions were attached to the Treaty.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but will he explain, then, how it comes about that the Dominions quite willingly signed the Treaty of Sèvres, and refused to sign the Treaty of Lausanne?

I do not think it is correct to say that they have refused to sign the Treaty of Lausanne, but I am corning to that.

I should have said Canada.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a great deal too much out of the position brought about—I think it hardly amounts to a misunderstanding—on the part of Canada, and Canada alone. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the Imperial Conference, and asked how it had come about that the matter was never mentioned at the Imperial Conference. I was amazed to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that. Has he never looked at the Report of the Conference?—Not only was it mentioned, but it was most seriously discussed, and it takes a very prominent place in the Report. The whole principle upon which different grades of Treaties are to be negotiated, signed and ratified, is gone fully into. May I call the attention of the House to one particular paragraph under the head of "Negotiations" It is at the bottom of page 13, and it says:

"Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure that any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, so that if any such Government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are intimately involved of participating in the negotiations."

I am not quite sure that I understand the right hon. Gentleman. It has been stated frequently that Canada raised no objection whatever at the Imperial Conference to the way in which the Treaty of Lausanne was negotiated and signed. Are we to understand now, as a new fact, that the discussions about the way in which Treaties were to be negotiated and signed in future arose out of objections taken by Canada? If so, it seems to show that Canada did state objections to the method of negotiation and signature of the Treaty of Lausanne at the Imperial Conference.

I am quite willing to give way, but I do not quite see why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should interrupt me at every sentence in my speech, as I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) intends to take part in the Debate.

I am only asking for information.

I do not complain, but I think we should really get on better if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be content with having made his speech and allow me to make mine. As a matter of fact, this question was, as I understand, put on the Agenda of the Imperial Conference, and did not arise, so far as I know, out of any special objection raised by Canada at all; but, of course, it was perfectly open to Canada or any other Dominion, having fresh in their recollection, as they must have had, the whole of the negotiations with regard to Lausanne as an up-to-date example of this particular relationship in the Empire—it was open to them then to discuss the matter and to carry, if they liked, any resolution or take any part they liked in putting on record their opinion with regard to these negotiations.

I was, when I was interrupted, quoting this paragraph in order to show that the Imperial Conference contemplated alternative courses. One was that in the case of these Treaties a Dominion might have an opportunity of expressing its views. It was evidently contemplated that there might be, and would be, cases where the Dominions would be amply satisfied with expressing their views. Then it goes on, as an alternative, that, when its interests are intimately involved, it shall have the opportunity, if it wishes to do so, of participating in the negotiations. With regard to these particular negotiations I think it is apparent, from the correspondence which has been published, that the Canadian Government never did make any categorical request that they should take part in the negotiations. They never, except possibly by implication, suggested that they would like to do so, and, on the contrary, several times in the course of the negotiations they used these categorical words. In the first telegram in the White Paper, from the Governor-General of Canada, dated 1st November, it is stated, on behalf of the Canadian Prime Minister, that

"Our Government has no exception to take to the course pursued by His Majesty's Government with respect to the conclusion of a Treaty to end the War in the Near East."

They have no exception to take. It is quite true that later in the telegram the Canadian Prime Minister goes on to say that, so far as regards any obligations that might arise from the Treaty, under the constitutional rule in Canada he must, of course, submit to his Parliament the obligations arising out of the Treaty, just as we here submit the Treaty and the obligations arising under it to this Parliament to express its opinion and ratify it. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada, quite rightly I have no doubt, had always shown a very keen appreciation of the necessity for this Parliamentary control in Canada, and he had laid so much stress upon it that possibly —I do not say that it was so—his reference to that matter in this telegram may have been taken as really a reiteration of his very well-known opinion upon that subject. Again, later in the correspondence, on the 25th November, the Prime Minister of Canada says:

"We had no exception to take to Canada not being invited to be represented at the Conference."

Surely it is idle to suggest, in the face of this frequent reiteration, that the Canadian Government either then felt themselves aggrieved, or feel themselves aggrieved now, because they were not invited to take part in the negotiations. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if, at any sufficiently early period, at all events if, before the Conference took place, in reply to the first telegram that was sent to them, the Canadian Government had clearly taken up the attitude which the hon. and gallant Gentleman now takes up on their behalf—if they had definitely stated, "Unless we are invited to take part in the negotiations we cannot accept any responsibility for any Treaty or any obligations under it "—I have not the least doubt that, if that attitude had been taken up from the first, no misunderstanding of any sort could have arisen, and the Imperial Government would readily have fallen in with any such suggestion. But no such suggestion was made, and I do not think that any of the other Dominions have ever raised the point up to this moment. They always expressed themselves as amply satisfied to be represented at the negotiations by the Foreign Secretary and by our High Commissioner at Constantinople, and they were equally agreeable to have the signatures of those two gentlemen representing them. In these circumstances, I do not myself see that there is any possible ground for the suggestion that there is any grievance or any radical departure—or any departure—from the sound constitutional doctrine in this matter; and when the hon. Gentleman actually says that the Dominions were given no alternative—those were his words, as if a sort of ultimatum was presented at their heads, and it was said, "You have got to accept the signatures of Lord Curzon and Sir Horace Rumbold or leave them, at any rate there is no alternative open to you"—I do not think that anything could be further from the actual facts. The real facts were that they were consulted from the outset as to whether the proposed procedure would be agreeable to them, and they said that they had no exception whatever to take. I do not want to say, and I should be very sorry to say, anything that would appear to be in the smallest degree a reflection on any of the Dominion Governments, but, if there is any misunderstanding at all, it can only have arisen from the fact that the Canadian Government at the outset did not make their position quite so plain as they have made it since. But, even if there was a misunderstanding of that sort, it entirely falls short of the constitutional offence which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has alleged in his speech to the House, and, so far as I am concerned, speaking as a representative of the Government that was then concerned, I do not consider that we have anything whatever for which to apologise.

I think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members if I indicate, as far as possible, how the time available to-day may be distributed among the various subjects. We cannot have an actual hard and fast time table, hut, in view of the subjects which have been notified to me, I propose to allocate about two hours to the Foreign Office question, then I understood one hour is desired for Indian questions, and after that, about 2 o'clock, Members desiring to raise questions about the present industrial troubles can address themselves to the Ministry of Labour.

May I submit to you, Sir, that the rights of private Members on this Adjournment Motion are being steadily curtailed from year to year? There was a time when the Motion was "That this House do now adjourn," and the Government were required to carry that Motion before we did adjourn. Now a new procedure has been introduced, by means of which we have to adjourn at four o'clock in any case, and in a matter of vital Imperial concern—this is a very good case in point—the opportunity of debate is being very much curtailed. I would submit to you that it is a matter for consideration whether, in the future, you should accept such Motions for Adjournment in the form in which they are now made, as they have a prejudicial effect upon the rights of private Members to have an opportunity of intervening in the Debate.

The House has made its decision on that point, and I have nothing to say. All I desired to do was to give the House such information as was in my possession, and to do equal justice to Members in all parts of the House.

I will do my best not to interfere with any arrangements which you. Sir, may think desirable for the convenience of the whole House, but I should like to say this. I cannot conceive a more important subject for discussion by the Imperial Parliament than that which has been raised to-day. It obviously affects the whole constitution of the Empire, and the relations of the Dominions to ourselves and of ourselves to the Dominions. And a time may come when this debate and the effect it will have may exercise an influence beyond calculation upon events in the Empire and in the world. If anything would add to the gravity of the action which was taken by the late Government, it is the defence which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He did not apologise He defended it, which means that he thinks it was the right course to pursue; and if another Die-Hard Conservative Government come into power they will do exactly the same thing again. That was a most serious declaration. If he had said, At the time there was a good deal of hurry and the thing had to be done straight away, that would be a different thing, but he defends it as a precedent. He said "It is the right thing to do." I should like to, know whether that is the t view of colleagues of his sitting on that side of the House. Does his Party, which I thought always placed the, unity of the Empire and its strength and integrity high on its banner, really take that view? It Is a very serious action to take. His defence was one which I think has aggravated the whole position. He said "It is the business of the Prime Minister of the day to defend that action." Surely not. He was quite willing to leave it on the defence which he had made. I never heard the Prime Minister defend that action. Does he mean to suggest that the Prime Minister in anything he said in this House defended the action of Lord Curzon in intimating to the Dominions that an agreement had been arrived at with the Allies without consultation with them that they should be excluded from the Conference?

No.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. That shows he has not even read the document. I am not surprised that he knows nothing about it. Under-Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs are not supposed to know what is going on. In fact, they are deliberately kept ignorant lest they should embarrass the Government. They might give information to the House of Commons—a very dangerous thing to do—and therefore, as a rule, men are chosen for that purpose who have considerable glibness without any knowledge. I understand the right hon. Gentleman gave complete satisfaction. But he has had an opportunity of looking into the matter since. Would he mind looking at the first page of this White Paper. What will he see there? Here is a telegram sent by the Prime Minister to his opposite number in the Dominion. It was drafted in the Foreign Office. I know these things by experience:

"According to arrangements agreed upon with French and Italian Governments, each Government will be represented at Lausanne by two plenipotentiaries."

That is a telegram sent to Canada intimating that an arrangement had already been arrived at with France and with Italy that Britain should be represented by only two plenipotentiaries. That is not asking their opinion. It is not asking them "Do you want to be represented?" It is stating that an agreement has been arrived at that they should not be there. What else does it mean? Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that in the speech of the Prime Minister on the Lausanne Treaty he defended it? If that be the case, it is doubly grave. But I do not understand that it is. I never heard him defend it.

That is really not the point I took up at all. 'The agreement referred to in that telegram, if my information be correct, was arrived at while t he right hon. Gentleman himself was Prime Minister. He knows far more than I do about these matters. Does he really suggest that intimating to the Dominions that an agreement had been come to between the Allies themselves as to the mode of representation, and then asking for their opinion, is an announcement to them of a fait accompli? I absolutely deny it.

Here again the right hon. Gentleman has not read the document. He says an intimation was given to the Dominions that two representatives were chosen. First he said it was arrived at when I was Prime Minister. That is not correct.

I think it was.

Withdraw.

I certainly do not intend to withdraw, because I believe it is accurate.

My recollection is that I certainly was never informed that this was the intention of the Foreign Office, because. I always proceeded upon the opposite assumption, and I do not see why it should have been departed from here. He says in this telegram the Dominions were asked their opinion whether two representatives would do. There is not. a word to ask them whether that is the case. They are not invited. It is simply an intimation that the Government had decided to do. so. That is a. reversal of the whole process by which the unity of the Empire has been advanced during and since the War, and a serious one, and I should like to know whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on those benches, who, I know, have a sincere belief and conviction in the unity of the Empire, approve of conduct of that kind. I do not believe it. They will repudiate that defence, and it is the only possible chance, I think, of this mischief not proceeding as I think it has started.

Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "I will give you an account of how the Turkish Treaty was negotiated. "Where did you get that account Why did not he start a little earlier The main principles of that Treaty were discussed in Paris by the British Empire Delegation. I am not now drawing upon my memory, although I might have done so. I have looked up the whole of the Minutes within the last two or three days, and I say that the main principles were discussed during that British Empire Delegation, where the Prime Ministers of the Dominions were present. We delegated can, of them, Sir Robert Borden, to be our representative on the Commission that settled the question of South-Eastern Anatolia, and the whole of the Turkish possessions in Europe. Mesopotamia Was discussed, Palestine was discussed, Armenia was discussed, Cilicia was discussed, Smyrna was discussed, and Thrace was discussed. The Dardanelles were also discussed. All these vital questions were discussed at Paris, at the meetings of the British Empire Delegation. Not only that, but the British Empire Delegation heard the evidence of the Mohammedans on the decisions that were then being taken. What is the good of saying that the Dominions were not consulted?

I believe it is a complete reversal of the decisions taken at Paris. What were the decisions taken at Lausanne? Before the right hon. Gentleman gets up, he ought to know something about his subject. He does not even know the Treaty of Lausanne. Does he realise that in three important parts it is a complete departure from the decisions taken in Paris? What were they? First of all, with regard to Smyrna and South Eastern Anatolia, that was a reversal. The Straits is another. You had a decision there, and you had a demilitarised zone, to be occupied and garrisoned by the Allies. Now, you have a demilitarised zone depending entirely upon Turkish Declarations. What were their declarations worth in the late war? Then there is a guarantee of Turkish neutrality by the British Empire. Surely that is a vital distinction. If there is any attack upon their zone, upon Constantinople, upon the Straits, the British Empire by this Treaty is bound to come in—horse, foot and artillery, with all its resources —to defend them from whatever quarter the attack comes. Is not that a vital difference?

What is the third departure? The surrender of the capitulations. You surrendered there, British rights which had been enjoyed by the traders of this country for centuries. That was not in the Paris arrangement. That was not in the Treaty of Sevres. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has pursued his investigations so far as to inquire how that matter is working. It is a, perfect farce. A case was given to me the other day of a Turkish merchant who insured his ship, I think with a British company. The ship came back without any mishap, and he said "I must get my premium back. Nothing has happened." "Certainly not. That is what you paid on the risk," was the reply. He sued the company in the Turkish Courts, and the Turkish Courts decided that the premium must he returned.

That is the diplomacy that the right hon. Gentleman defended in this House. Those are the three things he defends. Perhaps his right hon. Friend sitting next to him the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) will get up to defend him. I should like to hear anybody defending him, except the honourable member behind him, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), for reasons that I dare not inquire into. These are the three serious departures. Then the Dominions are told, "We are going to send two men to represent us." No wonder that they protested. The right hon. Gentleman quoted something from the decisions of the late Imperial Conference. They were a condemnation of the action of the Government. If he had only read this little document from which I am about to quote—it would not have taken him very long; it would have embarrassed him a little bit—he would have known something about the subject. The very last paragraph here, repudiates the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House of Commons; the very last three lines. 'He read paragraph (b). This is what the Prime Minister of Canada said:

"The provisions thereof with reference to signature 2 (a) on page 14 and ratification (a) on page 15 appear to cover this case which is not within the provisions of signature 2 (b) on page 14 and ratification (b) on page 15."

If he had read that, it would have saved my making this point.

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?

I have no objection.

I am enjoying the comic turn which the right hon. Gentleman is giving, but he cannot go on misrepresenting me, or we shall get into a more serious turn. I never suggested that there was any identity of terms between the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Sèvres. In connection with the quotation that I made from the Imperial Conference, I am perfectly aware that the Prime Minister of Canada does not think that this particular case comes under that paragraph. I never alleged that it did. What I said was that the whole subject was discussed at the Imperial Conference, and that the Imperial Conference provided for two alternative forms, one that the Dominions should demand to take part in the negotiations, and the other that they should clearly make their views known.

Here is an action by the late Government which has called forth a protest from our leading Dominion, and which may have a very serious effect upon the unity of the Empire, and the right hon. Gentleman seems to think it is a comedy, and a comic turn.

I meant you.

That is his view of it. I take a very serious view of the action of the late Government, and I think we are entitled to ask, and I am sure we shall get an answer from the Prime Minister, whether that is really his view of the extent to which the Dominions ought to be consulted. Apart altogether from what happened in Paris, the right hon. Gentleman has—I do not say deliberately, because he did not know—omitted another most important item in the communications before the Treaty of Sèvres was concluded. What happened in London and what happened in San Remo was communicated, every word of it, to the Cabinets of the Dominions. The same information was given to them before they were asked to sign the Treaty, as was given to the British Cabinet.

So it was in regard to Lausanne.

It was not. The Treaty of Sevres was drafted and submitted in draft to the Dominion Cabinets. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Draft Treaty of Lausanne was submitted to the Dominions, and that they were asked to sign it? If not, why does he say that the same course was pursued? If, after discussion with the Turks, there had been an agreement as there was in the other case and a. full copy of the Treaty had been submitted to the Dominions and they had been asked, "Do you approve and will you sign?" at any rate there would have been some consultation. That is what happened in the other case.

Did you consult them?

Certainly, and (01e of the complaints against us was that we had sent a telegram. That is the Diehard intellect. I do not want to be taken away from my argument. Is that really the view that is taken by the present Government of the extent to which we ought to consult the Dominions when there is either a new policy or a departure from an old policy or there are new principles to be applied? If so, the progress made with knitting the Empire together during and after the war is completely arrested. It is unknit. I put this question to the Prime Minister. We are now about to make another attempt to settle the question of reparation upon the basis of a recommendation by an Inter? allied Commission of experts. Before the Prime Minister proceeds to a conference —because a conference is inevitable—will he consult the Dominions? Will he invite them to be present What steps is be taking to ascertain their views with regard to that settlement?

They have a direct interest in that, settlement. They were very jealous of anything which we did about reparations that in the least prejudiced their quota, however small, of the claim. In some cases it was fairly substantial and in some it was not, but they always insisted, and rightly so, upon being consulted. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he takes the view of the late Government that all he has got to do is to send a telegram, just as he has started to wherever he goes, to say that he and somebody else will represent the British Empire at the Conference, and that he will notify them from time to time of what is happening. I do hope that that is not the case. I have no reason to think that it is, but I should like that doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman opposite repudiated. It is the first opportunity which we have had of raising it. It is not our fault that the matter has not been raised before. These papers have only just been published, and at the first opportunity after the publication of the document we have brought the matter to the notice of the House of Commons. What will be the position now if there is trouble in the East—and it is full of possibilities of trouble? The right hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that this is going to be the last word in the settlement of the Turkish question. There are elements of disintegration in it. I do not believe that the West will stand the surrender of capitulations. It has made business, trade and commerce almost impossible there. There was a very din gerous speech delivered by M. Trotsky the other day.

It is repudiated.

I am very glad to hear that, and very glad to have reliable information.

It is about time you did get a little reliable information.

I know now where to go for it whenever I have to deal with Bolshevism. At any rate that is an indication of the possibilities. M. Trotsky may not have made that speech, but it is one of the possibilities of the future. Nations do not give up these aspirations merely because there is an interlude of a revolutionary government. France never gave up her aspirations with regard to the Rhine, though she had several revolutions. Russia will not give up her aspirations for Constantinople, for the Dardanelles, for locking up the Black Sea, and her aspirations in the East. She will not give up her aspirations for Armenia merely because she has got an interlude of passivism. All that will come back. And there is Italy. Does anyone imagine that Italy with its swarming populations now living under a foreign flag. {HON. MEMBERS: "Black flag!"] No, no, the flag of America; that is not a black flag, the flag of the Argentine, the flag of France. They live under foreign flags. Does anyone imagine that Italy is going to be satisfied to see these great derelict lands, which were once prosperous under her flag, and which languish under the Turkish, without making some effort?

All that is full of possibilities with regard to the future, and the Turk may always be depended upon to provide the quarrel. He has never failed to do so, and the real trouble is that, owing to the Treaty of Lausanne, he is under the impression that it is a victory. He is giving himself the airs of a. victor. Half his population has gone away by massacre, by deportation and by severance, but he still gives himself the airs of a great civilised Power. Trouble is inevitable in the East, and here we sign a Treaty under conditions by which the Dominions are in a position to say: "We were never consulted. You never asked us. We cannot ratify because it is not our Treaty." Anybody who knows what it meant to have them by our side in the Great War, knows what it will mean if they are in a position to he able to say: "We are not responsible. You did not think it proper to consult us." The possibilities are infinite. They are only 16,000,000 to-day. There are men in this House who will see the Dominions with a population of 100,000,000. It is vital to this great Commonwealth, in the interests of humanity, that every step that is being taken to knit the Empire together by consultation, in common action—

A Diehard is listening.

I hope that that is not a purely Diehard doctrine. It would be a sad day for the Empire if that is a doctrine which is to be confined to one party. It is essential to humanity that the whole nation should believe in it. It is essential in the interests of humanity, when a step is taken which reverses progress along the lines of unification, which endangers unification, that it should be promptly repudiated.

My right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of his speech invited me to intervene in the debate. I did not intend to do so until his last sentence, and now I shall only do so for a moment to express the hope that he will record the sentiment which he has just uttered when we come to divide on Wednesday week.

I wonder what goad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) thinks that he has done by raising this question here to-day? What good has he done either towards bringing about peace with Turkey and the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne or towards cementing the unity of the Empire? He has endeavoured to get a partisan score against his former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is apparently the main object of his speech, but there were phrases in that speech of the most mischievous and disastrous character. I will take one loose phrase, characteristic of the loose phrases that fell from the right hon. Gentleman. He said:

"Italy is looking at these great rich lands in tine Near East where formerly the Italian flag used to fly."

I remember reading that language in the "Idea Nazionale." under the signature of Signor Luzzati, who said:

"Wherever the legions of Pompey trod that was Italian soil."

That sort of phrase, coming from an ex-Prime Minister, is taken up in Italy and serves to fan the flames of a new Italia irredenta. It serves to excite Italian ambitions and to excite Turkish fears. But there was something much worse than that that fell from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, one of the objects of this Debate is to make a further attack on the Treaty of Lausanne and a further attack, in particular, on the Straits Convention. What did the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon He said that there are three things in the Treaty of Lausanne not in the Treaty of Sèvres, and one of those is a commitment that the British Empire—and these were his words:

"must go with all its forces, horse, foot, and artillery, to the defence of Turkey."

That is not in the Straits Convention, and it is use of language of that kind that does infinite harm in the Dominions, in this country and in Turkey and endangers peace. What is the commitment? Not that the British Empire alone, but that the British Empire, Japan, France, and Italy shall guarantee the demilitarised zones by such means as shall be defined by the Council of the League of Nations. Is that a commitment of the British Empire as a whole and alone to go with all its forces, horse, foot- and artillery, under any circumstances? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say alone."] That is exactly is the impression which the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey. That is the impression which he wants telegraphed out to Canada and to Australia. That is his object—once more to fan the flames of distrust and unrest between this country and Turkey and. to make it difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, to get the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne, and to make it difficult for us to get peace. Let us get hack to this much criticised telegram of 27th October. This telegram was sent by the Colonial Office and not by the Foreign Office.

It was certainly done by the Foreign Office.

The date is very important. The Carlton Club meeting, when, thanks to the efforts of some of us, we got rid from our Party of the influence -of the right hon. Gentleman—and as far as I am concerned, if there be one thing care about in politics, it is to keep that influence out of our party for ever—took place on 22nd October, and the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head, came to an end on 23rd October. I am not aware whether the new Government was actually sworn in when this telegram was sent.

Who was the Foreign Secretary

The right hon. Gentleman's own Foreign Secretary must have been engaged in negotiations, under his leadership, with the French and Italian Governments with regard to the date of the meeting at Lausanne. It is perfectly obvious from the context that we were invited to send representatives to Lausanne on the 13th November. That date was arranged before the Carlton Club meeting and not after, because it was a matter of urgency. One of the reasons why the Dominions were not actively encouraged at that moment to send delegations to Lausanne was undoubtedly the situation that had arisen as the result of the Chanak and Mudania Conferences. Who was responsible for that? I seem to remember the Garden City telegram, and I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the debate did not have something to do with that telegram.

I was in Geneva.

Well, I withdraw it. At any rate, it is common knowledge that it had little to do with the Foreign Office. That war telegram—

That was the left wing of the Tory party.

It is very important in this matter. It is a small point whether a particular person or a particular Secetary of State was responsible on a paticular date, but it has been made a charge against us on this side of the House that we were responsible for going back upon the method of Dominion Conference that had been adopted at Paris after the War. A sufficient answer is that at the recent Imperial Conference our Government went fully into the whole question, and so that there should he no misunderstanding defined and laid down our attitude in this matter, and here it is fully set out in paragraph 9 of the White Paper headed "Negotiation, Signature, and Ratification of Treaties." That represents the view of the Conservative party of the present day as to how this machinery ought to be worked. We set our signature to that Resolution, and that Resolution, until the present or a future Government alter it in any way, represents the view of our party and of the Government of which we were Members. Therefore, it is absurd to say that we have gone back upon a precedent created in the Paris negotiations, because this is a clear definition both in regard to negotiations and in regard to signature and in regard to ratification with the most detailed information of the exact position.

In this connection the outstanding fact is the critical situation in the Dardenelles at the time of the fall of the right hon. Gentleman's Government and the urgent necessity of getting into conference with the Turkish Government without even 24 hours' delay, if such delay could be avoided. Let us face the fact, and let the Dominions face the fact that from time to time these regrettable situations do arise. Complaints that the matter came as a surprise were made both from Australia and from Canada when they got the famous Chanak telegram that must be borne in mind. But the situation had arisen, and it goes the whole way back to Smyrna. All the tragedy of the situation goes back to that fatal backing of the Greeks and then letting them down. A situation may arise in the future and is bound to arise —and the Dominions had better face it—which may require emergency treatment. How that emergency treatment can best be reconciled with proper Dominion sentiment which we, on this side, fully recognise, is a matter to be worked out in the future. I believe that, with the possible exception of Canada, at this moment the majority of the Dominions are anxious that the Treaty of Lausanne should be ratified at the earliest possible moment. It is of enormous importance to the Empire and to the Dominions. I believe it is quite as important to Canada as to Australia and New Zealand. The Dardanelles, the Suez Canal and the Straits of Gibraltar are the three strategic points on the communications of the Navy with the Pacific Dominions and with Aden and Singapore. But it is essential that the Dominions should realise how inter-dependent the parts of the Empire are on a major question of policy such as the Dardanelles is always bound to be.

Canada will inevitably realise that in the event of the British Empire being involved in difficulties in the Near East, she will be involved as an Empire. There is no getting away from that fact. It touches India. It touches the whole Mohammedan interests of the Empire; it touches Australia, New Zealand, all our possessions in that direction, and it is quite impossible for any foreign country to treat any part of the British Empire as being neutral or to respect a declaration of neutrality from any part of the Empire if Britain is engaged on an issue such as could conceivably arise were the Council of the League of Nations to say that it is an obligation of honour on France, Italy, Japan and Great Britain to defend the Straits against aggressive action. For the moment it is perfectly clear that Canada is feeling the tremendous influence of public opinion in the prairie provinces which is shy of Canada entering into commitments similar to those which Australia and New Zealand are willing to undertake. That is, perhaps, natural, owing to the geographical position of Canada and the economic condition of the Western Provinces. But I think a very ill-service is done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in attempting to raise this matter at this moment. I cannot believe it will help in the solution of the difficulty raised by Canada, and I only hope that the Prime Minister, when he speaks this afternoon, will be able to reassure the House on this point, in spite of past misunderstandings and in spite of possible difficulties that may have 'become apparent to the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada which were not apparent when this matter was discussed at the Imperial Conference. When this matter was discussed at the Imperial Conference, the Prime Ministers were unanimous in their views regarding the situation in the Near and Middle East. The Conference recorded its satisfaction at the conclusion of peace between the Allies and Turkey, and added that:

"An end had thus been brought to a period of acute political tension, military anxiety and financial strain, and more particularly, had great relief been given to the sentiment of the Moslem subjects in the British Throne in all parts of the world."

That was the view taken by the Prime Minister of Canada officially, then. That I believe is still his view to-day and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the House that the Prime Minister of Canada has seen his way to authorise him, as the other Prime Ministers have done, to proceed immediately with the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne. It is most important that the document should be ratified; so much depends upon it.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs spoke about Turkish justice. It is very easy to laugh at Oriental peoples in the House of Commons but it does not do any good; it does a great deal of harm. It is very easy to bring up cases of that kind but is that the right way of getting a remedy? If he objects to that so much, then the right hon. Gentleman's proper duty is to say, "Abolish this. Tear up this Treaty and go to war with Turkey." That is the alternative. If he is going to fight for capitulation he will have to send the whole British Army and the Navy to get it. The right hon. Gentleman is abusing this Government and the late Government for faults in the Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He abuses the Treaty which the Prime Minister is recommending to the House for ratification.

I do not mind abusing any Government if I think there is any ground for doing so, but I certainly did not make any attack upon the present Government in that respect. They are not in the least responsible for any of these Conferences nor for the action taken there. On the contrary, when it was suggested that the Prime Minister had accepted responsibility, I said I never heard him do so in this House.

I withdraw that remark. But at any rate the present Government recommend this House to ratify the Treaty which the right hon. Gentleman has criticised so violently to-day. We support the Government, and I hope we shall not have any more of these interpellations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on the subject of foreign policy. My view is that for four years most of our troubles were caused by the right hon. Gentleman's method of conducting foreign policy, particularly in the Near East, and I hope that when matters are difficult, and when such negotiations as the Mosul negotiations and all they involve in the East are taking place, we shall not have Debates which tend to show divisions in our ranks in this House and divisions in the unity of the Empire, but that we shall all co-operate to get a real peace with Turkey, and real unity of the Empire, instead of making these foreign and Dominion questions the subjects of mere partisan quarrels—which is the sole object of the Liberal Members below the Gangway.

I hope the House will not only excuse me, but understand me, if I do not enter into this controversy at all. I have looked at the papers, and the only contribution I can make to this historical controversy now is this. I venture to prophesy that when all these incidents, beginning with the intimation that Lord Curzon made to the Dominions that it was proposed that the Lausanne Conference should be taken part in by two representatives for the whole British Empire—when that story begins to be written, it will not be contained in the first chapter of the story, but in at any rate, the fifth, the sixth, or the eighth, and it may be the eleventh or the twelfth. In the preliminary chapters, which must be studied and understood before this is understood, I am afraid that the right hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will play a part which will be a little bit more prominent than he cares to confess this afternoon.

No.

That is all the contribution I am going to make to history, but I think the House will again understand that my real interest in this Debate is as to how far it is going to help me, and I am sorry to say that, instead of helping me, it looks as though it might hinder ins. I have been doing my best to get the Lausanne Treaty ratified. I have explained several times to this House why I was doing that. Until the Lausanne Treaty is ratified, until it is folded up and put away as something that is complete, we really cannot go on settling the affairs of the Near East. I cannot say that I have any grievances with Canada, because. I have none. The only thing that I think everybody will regret—and I am sure that Mr. Mackenzie King will regret this as much as I do—is that there has been a lack of clear, definite statement, that if it had been known right away from the beginning that the Dominions really objected to what was proposed, then it would have given the Government of the day an opportunity of reconsidering its decision. I think, perhaps, there was more politeness than definiteness in the opening moves of the game, and then what do we find? We find that, as stage after stage is reached, the opposition becomes more and more definite, but it reveals itself at points when it is impossible to go back, and rectify any mistake that may have been made. That is the criticism that I should make, in the most friendly' and, I hope, understanding way, of what actually produced the situation which I had to face when I came into office. I am very glad to say that, as fax as Canada is concerned, it agrees, it acquiesces now, in the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty. There is still the question of the Irish Free State, and I have been engaged during the middle of this week in trying to clear away the difficulties that are in the way of that. Whether I have been successful or not, I do not care to say, but I hope that the explanations given will enable me at last to advise the ratification, and close the whole chapter. The important matter for me to-day, and for the House, is this: What is going to be our future procedure? I stand by the Resolution of "Negotiation, signature and ratification of Treaties" which is found on page 13 of the Report of the last Imperial Conference. That Resolution, as far as I am concerned, will always be put into operation.

Are they ratifying under sub-head (a) or under sub-head (b)?

They are ratifying. That is enough for me.

But are they undertaking the obligations of the Treaty?

They are ratifying. The correspondence is being published. [Interruption.] If these things, discussed in this way, are to help us, I am at the service of the House, I am at the service of a party in the House of Commons, but it is enough for me that this Treaty is to be ratified. That is not perhaps quite enough for the House, but I imagine that neither my hon. and gallant Friend nor myself can now shift. The important thing is that we will see that we go right, provided another treaty of the same kind has to be negotiated. So I am making no partisan statement at all, not in the least, and I say that I take my stand upon this Resolution: "Negotiation, signature, and ratification of Treaties." I wish to say, in all justice to my predecessor, that that Resolution was not put down on the agenda of the Imperial Conference because some Dominion forced his hand. It was put down on his own initiative, and appeared on the original agenda issued for the Conference. Therefore, in saying that, I feel I have the support of all the parties in the House in making the declaration—that so long as I am responsible for the Foreign Office and the Government these will be the provisions that are carried out.

I would like to add this, however, and this is really all the contribution I am going to make. If hon. Members, and especially right hon. Members who have been at the Foreign Office and have been responsible for its work, either directly or indirectly, will look at the wording of those Resolutions, they will see that they are by no means water-tight, they will see that they are by no means definite; they will see that they require to be supplemented and interpreted. I am going to make no pledge on this to-day, but I would like to tell the House what is in my mind. I think the time has come when we have to consider, in view of present circumstances, what machinery is required to be created for the conduct of a united Imperial policy, particularly as regards foreign affairs. We have gone through various stages. There was a time when we never considered our Dominions at all. Whoever sat over there at the Foreign Office considered the responsibilities of the Empire as though he, without consulting with anybody, except perhaps the Cabinet, of which he was a Member, could say what was right or what was wrong. Then we got to another stage, when we informed the Dominions—we gave them information—as to what we were doing. That is done now pretty fully. But very likely a self-respecting people like the people who inhabit our Dominions will not be content with that. If I send a weekly telegram, or if the Colonial Office sends a weekly telegram, to the Dominions saying that the foreign news of the week is so and so, and so and so, naturally the Ministers of Australia, Canada, South Africa and so on will begin to express opinions.

That brings us to a very undefined situation. Must I respect those opinions? Must I yield to those opinions if they come with the weight, not of one Dominion, but of three or four Dominions, even against my own? Is that enough? Opinions expressed at the end of a very, very long cable are net negotiations, are not exchanges of opinion, and the whole question opens up whether it is possible —not only possible; if that were all, I should be a little more content to let things drift—but whether it is necessary to supplement information by creating a contact which comes nearer to a sharing of obligations I, therefore, think that, without much delay, if we are going to enter into any further negotiations that will commit either the honour or the resources of the Empire, that these Resolutions should be made the subject of a very careful inquiry by constitutional representatives of the Dominions as well as ourselves—representatives of the Dominions, constitutional authorities, men who have had experience of government, and experience of constitutional working, sitting with us as a sort of specialised sub-committee, or committees of the Imperial Conference, that will explore with the authorities here—with all our experience of the difficulties of conducting foreign affairs—to see if we cannot make some of these provisions a little more definite than they are, so as to remove all misunderstandings.

There is one thing more we must ask for, and must not forget—my hon. Friend opposite mentioned it—and that is, it is essential we should have the power of rapid decision. I could give at least three important illustrations of this from my own very, very brief experience. Perhaps I had better riot, but on three important occasions it was very necessary I should take my courage in my hands, and risk the consequences, and say, "That is our decision" and on each occasion the events justified the action taken. But that must be safeguarded. The whole question is now, after the War, new conditions have come in, and there has been a tremendous change in the minds of the Dominions, made by what is known as the Chanak telegram. They will never go back on that—we have evidence of it every week. That marked a decisive change in the intellectual and sympathetic relations between the Dominions and ourselves, and it called for the creation of a machine, because, to a very large extent, confidence had been destroyed. I repeat it not only here, but I daresay this will go outside. I make no proposal. I do not commit myself to this, but, in order to satisfy the House that His Majesty's Government are not overlooking what really may very rapidly develop into a situation that is almost impossible, I wish to assure the. House, by making that statement, we are not overlooking the matter. Of course, before anything is done of a definite character, I shall communicate these ideas to the House in a snore definite form, but I am sure whoever goes to the Foreign Office, and is responsible for the foreign policy of this country, must go back to these Resolutions, and develop them as far as possible.

I think the House will agree that this Debate has been justified, if only by the statement of the Prime Minister that the procedure which was adopted in relation to the Lausanne Treaty vis-à-vis the Dominions, is not going to be adopted, at least by the Dominion; in future negotiations of this kind. It is a vital matter. It is not denied by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. McNeill). The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) made a long attack on Lord Curzon. He said a great many things, but he did not deny that a mistake had been made on this occasion. The late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs defended this procedure. The Prime Minister has repudiated the procedure.

I never defended it. What I defended was, and contend now was done, was putting the whole position before the Dominion; and asking for their opinion. As I have been accused of not reading the Papers, may I call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to this paragraph, in the very first telegram that was sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor-General of Canada, after the paragraph to which exception has been taken, setting out the agreement which had been come to with the Allies—

"His Majesty's Government trusts that this procedure will be in accordance with, wishes of your Government."

That was definitely asking for their views upon this procedure. The hon. and gallant Member may, or may not, say that that purpose was carried out, but it is that procedure which I have defended, and nothing else.

The right hon. Gentleman attempts to make out that an intimation to the Dominions by Lord Curzon—because he was the person responsible—that we had entered into an agreement with our Allies that two plenipotentiaries should be appointed was an invitation to them to appoint representatives to take part in the negotiations. It was nothing of the kind. The right hon. Member goes on to pretend that the procedure in the case of Lausanne was the same as the procedure in the matters of the other three Treaties, but Mr. Mackenzie King repudiates that view. After all, the important thing in this Debate is not our view of what Mr. King should think, but what Mr. King does think. That is the material point. The important thing is that the opinion of the Prime Minister of Canada is that the Resolutions of the Imperial Conference regarding the Treaties, in which all the Empire was concerned, were not observed in this case.

The hon. Member for Stafford told us perfectly truly that all parts of the Empire were inter-dependent in this matter. Is that not an argument for persuading the Dominions to come in and participate, and assume an obligation? He repudiates the procedure in this matter. I am not surprised, because his vigorous criticism of Lord Curzon has been constant and very convincing. There was one contribution to this Debate which really must not be overlooked, and that was a contribution made by the right hon Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain). We are talking about the foundations of the British Commonwealth, and we allege that those foundations are these: that we spread among people of the British race in various parts of the world where they settle, the same principles of government, the same liberty and freedom that we enjoy ourselves. That is what the Debate is about to-day—whether this freedom is to take place, or whether Lord Curzon is to govern the Empire without participation by its representations. That is the point. That is the essential division between the Liberal and the Tory view of the Empire.

We believe that the basis of Empire is the spread of liberty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has got his basis of Empire on 33⅓ per cent.: that is his conception. His conception is by conciliating some petty material interests in the Dominions you bind together the Empire. He cannot conciliate the major material interests—not even by putting a tax upon food and materials in this country. That is their conception of the problem. Our conception is different—the spread of liberty the giving to our own race the same freedom that we ourselves enjoy. That is a conception opposed to tariffs. I can remember on two occasions that support our view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) is one of the Empire builders. What was his view and the view of his Leaders when it was a matter of giving liberty to South Africa. His then Leader in this House, now Earl Balfour, opposed the grant of a Constitution to South Africa! What has the right hon. Gentleman himself done in the matter of Ireland? For years he kept his feet upon the neck of Ireland. He was a physical force man. He was one of those Constitutionalists who threatened to take up arms, assisted to set up a provisional Government in Ulster, and assisted other men that opposed the British Government in Ireland.

As a matter of history, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember the grant of the Lyttleton Constitution which was proposed by the same party for South Africa

What would have been the result if the Lyttleton Constitution had been left? Do hon. Gentlemen suppose that when the War broke out there would have been the demonstrations of loyalty and help that we had? My final point is that this Debate brings out two conceptions of Empire—this is not an attack upon the Government—it is too late now to destroy the Treaty of Lausanne. It is the presentation of the two conceptions of Empire. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that the Empire is to be founded upon tariff we reply that the true foundation of Empire is liberty.

I desire to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India one or two questions about a state of affairs which, in some respects, is of equal, if not of greater importance to that which we have just been discussing. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has referred to the attitude of those who sit on this side of the House towards Imperial questions. I am about to deal with matters vitally affecting India, but I take the liberty to say to him that in my deliberate opinion, had the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his attitude towards, on the one hand Greece, and on the other hand Turkey, been carried to its logical conclusion by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had remained in office it would have gone a. long way towards making the problem of the Government of India absolutely impossible. I say now from my official experience at the India. Office that there is no name of any statesman in this country more universally mistrusted throughout India than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, or whose policy is believed to be more disastrous to the relations between India and this country.

I desire to raise two matters of which I have given notice. I wish also to refer to another matter which has occurred since I gave notice. The first is the letter which was recently written by the Secretary of State to the Indian Swarajist, Mr. S. Satyamurti; secondly, the terms of reference of the Committee appointed by the Government to inquire into the machinery and working of the Act of 1919. There is a third point. Has the attention of the Secretary of State been directed to the very serious action recently taken, in fact within the last week, by one of the branches of the so-called National Congress of India in passing a resolution which is in effect a direct condonation of murder? I do not propose in the brief remarks which I am about to make to deal with the Lee Commission Report, which is too big a subject to discuss at the fag end of an adjournment debate. If it is to be discussed here at all, the opportunity should be given for it to be discussed fully.

The first matter to which I have to refer is, as I have said, the letter written by the Secretary of State to a Swarajist member of the Madras Council. I propose only to say a word, for the question was, I think, as satisfactorily disposed of as could be by the Debate which took place in another place, and which, of course, it is not in order for me to refer to this afternoon. I should like, however, to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary, to give the House an assurance that in future the ordinary procedure will be rigidly observed in communicating the views of the Secretary of State to the people of India, that is through the Viceroy and the Government of India. The Under-Secretary of State has shown in his answers to questions a most meticulous care to avoid giving any information which would embarrass the Government of India, himself, or any other person, and it is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will in future follow the example of his Under-Secretary, and refrain from polite letter-writing to Swarajist gentlemen in India. I think that is all I need say on what I think the House generally will agree is a somewhat unhappy incident.

I come to the second matter, that is, what will be the exact scope of the work which is to be done by the second of the two Committees of inquiry which has been appointed by the Government of India? I have carefully read the two statements which have been made on the subject by Sir Malcolm Halley in the Indian Assembly and I am bound to say though Sir Malcolm's statements are generally characterised by clearness there is a certain ambiguity that I am anxious to see cleared up by the Under-Secretary. Sir Malcolm, speaking on 8th February of this year, in the legislative assembly at Delhi, said that the Government:

"Would undertake an official examination of the defects in the working of the present machinery, which, unfortunately, had not been given a proper chance. The proposed inquiry would aim at removing the difficulties revealed in the working of the Act, but it would not be an inquiry intended to alter the framework of the policy of the Act."

Speaking on 18th February Sir Malcolm said—

"Speaking with the full authority of the British. Government—"

which was a rather curious phrase to use in the Indian Assembly, and of rather special significance—

"that the Government held to its general position as stated in his speech of last Friday week. Before His Majesty's Government would be able to consider the Amendment of the Constitution, as distinct from Amendments of the Act to rectify imperfections of administration, there must be a firm investigation of the defects and difficulties which have arisen in the working of the transitional constitution. The British people was not lightly inclined to consider changes in. the British Constitution laid down by Parliament in 1919 after the fullest consideration."

I do not know whether those words were intended to be a sort of sop to the Swarajists, but they seem to contemplate that these two Committees, the second of which has recently been appointed, are both merely preliminary, and that there is some possibility of further steps being taken by the Government of India or by His Majesty's Government to consider the amendment of the Constitution as distinct from the amendment of the Act. The statement I have just quoted contains the words:

"Before His Majesty's Government would be able to consider the amendment of the Constitution."

I would like to point out that by the appointment of this Committee the danger is of a predetermination by the Committee of what it hill be the duty of the Statutory Commission to decide in 1929. After all, the period between now and 1929 is only five years, a very short period in the history of the working of a constitution. I think I am entitled to ask the Under-Secretary for an unequivocal assurance that what we on this side have hitherto understood to be the pledged undertaking of the Government will be adhered to, and that is that the first stage of the reforms ending in 1930 will be carried out as this House determined they should be in the 1919 Act without either acceleration or retardation. It is important that we should be assured that this very short testing period will be adhered to.

I will make two qualifications to the assurance which I have just sought. First of all, if it can be shown that there are defects in the working machinery of the Act which can be remedied without affecting in any degree the principle of the Act, or altering the rate of progress laid down in it, then I think it can legitimately be done. If that is all the Government of India and the Government of this country have in mind in the formation of this Committee, then I think no one on this side will have any objection. I think, however, that we do need an assurance on that point, more especially in view of tie pressure which is being put on the Government from various quarters to alter the whole basis of the working of the Act.

The other qualification I would make is that if the Swarajists by their action make the Act unworkable then its prin ciples may have to be altered before 1930, although such an alteration, if we on this side of the House can prevent it, will certainly not be in the direction of giving the Assembly and the Councils greater power or abating one jot the protection which this House, through the Secretary of State and the Government of India. gives to the helpless minorities and the depressed classes of India against some of those who would, if there was a great devolution of power, be in a position to exercise over them a control which in the past we have always done our best to prevent. That is all I wish to say on that point except to make this further observation that by far the best way for the Government to deal with the undoubtedly difficult situation with which they are faced in India—I do not think it is more difficult than it was three or four years ago, and apart from purely political agitation I think the state of India has been better both under the present Government and the late Government than it was three or four years ago—would be to dispose of all the rumours, threats and rumblings one hears, and say more firmly than has yet been said by the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State for: India that this Government, like their predecessors, do not intend to be deflected from the course laid down by the 1919 Act by pressure either from the right or from the left, and that they intend to carry out the Act of 1919 to the best of their ability. While. I do not see, any great objection to these committees of inquiry with the qualifications I have indicated, I do fear the effect of them may be to instil into the minds of those who have to work the Act in India, both European official so and others who are now well disposed towards the Act, a feeling of doubt and uncertainty, and it may cause them to ask are the Government going to adhere to the policy laid down by previous Governments or not? I do not wish to press the Under-Secretary further on that point, and if he will give us an assurance that what is taking place is merely an inquiry that will be satisfactory.

I wish now to say that I regard as a very serious symptom indeed of corruption of one portion of the body politic in India, and I think it is only a limited portion, the action of the Bengal Branch of the National Congress in passing a resolution which condoned the murder of a perfectly innocent Englishman, Mr. Day, who had no connection whatever with politics. I think that is one of the most, infamous actions ever taken by any body of people who had the smallest pretence to responsibility in any part of the Empire. While I have heard in the past of attempts being made in debate not to condone but to find reasons for certain events of violence in other parts of the Empire as was the case in Ireland, everyone knows that it would be inconceivable that any Member of this House could ever get up and condone the murder of a perfectly innocent man by a fanatic in India, on the ground that the murderer in some obscure way was helping the cause of the Swarajists in India. The responsibility rests with the Government of Bengal and the Government of India, and in a lesser degree with His Majesty's Government, and I do not know what action they are going to take, but I hardly think that an incident of that kind can be ignored.

The serious feature is that this Congress is mainly composed of the Dasite Party, and to judge by the reports, Mr. Das has succeeded in making himself one of the most powerful personalities in India, and has taken up largely in India the position occupied by Mr. Ghandi. Every one of those who voted for this Resolution in the Bengal National Congress were Swarajists and the vast majority of them were the pledged followers of Mr. Das. I do not know whether Mr. Das was at the Conference, but he was privy to what occurred. He is not only one of the most prominent politicians in India, but he is also Mayor of Calcutta, and he was approached by the present Governor of Bengal three or four months ago—I do not quarrel with the Governor's action—and asked whether he would become a Minister. It is the followers of Mr. Das who have passed this infamous resolution, a resolution which, serious enough in this country in the possible effect it might have, is trebly, quadruply and one hundred times more serious in India, where it might have the result of instigation to the murder of Europeans and loyal Indians.

It looks as if we have approached the parting of the ways in this matter, and as if it was necessary for the local government of Bengal, or through the direct action of the Government of India to take steps that will prevent a continuance of this sort of thing. I am not advocating anything in the nature of Diehard methods. I have always resisted the pressure from Members of my own party to take strong action where it was not justified. I am in every sense of the word a Moderate in these matters, but I do not believe that in any section of the House there would be any abjection to the Government taking legal action against people who advocate murder in a highly inflammable province such as the Province of Bengal. My own view is that the difficulty in India to-day is far more largely a difficulty confined to a certain number of politicians, and the difficulty of maintaining law and order is again a matter of dealing with a comparatively small section of a very large population. In the years from 1919 to 1922 the difficulty was much greater. You had a large mass of the population greatly inflamed against Government, and I fear greatly inflamed against Europeans qua Europeans. That was the case in those years. I doubt if that is true of the state of affairs to-day. I am glad—I heave heard it, from many quarters—that the attitude of Indians generally towards Government, towards Europeans, is better than it was in the critical years of 1920 and 1921.

But there are not wanting people in India to-day who would do everything they could, and perhaps go so far as to risk their own lives in the doing of it., to bring India back to the state of turmoil and danger in which she was in those years; and there are not wanting people in Bengal who would like to see that province return to the unhappy state of affairs that existed, I think in 1908 or 1909, when what I call the bomb and revolver methods of political persuasion were indulged in by, a section of the population. Speaking with responsibility, as anyone must who has been Under-Secretary of State for India or who has been connected in any way with the administration of India, I say that if it can be shown that Mr. Das or any other of the prominent Swarajist politicians of Bengal or India are privy to this movement of violence of which this Congress Resolution appears to be a symptom, and which seems to link up the Congress indissolubly with the people whose methods are those of the bomb and the revolver—if it can be shown that they are privy to or have instigated such a movement, I trust that this Government will not have any hesitation, in spite of the injudicious attitude of some of their supporters when they were private Members, in putting the whole machinery of the law into operation. If, following this abominable action of this Bengal Congress, there is an outbreak of political murder in India, both the Government of India and this Government will have very serious responsibility on their shoulders if they have not meanwhile taken steps to deal with those who instigated it.

I would like in the first place to express my gratitude to the Noble Lord for bringing on this Debate about India. The whole problem is so important, that we cannot discuss the question with sufficient frequency in this House. It has been a sorrow to me as an old Government of India servant, and as one very interested in Indian affairs, that we have had only very scrappy debates on this subject during the Whole of this Parliament. Therefore, we owe a very great debt of gratitude to any Member who goes out of his way to start a discussion on this question. To-day I have found myself more in agreement with the Noble Lord who has just spoken than I found myself on a former occasion when he spoke on Indian questions. I agree with all that he says about the resolution passed by the Bengal branch of the National Congress. I think it is very important that we should definitely realise that certain conditions existed in the past in Bengal, and that it is absolutely essential, if they recur, that more or less similar action should be taken to put down these murder gangs in the interests of the whole of the people in that province. The Noble Lord referred to another thing which I believe is a fact. My information goes to show that the conditions in India generally are very much better than they were in 1919, 1920 and 1921. I believe that on the whole things are progressing. I think the attitude of the Noble Lord to-day was much more reasonable than in a former debate. He has told us that he is not in any way a Die-hard, but is essentially moderate. His moderateness always seems to me to be of a very Die-hard variety. I cannot agree with the attitude of mind which he brings to this problem. As to the broad facts of the problem there will be no dispute. I agree with everything that was put forward by an hon. Member opposite on a previous occasion, about the very great complexity of the problem, due to the enormous area of India, the enormous number of the races in India, and the very great divisions resulting from religion, caste and all that kind of thing. There is no dispute about that. There is another very important fact we must keep in mind and it is the trend of political progress in India during the last 20 or 30 years. You must keep that in mind while considering the material facts which go to complicate the situation. The issue to-day is merely between those who seem more or less to want to stand fast or to go too slowly, and those who are prepared to go very much faster than we are doing at the present moment. I would like to suggest to the Noble Lord that this is where is seems to me, after quite a large experience in India and the East, that he gets wrong. It is in not understanding that this is really a psychological problem. It is all very well to deal with it from administrative areas like Downing-Street or the India Office, but we want to get down to understand what the Indian people are feeling on this question.

I am sorry the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) is not here to-day. On a previous occasion he made a speech for which he was taken seriously to task by the noble lord, but I agreed with everything said by the hon. Member for Taunton on that occasion. You have to remember that things have been moving very fast not only in India but all over Asia during the last 20 years, and, therefore, I suggest that at the present moment we are faced with a problem which is largely psychological. The difficulties are enormous. You have a position of affairs at the present moment in which people are disgruntled. They won't listen to your talk. When you are thinking of the Indian problem you must not concentrate too much on India alone: it is necessary to look at the whole of Asia. One can look back at periods in history and point to certain events which proved to be turning points in particular centuries. I should like to ask the House—and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) will probably agree with me—to remember that there is one great milestone which can be marked down in this century, and that is the Russo-Japanese War. Up to that time practically the whole of Asia has been dominated by the West, but the Russo-Japanese War demonstrated that an Eastern Power was capable, by organisation, of bringing down a first-class Western Power. That turned the whole problem of the East, and after that you saw an entirely different look come into men's eyes. They did not know exactly what they wanted, but they walked better, they looked better, and they stood more upright because they felt there was a chance after all of proving that they were men just as much as the people in the West. Therefore I would ask hon. Members to take into their consideration the fact that from the Russo-Japanese War arose a ferment which has been spreading rapidly all over Asia. You can trace it in most recent movements. In China, Persia and Turkey it has been progressing rapidly. Most of the people cannot describe what they want, but they know it is something which they call "running their own affairs." This ferment is acting very strongly, and it is getting much more difficult to deal with. It has really brought us up against this trouble in India. It was moving so rapidly that we in this country did not realise how quickly it was progressing, and, as a result of that, there were actions taken by this country and by the Government of India due to a want of understanding, to a lack of imagination, to a want of ability to see what was happening in people's minds

If the House will allow me for a minute or two, I would like to put before it an idea gained from personal experience of the problem of the non-co-operative movement. If the House could only get into the Indian mind and see what really brought on this non-co-operation movement I think it would realise that there is a good deal of ground for Indian grievances. What happened was this. The reforms were more or less wrecked by the Rowlatt Bill. It was more or less an accident that the two things were running together. The Montagu Report was published in July, 1918, and very shortly afterwards the Rowlatt Committee published their Report. During the whole of the cold weather, up to February, the people were interested in that Report. They were agitating more and more during that period, but I do not believe there was any intention of finally non-cooperating. In February they found that the Government had brought forward a Bill based on the Rowlatt Committee's Report. To the Indians the Measure was very repugnant. They saw that the Government were going to press forward a Bill to give them certain reforms and that these reforms were offered to them as a reward for what they had done in the War. When the Bill was brought before the Imperial Legislature the Indian Members unanimously implored the Government not to proceed with it. They said, "We do not dispute the facts or findings of the Rowlatt Committee, we admit that these things occurred in Bengal "—and it was particularly in connection with what did occur in Bengal that the Rowlatt Committee came into existence" but we implore you to size up the general situation. We have difficulties in the country. We are trying to help you with your reforms, but if you insist on pushing this Bill through against our unanimous appeal it will make the position almost impossible for us in the country." I was in India at the time and they put a point which appealed to me on the ground that it was almost unanswerable. They said two years ago, when the British Empire was in great financial difficulties, and you did not know what was going to happen, you appealed to us for financial aid. You said, "We recognise you have done so well in the War and you are so thoroughly loyal, that we are not going to force you to contribute but we will leave it to a free vote of the Assembly." The vote was, I believe, unanimous', exception being taken to it by only one speaker. They voted off their own bat a contribution of £100,000,000 towards the assistance of this country in the War.

They brought that to the mind of the Government, and they sad, "You did that when you were in great difficulties. Now that the danger is over, and you feel you have got us again, now, when we similarly implore you unanimously not to pass this, you absolutely go against us, you do not consider us at all, and you are going to force this Bill upon us." Moreover, they said, "A great deal of this crime for which the Rowlatt Bill was needed was due to the fact that we had no self-government at all. We believe that, if you do not force the Rowlatt Act, the mere reforms themselves will eliminate a great deal of this crime." But, they said, "We promise you that, if our forecast is not correct, and if these crimes do recur, if you then come before us and ask us for the powers of the Rowlatt Bill, we will pass them in a, day." I submit, and I said so at the time, that that was a. fair contention, and I think it showed very great want of imagination on the part of the Government of India in forcing that Bill through against them.

That, obviously, was a question which did affect the whole of the people of India, and especially the intelligent people, very much, and this was where Mr. Gandhi came in. He said, "This is a test process, and if you really do force this through against the unanimous desire of our Members in the Legislature, I and my friends will definitely refuse to cooperate." I said at the time that T thought the Indian Government ought have gambled and not passed it, but, anyhow, they passed it, and that really, in my opinion—and it is confirmed by what ninny Indians have told me—was the start of non-co-operation, Amritsar, and all the other conditions which have followed from it. I think most hon. Members will admit that at any rate Indians had a grievance: Considering what they had done in the War, and the fact that they had voted this very large sum from India on a free vote of themselves in the Assembly, to be then treated like this when the danger was over would, I think, have made most of us act in exactly the same way as the Indians have acted.

I should like to suggest to the House that we are now at a point where, if we only exercise our imagination, we can get on terms again with the Indian people. I think we ought to live dangerously and gamble again. I think we ought to advance so rapidly that we should put the Indians themselves up against the difficulties of the situation The difficulties of Dominion Government in India are enormous, but, as long as you keep refusing them any further advance, you will never get them into the mental attitude where they will sit down and discuss these troubles with you reasonably. My own feeling is that it would be better to risk whatever disorder might occur while the Central Government is strong, while you control the Army, and to give them the very largest measure which is possible of self-government in the Provinces, and even in the Central Government. I feel sure, and many advanced Indians agree with me, that I am correct in this, that the difficulties inherent in the problem are so great that, when they come up against them, they will then have to turn to us and ask for our assistance. The trouble is at the present moment that we are forcing our asistance upon them, and, therefore, they will not listen. I think it is only consistent with our own knowledge of human nature that, if you can only convert them into the attitude of needing you—because I am quite sure that they will need us—it will be well worth any trouble or disorders which may occur in the process of getting to that position.

Hon. Members opposite seem to be afraid of any conference, but personally I am not afraid, because the situation out there is so very complex that it will be quite impossible for Indians themselves to suggest or frame any Constitution which will not be considered a very moderate Constitution, even by hon. Members opposite. I feel very sure of that, and, therefore, I think the Secretary of State is pursuing a perfectly sound policy in going just as far as he can at the present moment along those lines of conference. I think it would be a very great mistake if he were to take the course suggested by the Noble Lord of laying down a hard-and-fast line that we are not going to do anything till 1928, or 1929, or whatever the date is. You cannot dogmatise and say that things will only move at a certain rate every year Things out there are moving faster and faster, and what you want to do is to try and get ahead of the times. I say, therefore, that, the criticisms—or, rather, they were hardly criticisms, but mainly questions put by the Noble Lord referring to the action of the Secretary of State—are not sound; that the policy which is being pursued at the present moment of getting into as close touch, whether by letters, by conferences, or by any other means, with representative Indians, is a sound policy. As I have said, I believe the problem at the moment is mainly psychological, and what you have to do is to convert them from this attitude of disgruntlement into an attitude where they are prepared to talk reasonably and discuss the difficulties. To get into that position, I believe it is worth taking risks, and, therefore, I thoroughly approve of the policy which is being pursued at the present moment by the Secretary of State.

I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the last speaker on the very interesting contribution that he has made to this Debate. It is unfortunate that, at those times when we do get an opportunity of discussing the all-important matters which concern India, we are usually treated to one point of view only in this House. We have had no general Debate, and there has been no opportunity for the expression of opinions from all sides; but when to-clay we get such a contribution from a member who has spent many years in India, it is moat valuable, and it shows that there are many points of view in the House that have not yet been expressed. I propose to confine my own remarks to three points that have been raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The first is the question of the unfortunate letter that was published, wirtten by the Secretary of State to an Indian gentleman. It was considered of such importance by the Secretary of State himself that he debated the matter for 55 minutes in another place. He evidently looked upon it as an important matter, and, of course, it is not for me to deal with his explanation, but I should like to refer to that matter at a little greater length than the Noble Lord did, because I do think that the trouble that has arisen, and especially the newspaper controversy that has arisen in India as the result of the publication of that letter, marks the Indian point of view on the policy of the present Government.

We know that the Labour party, before they undertook the responsibilities of office, had a most advanced policy as regards India. They openly proclaimed that they were in favour of Home Rule for India. Promises to an Indian are sacred. An Indian has a different way of looking at the spoken word from that which, possibly, we have here in the West. He looks upon these things as coming with full authority from people who intend to carry them out to the very letter when they have the opportunity, and I am not in the least surprised that the people of India have been greatly disappointed by what has occurred since the present Government took office. Their promises have not been carried out. They appeared at one time as if they intended to come out with a forward policy, but pressure was brought to bear upon them and they hesitated; and they are still hesitating to announce what their real policy regarding India is. That is misunderstood in India and it is more misunderstood still when promises, or suggestions of promises, are made in private correspondence by a person of the standing of the Secretary of State. I think the Government would be wise if they would come forward, before the House rises for the Autumn Recess, with a statement of policy much more definite than they have made at present. I suggest that when they come to frame that policy they should first of all bear in mind the promises which have been made to India in the past and that they should take measures to carry out those promises to the very letter, because it is the letter of a promise that the Indian mind understands, and that whilst agreeing to carry out those promises to the very letter they should be very careful that on no account should new promises he made until we have redeemed those which have been made in the past. That is the position as I view it, and it will give the present Government plenty of work, if their term of office extends for several years, to redeem those promises.

I should like to refer to two of the most definite of those promises because we are apt to forget these things. I will start with the the statement. of Mr. Montagu. then Secretary of State fol. India. in August. 1917, when he made that very weighty statement with full deliberation in the middle of the War, at a time when Indian troops were fighting side by side with us and India was putting up vast stuns of money to assist us in our tame of danger. Mr. 'Montagu said:

"The policy of His Majesty's Government, will, which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Government."

He went on to say:

"This latter policy can only he achieved by successive stages. The British Government and the Government of India must be the judges of the time and measure of each advance and they must be guided by the cooperation received from those upon whom new opportunities of service will thus be conferred and upon the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility."

Seeing that that was put out at the same time as the pronouncement of policy was put out, the people of India cannot say they were under any misunderstanding as to the manner in which the reforms were going to he carried out. The question now is, do the Government of India and the British Government in co-operation think that the time has come when there should he a further advance. We are told, and the suggestion has been made again by the Noble Lord to-day, that we have got to wait till 1929 before this question of further reforms can be reopened. I welcome this appointment of a Committee which is going to inquire into the possibilities of reform straight away. I hope after that Committee has reported, which, I understand, may be within two months from now, the Government will take further steps to deal with all matters that they think should be dealt with at once, because it is inconceivable to think that we are going to drift on for another five years with the present state of things in India. Non-co-operation with the Government has assumed serious dimensions. Great harm has been done to the country by the refusal of the Budget in the Legislative Assembly. But at the same time we have to recognise that it has always been announced in the British Parliament for hundreds of years that one weapon that the representatives of the people had was to refuse Supply if they thought their grievances had not been redressed. In that respect the Swaraj party in the Assembly were perfectly constitutional in their method of action, but the sting was taken out of their action when it is recognised that they knew all the time that there was other machinery which would carry on the Government of the country. So it was not defending the last ditch that they were doing. It may have been a gesture to show what they could do, but it was not the final act. The final act has harmed the country, and that is where the danger comes in in the future. There was a surplus in this Budget. It was a very good Budget for the welfare of the country. There was a surplus which was to be applied partly in reduction of he amounts which were to be paid to the Central Government by the Provinces, and through this Budget not being passed, the Provinces have lost that advantage which they would have had, and the consequence is that they have not had this surplus to spend on education and on the welfare of the Provinces generally.

May I refer again to these promises which have been made? It seems sometimes when we are listening to speakers on the other side of the House that the very word "Swaraj" is objectionable to them, and that they are opposed to anyone who is going to voice this policy of Swaraj, which simply means, I understand, self rule for India. On 21st February, 1921, the Duke of Connaught opened the First Legislative Assembly at Delhi, and on behalf of His Majesty made the following speech to that Assembly:

"For years, it may he for generations, patriotic and loyal Indians have dreamed of Swaraj for their Motherland. To-day you have the beginnings of Swaraj within my Empire and wide scope and ample opportunity for progress to the liberty which my other Dominions enjoy."

I have spoken already of the great value that the Indian mind puts upon the words of people in an important position like the Secretary of State. But far more have they always been encouraged to take heed of the message their King Emperor sends them. Therefore, I think we must recognise that there has only been a forward movement. I am utterly opposed to the idea that the Government should be stampeded by any wild agitation in the matter, but to sit still and do nothing is the most dangerous thing they can possibly do at present. They must make up their mind what their next step is going to be, and I hope they will make that step the early appointment of the Royal Commission under the Act of 1919. It may be argued that it cannot he done. The suggestion has been made that it cannot be done. In this House, when Mr. Montagu was introducing the Government of India Act, and the matter was being discussed in Committee. he stated quite plainly that Clause 41 does not tie the hands of Parliament in any way whatever. There could always be a Commission appointed in the interim. I might say, too, there must be a Commission appointed at the end of 10 years. The House knew perfectly well what it was doing when it passed Clause 41. and the Government need have no hesitation to appoint that Commission if they think the time has come when an alteration of the law is absolutely essential.

The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham referred to the Resolution which has been passed by the Bengal branch of the National Convention. He used strong words in connection with that Resolution. I have not had the advantage of reading it and I will accept his explanation that the effect of it is more or less to condone an act of murder. It is not wise to bring up this question. We have a proverb that the pot should not call the kettle black. We have seen what happened in Ireland, where one form of violence has led to another, and to-day of all days the Indian nation has before it some grave matters of importance in connection with the unfortunate violence which was used on our behalf at Amritsar. It is a most unfortunate occasion to have chosen to bring up this matter. The Indians have not forgotten that there was one case where 20 Sikhs were shot down and killed, and 30 wounded. They know perfectly well in India that during the recent strikes in Bombay many people were shot down in the streets. Amongst al/ the others, stands the horror of Amritsar, where the men who were wounded were not allowed to be touched, but were left there lying all night. Now, this matter is brought up the day after a Judge in an English Court has seen fit to condone cases of violence of that sort.

I think the House—

On a point of Order. Does this close the Debate on India?

Mr. Speaker has arranged a Schedule, as many hon. Members wish to raise topics. I presume this will finish the Debate on India.

I will make my protest when Mr. Speaker is here.

I think the House is exceedingly fortunate that on the last two occasions when Indian matters were being discussed we have had such well-informed speeches on the present conditions in India as we have had the pleasure of listening to to-day. It is not my intention to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I will endeavour to reply to some of the points raised by the Noble Lord who opened the Debate. He referred to the Resolution of the Bengal Branch of the National Congress of India. I know nothing of that Resolution beyond what has appeared in the newspapers, but I would like to remind the Noble Lord that the Sevany is essentially a pacific party. That is to say, the objective in view is chat they call a nonviolent and non-co-operative movement.

Does that apply to the party led by Mr. C. R. Das?

It does, in common with the rest of the party led by Mr. Gandhi, and I should be much surprised if there was any connection between the Bengal movement to which the Noble Lord referred and the constitutional party. It is a constitutional party in common with Liberals, Moderates and Independents. It is a party that is working for Home Rule in India. The distinguishing feature between it and the other parties is the speed at which it would like to advance in the direction of Home Rule, but, essentially, it is a purely constitutional party. The reforms that are being suggested, that is to say, the investigations, have been advocated by the Government of India itself. That is, by the men who have been attempting hitherto to work this particular piece of machinery. It is because the Government of India and the Provincial Governments feel that there is a difficulty in carrying out the provisions of the 1919 Act that they have instituted this inquiry into the working of the Act.

Perhaps the best way in which I could reply to the questions put to me by the Noble Lord, would be to cover very shortly the ground that led up to the appointment of this Committee. The first point we have to remember is that on the 18th February this year a Resolution was carried in the Assembly recommending a revision of the Government of India Act, with a view to establishing full responsible Government, and for the purpose of summoning a round table conference to frame a new constitution, with a view to its ultimate enactment by Parliament. That Resolution was carried in a perfectly constitutional fashion in the Assembly by a majority of 76 to 48. In the course of that Debate, two important speeches were delivered by the leader of the Government, Sir M. Hailey. I will read rather longer extracts from those two speeches than were read by the Noble Lord:

"Now for the action we propose to take. We do not limit ourselves to demanding that the system should be further tested. We propose to make a serious attempt to investigate justifiable complaints against the working of the scheme in practice—"

He was speaking on behalf of the people who were attempting to work the machinery—

"to assess the causes, and to examine the remedies necessary. We claim that this must precede any general inquiry into the policy and scheme of the Act, or general advance within the Act itself. In investigating these difficulties and defects in the actual working of the present system, we shall consult the local Governments on the subject, and we shall not close our ears to representations from outside. It may be that the remedy for these difficulties will be found by using, rules making the power within the Act: I refer to the utilisation of those Sections to which reference is so often made, 19A, 45A, and 96D. It may even be—I can say nothing as to this—that the inquiry may show that some changes are required in the structure of the Act in order to rectify the definite and ascertained defects experienced in the actual working."

In a speech ten days later, he said:

"We have again considered the position very carefully, and I am anxious to emphasise that in what I say I speak with the full authority of His Majesty's Government. We still hold to the general position I took up on behalf of the Government. Before His Majesty's Government are able to consider the question of amending the constitution, as distinct from such Amendment of the Act as may be required to rectify any administrative imperfections, there must be full investigation of any defects or difficulties which may hare arisen in the working of the transitional constitution now in force. Neither they nor we would be justified in considering changes in that constitution unless they were in possession of full information which our investigations will place in our hands. In 1919, Parliament, after the fullest consideration, laid down a scheme transitional in its nature, but, nevertheless, carefully devised with a view to effecting steps necessary for progressive realisation of ideals embodied in the Preamble of the Act. It is not to be supposed that the British people would be lightly inclined to consider a change in that constitution, and it is bound to concentrate attention for the present on such imperfections in working as may have been disclosed by the experience of the last three vears. I said that we have carefully reconsidered the general position and we hold to the precise attitude which I then took up. save in one respect. If our inquiries into the defects in the working of the Act show the feasibility and possibility of any advance within the Act, that is to say by use of the rule making power already provided by Parliament under the Statute, we are willing to make recommendations to this effect; but if our inquiries show that no advance is possible without amending the constitution, then the question of advance must be left as an entirely open and separate issue on which the Government is in no way committed. To that extent, the scope of our inquiries goes somewhat beyond that originally assigned to it but I must again emphasise the fact that it does not extend beyond that scope to the Amendment of the Constitution itself."

These facts were printed in full in reply to a question which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on 3rd March.

What have the Government of India done to give effect to the promises made on that occasion? They have started, in the first place, by appointing an official expert committee, consisting of three members of the Gevernor-General's Council and three Secretaries of the Government of India, for the purpose of inquiring into the legal and constitutional potentialities of the situation, and as to whether any advance is possible under the rules framed under the Act or by an Amendment of those rules The second thing they did was to send a circular letter to all the local Governments of India, which are as much concerned in the working of the Act as the Government of India itself, quoting Sir Malcolm Hailey's speeches, and asking them to investigate the difficulties arising from or defects inherent in the working of the In resent transitional constitution, and to see how far the situation could be improved without taking measures so far reaching as to involve fundamental changes in the policy and powers of the Government of India Act.

It was the intention of the Government of India that this official expert Committee should address itself also to an inquiry relating to the Central Government similar to that relating to the local governments, and it had been asked to do so. On receipt from the expert official committee of its preliminary report. on the technical aspect of this question, the Government of India modified their original intention as to the field of its activities and decided to reconstitute the committee by the addition of representatives who were non-officials, and to charge it with a two-fold duty. The first. was to make the investigation which they had originally intended it to make into the defects and the possibilities of removing them within the constitution as affecting the Central Government, and to advise the Government of India accordingly; the second was to consider the reports of the local governments under the constitution as affecting the provinces, and to advise as to the recommendations which should be based thereon.

I think that my hon. Friend, if he will turn up the answer which I gave on the 2nd of June, will find that those terms of reference are taken almost exactly from the speeches that were delivered by Sir Malcolm Hailey, and merely reproduce under appropriate heads and categories the scope, purpose and limits of the inquiry. as indicated in the first instance by Sir Malcolm Hailey at the beginning of February. That is to say, the terms and the scope of the inquiry that is being conducted at the present time are exactly those which are outlined by Sir Malcolm Hailey, with this addition, that nonofficial members have been asked to cooperate with the committee in the inquiry that is being conducted at present.

Has the inquiry begun

No. The difficulty is that the personnel of the newly constituted Committee has not been completed yet. But the expert inquiry has been more or less completed.

Have not two members been appointed?

I have seen some reference in the Press, but I have no official information on the point.

I understood that the Committee was in process of being appointed now. It appears to me that there is some hitch in the matter. Why is there this delay in appointing the nonofficial members?

I do not know that there has been any delay. I have seen references in the Press.

Will the Committee sit in private?

I am afraid that I could not answer that without making inquiry. That is the position with regard to this inquiry at the present moment. With regard to the letter of my Noble Friend the Secretary of State to a member of the Swaraji party, I quite agree with the views of the last speaker. We have got to recognise that the Swarajists have been returned to the Assembly in a perfectly constitutional fashion. We have got to recognise also that they form the majority of the members of the Assembly at the present moment. That is, they are in exactly the same position as hon. and right hon. Members opposite. They are His Majesty's Opposition as far as the Legislative Assembly is concerned, and I suggest that when my Noble Friend gets a letter from a member of the Legislative Assembly it is only natural that he should reply to it. In addition, I. would like to point out that the letter contains the well-known views not only of the Secretary of State on the two particular questions to which it refers, closer co-operation with the Swarajists in the working of reforms, and the views, which are held, I believe, by almost every party in this House, with regard to the difficulty of working any real general democratic scheme with the communal system of representation. There is no reference to a change of policy at all. I think that the storm that has been created in connection with that letter was not even a decent storm in a teacup.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I was not objecting to the views expressed in the letter. I asked whether we could have an assurance that in future when a Secretary of State wished to communicate his views on important matters of policy to the Indian people, he should do so, as every previous Secretary of State has done, through the Government of India, and not by means of correspondence with an opposition member of the Madras Assembly.

My answer is that there was no indication of any change of policy at all. If my noble Friend will turn up the Montagu-Chelmsford Report he will find there a condemnation of the communal system of representation.

There has been no change of policy?

I can assure him that on questions of policy the usual practice is followed in every case. This is merely expressing an opinion of the Secretary of State, which was shared by Members of the Noble Lord's party. I do not think that there is anything more than that in that letter. It certainly does riot represent any change of policy on the part of the Secretary of State.

I desire now to raise another matter, which I think the House will regard as urgent, namely, the present condition of London owing to the lightning strike which has developed during the last few hours. This is the third time within the last six months on which London has been subjected to a strike of this character. There was the railway strike in January, there was the tram way men and omnibus men's strike in March, and to-day we have practically the stoppage of the underground service. This is a particularly cruel strike begun at a most inconvenient time, to the great detriment of the mass of the workers of London. I suppose that this strike will not particularly affect Members of this House or Ministers going away, quite properly, for a little vacation, but, quite apart from the question of financial loss and dislocation of industry, it will affect the holiday of the very poorest people in London, and it- is all the more reprehensible because, as I understand, according to the statement of the Minister of Labour yesterday, it is termed a nonofficial strike. London is being held up at present by eight men who apparently have no responsibility to anybody. It is no consolation to the people of London to tell them that this is a non-official strike. It is, perhaps, rather difficult to define what an unofficial strike may be, but I put it to the Minister of Labour that, if this is an unofficial strike without authority, as I understand under Communist direction, then we have a new and a grave danger to the community which will certainly have to be faced and dealt with immediately. This country cannot allow any small body of men to hold up the nation in that fashion and to bring damage and disaster to the community and especially to the workers. The great body of these men, a very large number of whom, I am afraid, have been led away, may have a case, and this House would not be unsympathetic towards any case of any body of workers which may be put forward, but I think that everyone will agree that no case, however good it may be, is furthered by conduct of this kind. I observe that yesterday it was stated in the Labour Press service, which the right hon. Gentleman will understand better than I do, that.

"This strike has been fomented by an unofficial committee dominated by Communist influences, and its mischievous nature can be inferred from the fact that the National Union of Railwaymen's Executive, whose members are chiefly involved, had already undertaken to promote a national all grades' movement, including the shop-men, before the local trouble began."

That, apparently, is the explanation coining from the official Press service of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. Undoubtedly, these men have seized upon the London Electric Railways and they have singled them out because they can be more easily attacked and because, I suppose, they think that their demands can be more easily extorted. There is no pretence that the conditions on the London Electric Railways are different from the conditions on any other railway in the country, and it is very difficult indeed to give any reason except the one that I have indicated why this particular railway, which is used so much by the working-class people of London, and which, were it not for the strike, would be used very extensively by them during the holidays in going to places like Kew and Richmond, that this railway can be more readily attacked. It is only fair, however, to say that the fact that this strike is being engineered by the Communists is repudiated by one of the joint secretaries of the Strike Committee because I see that Mr. Leonard Akehurst stated last night that he repudiated that the strike is Communistic in its origin.

"All the members of the committee"—

he said—

"are loyal members of the National Union of Railwaymen, whose chief desire it is to see that that organisation functions in the interests of its members."

He says:

"I myself am a fitter, and work at the bench in the London Electric Company's workshop, and anyone who wants to know anything about my personal character or conduct as a citizen should apply to my employers."

At any rate, that is the statement of Mr. Akehurst as far as his conduct of the strike is concerned. I must call the attention of the House and of the Minister of Labour to the fact that apparently this strike is by no means confined to London, because I see that in a. report in a paper to-day, which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute, it says:

"On the Great Western Railway, which is involved in the strike, the position is also developing seriously, and it was stated that if a settlement were not arrived at quickly the staff of the Severn Tunnel would take sympathetic action. This would mean that the tunnel would be flooded. The position at some of the South Wales centres may be summed up in the following table of shopmen already known to be out yesterday:

Cardiff	2,800(98 per cent.)
Swansea	400
Meath	400
Barry	400
Port Talbot	100

At Penarth and Dowlais all are out; at Treherbert 55 per cent., with expectations of all being out by midnight. The shopmen at Newport have decided to take no unofficial action. The position at Cardiff Docks is developing seriously, for already the machinery necessary for the import and export trade of the port is becoming affected"—

and so on, giving a long description of the particular position in various other parts of the country, and showing, I venture to say, that the position is a most serious one and deserving not only the consideration of Pm Government but very prompt action indeed. I want to ask the Minister of Labour some questions before we leave for our holiday, if we have to do so. I was hoping that a demand would be made as on a previous occasion by hon. Members opposite that Parliament should not adjourn in the midst of trouble and disaster of this kind, and yet we find the Motion for the Adjournment of the House being made by the Lord Privy Seal. These are the questions which I want to put to the Minister of Labour: Will he state what the Government regard as their exact responsibility in connection with the maintenance of the essential public services of the nation?

The hon. Member is asking me a question. What does he mean exactly by "essential public services"?

I will reply in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because a little time ago, when another strike was in existence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote what he thought were the responsibilities of the Government. The article is entitled:

"Labour Government quickly settles 'bus and tram strike. (By Philip Snowden, M.P.)"

It is dated, London, 9th April,

"Industrial troubles are causing the Labour Government a good deal of embarrassment. The strike of the London 'bus and tramway men threatened to develop into a stoppage of all the services on which the vast population of London have to depend for transport. Faced by such a possibility as this the Government had no option but to take immediate steps either to bring the strike to an end, if that were possible, or to organise some kind of emergency service. It was a disagreeable situation for a Labour Government, but one which had to be faced. The Government had to avoid even the appearance of strike-breaking, but they had an obligation to maintain essential services on which the livelihood of the community depends."

When the right hon. Gentleman asks me what I mean by the question that I have addressed to him, I say that I mean exactly the same as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his own Government. I will only give one concluding quotation from the article by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it largely bears out, the reference that I have made to the suffering and hardship which is being inflicted on the community by wanton and desperate acts of this kind. In the following paragraph, he says:

"Since we assumed office a great deal of our tune has been occupied in dealing with industrial disputes, much to the detriment of the programme of social legislation that we want to carry out."

That is in the May day issue of the "New Leader" of 26th April, 1924. I renew the question to the Minister of Labour as to what steps—within the meaning of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he is going to take to maintain the services of the community at this time? I hope he will not reply in the rather foolish terms in which he replied in the House yesterday, namely, that the Government did not consider that they hail any responsibility in this matter until they were able to introduce a Measure of nationalisation.

I think the House requires that the truth should be known. If the hon. Member will kindly read the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see exactly what I said.

I will read the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. He said:

"In answer to the first question as to what steps the Government are taking to maintain the services, as the railways are not nationalised, obviously it has scarcely become our business yet to maintain those services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1924; col. 1467, Vol. 174.]

That is quite different.

I think it will be accepted by every Member of the House, except by the right hon. Gentleman, that my statement was a perfectly fair interpretation of his answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take steps to protect the men who desire to work?—I observe in one of the leading journals this morning 'that it is already being said that the men who desire to work and to obey the orders of their trade unions are to he declared blacklegs. Does the Minister associate himself with that position, or will he say plainly and directly to the House that men who are 'willing to obey the orders of their trade unions, and who loyally do their best to maintain the services of the country, will be given ample protection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, not now, but later, will consider the legal position as it affects these men who have fomented this trouble, and struck this blow at the community. [Laughter.] Is it not a blow? Do hon. Members laugh at it? I refer the right hon. Gentleman to two Acts of Parliament, one passed in 1875 and the other it 1919. It is provided in the Act of 1875 that where a person employed by a municipal authority, or by any company or contractor upon whom is imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or who has other-wised assumed the duty of supplying gas or water—the 1919 Act extended it to electricity supplies—wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service, knowing that by doing so they will probably deprive the public wholly, or to a great extent, of that supply, that person shall, on conviction, be liable to a penalty laid down in the Act. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to take any steps in that direction?

My final question is, as we have to adjourn to-day, will the Minister undertake that if this condition of affairs develops—as, unfortunately, it seems it may—that he will vigilantly watch and safeguard the interest of the community while the House is not sitting? I say that all the more because I observe—I make no complaint of it, nor do I give any secondary meaning to my words—that Mr. Bramley, the Secretary of the Trade Union Congress, Mr. Cramp, the Industrial Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, and Mr. Bromley, of another important organisation, are all at Vienna at' ending an international congress. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Prime, Minister, if matters develop further, undertake to call the House together at short notice should it be necessary to do so, in order to deal with a serious situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite do not think that this is a matter which amuses London. Anyone who has witnessed the scenes this morning and the suffering imposed upon people, especially upon women endeavouring to get to business, will realise what a cruel and wanton blow at the community this is. I call upon the Minister to tell us how he is fulfilling the great responsibility which he bears at the present moment in connection with his office, and to give us a more satisfactory reply than that which he gave yesterday.

I think it regrettable that hon. Members opposite should couch their interrogations to the Minister in the language which has been used In the long run such language will only engender more bitterness, and may probably extend the dispute. As a matter of fact, while the dispute is unofficial, and has been definitely stated to be unofficial, the gavamen of the case arises from the policy adopted by the friends of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was they, through their organisations, who brought about the very wide disparities in wages between men in the same industry which have led to this trouble. Efforts have been made for years to bring wages into proper alignment in particular industries, and behind all this trouble lies the policy of widening the differences which exist between man and man in a given industry. That policy is reflected in actions such as the present action. No one justifies it; it is an unofficial strike and it must inevitably hit the community; but our Friends opposite are anxious that this Government should do what they always failed to do themselves when in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I speak from experience, because I led one or two strikes during the War in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am not ashamed of it. I fought with the same weapons as those with which you fought me. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should have been at the front."] Some of those Gentlemen would have had their grandmothers at the front sooner than go themselves. You thought more of money making than of that.

Some of them have been there.

And some of them have not. The Coalition Government never tackled these problems in the way in which it is suggested this Government should tackle them. It is a case of being in opposition, and of trying to focus attention on their professed sympathy with the public—who do not need them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That fact is reflected in the return of more Members to this House of a different political faith. If hon. Members opposite will keep off this discussion—though I know they will not, and cannot do so—and if they allow the machinery established to bring about peace to operate, instead of inflaming passions, extending the strike, and embarrassing the men's leaders, this strike would come to an end far sooner than it otherwise would.

The speech to which we have just listened is illuminating. I thought hon. Members opposite posed as the representatives of the workers. I should like the hon. Member to come to my constituency—to Clapham Junction—and try to get into a train there. He would find that this was no laughing matter and no subject for jesting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] You have all been laughing, every one of you. You think it is a laughing matter; we do not. The hon. Member suggests that we bring this forward as a political issue. It is nothing of the sort. We are here to represent the great mass of our constituents, and it is they who suffer in these disputes. I do not take any side in this dispute whatever. All that I desire to do is to ask the Minister of Labour what exactly is going to be the attitude of the Government in this dispute. We heard yesterday a series of questions and answers on the subject, and the answer given by the Minister of Labour did not convince anybody. It did not give any guide to anybody as to what the attitude of the Government would be on this question, and the question to which I want a clear and specific answer is this: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry out the ordinary functions of government, which merely consist, as I see them, not in taking sides in this dispute, but in doing what they can to minimise its sufferings and to minimise its extension wherever they see the chance, and, at any rate, to make it certain that anybody who desires to work will have full and ample protection, not only while he is at work, but—and this is a new phase in industrial disputes—at home, because we have heard now of the picketing of the homes of these men when they go home. If has even been brought back on their kiddies going to school, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well enough.

These sort of things are repudiated, I fancy, by all the more responsible elements in trade unionism, and I do not believe that hon. Members representing the great trade unions of this country countenance that sort of thing for a minute. I say that this is a strike de signed and aimed at London, for the third time, as has been pointed out, this year, holding up the people of this great city to ransom. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and to hon. Members opposite, that no strike can possibly succeed in this country unless it gets public sympathy. Look at the state of affairs on our railways and on our transport services to-day, and they may even become worse. Why should all this intolerable suffering, hardship, and inconvenience be inflicted on the people of this country at the whim of a few men, who merely desire to destroy their trade unions, to repudiate any bargains which the unions may have entered into, and to do irreparable damage whenever they see a chance? They have gone to Lots Road Station, Chelsea, because they know that if they can hold it up, they practically bring to a standstill all the tube railways, most of the tramways, and a great deal else of the public transport undertakings of London. They can deal an immense blow at the community, and, therefore, they go there. That is the Communist doctrine; it is part of the policy of the Communists to call out men in essential industries, key men, wherever they can.

I want to hear from the Government whether they are going to take a firm stand in this matter. I want to know whether they are in earnest, because I am not convinced that they are. If they are, let them tell the House so, but it is a singular fact that this afternoon, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) started to raise this matter as a question of urgency and importance, all that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did was to give a very expansive yawn, which did not impress me as being a moral gesture. Further, the Amalgamated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen have threatened the railway companies with calling out their men if the companies do not agree to meet certain demands, and if they do that they will, as I understand it, commit a definite breach of the Railways Act of 1921. I only want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether we are in any danger of a lightning strike on the railways, as well as on the tube railways of London. think the country has a right to know, and also it has a right to know what the right hon. Gentleman's attitude will be in the matter. It is all very well to have these disputes in industry, and to accuse hon. Members on this side of political motives. I have no political motives. I do not want to take any side in this dispute whatever. I have explained my attitude, and I want a definite and clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman which will convince me that he is in earnest, and that the Government are in earnest, and that they mean to give full and ample protection to anybody who wishes to work.

If we were not on the eve of an adjournment, I should have hesitated to raise the point which I propose to raise, and which is rather analogous to the point raised in the last portion of the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), and that is the question of another strike which may arise in the very near future on the same lines as the one now in action. I refer to the shopmen on the railways, who, I understand, have been put on short time, and whose wages have consequently been reduced to a figure of which I do not think even the most reactionary Member opposite would approve. The House will recollect that at the time when Sir Montague Barlow was outlining his schemes for employment last year, there came into those schemes a large expenditure of money for the railway companies on repairs and maintenance of the railways, and it is largely men who are bricklayers, carpenters, and joiners who are affected by the curtailing a those schemes. I understand that representations have been made to the companies concerned, and they have said that, owing to the fact that the companies have been working at a very grave loss, they feel compelled to put these shopmen on short time. At the present moment, when there is a great deal of agitation in the transport systems of the country, and when we have this strike going on, and another strike threatened, it would be the greatest pity' in the world if the Minister did not make representations of some sort to the railway companies, and ask them if they cannot reconsider their decision to put these men on short time.

They are, as the Minister will know, skilled workmen, but they have not the guaranteed week which was offered to other members of the National Union of Railwaymen, and in consequence they are liable to short time and the consequent reduction of wages, which reduces their actual receipts below a living standard. The result of this will very likely be that during the Recess we may have a similar unofficial strike to the one now in progress, and I, personally, so far as my information goes, can have nothing but sympathy for a strike of that nature. It will not hold up the community in any way. It will be simply a strike of the men engaged on repair and maintenance work, and at the moment when these men's minds are, to a certain extent, inflamed, not only by their own wrongs, but by the spectacle of unofficial strikes in other parts of the country, it would be the greatest calamity if the Minister could not make strong representations to the railway companies, who, I have no doubt, would pay the greatest attention to them. These particular men—and I wish the Secretary of State for the Colonies were here—are rather the last child, so to speak, of the family in the National Union of Railwaymen, and they do not always, perhaps, get the attention from their own union that they would like. They are rather apt to be left out in the cold. They are the most deserving class of workers, skilled men doing very skilled work, and very ill-paid at that. In my view, at any rate, it would he the gravest calamity at the present moment if they were driven to an unofficial strike such as is taking place. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance to the House that he will take their case into consideration.

I do not often intervene, but it appears to me that the House of Commons could do something to help the community in the present trouble. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which section of it"] The community that is suffering by not being able to get to work now. I do not want to enter into the dispute at all. What. I am concerned about is that people in my constituency, and in that of every London Member, cannot get to work, and they ask what the Government are going to do to remedy that state of things. The Colonial Secretary published a book, and tried to get what he called the black-coated workers on the side of his party. He said, "When Labour rules, there will be no strikes." Labour has been in power for the last six months, and this is the third time that London has been held up, and people have not been able to get to their work. The opinion is gaining in London that the present Government cannot be trusted in any dispute of this kind. They say that trade unionists have put the Government into office, that trade unionists find the party funds, and that, therefore, trade unionists cannot be touched, and that the ordinary public must just lump it. I think it is time that a protest was made, and that the Government should try to do something to enable the public to get to their work. I hope we shall get a little more from the Minister of Labour than we have got so far. He regards it as a huge joke, and broadly grins, not realising the suffering which the public ought not to be made to endure. I hope the Government will be able to tell us something definite as to how they are going to handle this strike, and finish it.

I have a great amount of sympathy with the people who suffer during a strike, and I can assure the House, as a trade union official, that we have no sympathy with strikes of this kind. I would like to believe that Members on the other side of the House share that view. I was extremely pleased to hear the claim for impartiality voiced by the Noble Lord apposite, and, I think, the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) took much the same line. We on these benches know how impartial and how friendly disposed they are to working people in a difficulty. There are two kinds of strikes There is a strike that hits the community, and then 'Members opposite become very interested in that particular strike. There is another strike, such as that at which an hon. Member on this side has hinted, that does not hit the community, and nobody cares 3.0 P.M. then whether it is ended or not. We people do not believe in strikes. We think there is a better method of settling our disputes. I am convinced that a strike never settles anything, but when we give that opinion, we have a great amount of sympathy with the people under certain conditions. This House, time and again, has remained silent when employers are not giving adequate wages. Hon. Members opposite then make no protest, and if any hon. Member raises the question in this House, they protest it is not oar business, and the working people are driven back to a position in which it is almost impossible to exist. I represent one of the sweated trades, one of the trades on which the wealth of this great Empire principally rests, namely, that of mining. We have come here times without number, and told of the miserable wages for which our men were working, and the great difficulty their wives and children had to make ends meet. We get no sympathy at all, and the men are forced back on the old barbarous remedy of a strike. Hon. Members on the opposite side then will not raise a little finger until the community begins to suffer. I think there is a mass of public opinion in this country—and must say I think it is on the other side, too —that wishes well to the country and the people of the country, but we have extremists, not only in the ranks of the workers, but over there, who are simply doing everything possible to bring about trouble, and are ceaselessly making attacks on working people. Supposing it was a body of employers trying to keep the food off the London market, would there be any protest from the other side? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes," and "No."] I have never heard either the hon. Members who spoke first make any protest of that kind. If a Combine is able to do that, you say it is good business, but if a body of working people try to improve their position, it is a, different matter. After all, the wages quoted here look much higher than we have in the mining districts. I admit that. But against that, you have the cost of living in London.

I do not know, what hon. Members opposite want. I wonder if they want to mobilise the Army. I am quite sure the Minister of Labour has done as much in this dispute as any previous Minister of Labour has ever done, and, by his methods, he has been able to shorten the duration of several strikes. It takes two people to make a strike, and working people do not risk their everything unless they have a very good reason. Speeches such as we have heard to-day will do ate immense amount of harm, and I am talking as an official. We do not approve of strikes of this kind. We would much rather the matter was discussed thoroughly, and then, if you like, let us strike. As to the suggestion that troops should be employed, I do not remember any Government mobilising the troops during a strike, except, perhaps, during the mining strike, when something was done to force the miners back to their work. If you say you want that, you may cause untold harm, and I hope the Minister of Labour will go on considering the wellbeing of the general community, and even the men affected, and try to bring about an end to this trouble.

In every strike that has happened of recent times we have heard from the other side something about the question of engendering bitterness. This House is the place, I suggest, where our grievances ought to be aired with a view to trying to get a settlement of them; that we should put our heads together in a question of national importance like this, and we should endeavour to keep out bitterness. What do we notice about these strikes? Every one of them has been in the trades that are getting nearest nationalisation, and which now go under the name of the sheltered trades. They are getting wages, very large compared with the engineer who has had a five years' apprenticeship to undergo. Is that fair? Why is it? They are getting these wages because they are in the sheltered trades, because they are either municipally employed or employed by some big corporation.

The feeling is going against these petty strikes. They are getting people annoyed, and absolutely getting the country against any question of nationalisation, because the country is sick of this sort of thing. I have had a good deal to do with strikes in a quiet sort of way, and what I always noticed about them was that they were begun by the younger and irresponsible people; never by the old people—by those responsible who had a wife and children to bring up. The strikes were started, and supported, probably by girls and boys who stopped the whole place, and then went on to the next one whistling, and saying they had struck and were out for bigger wages, and so on. The new method is that we are getting in the Communist element. I am going to talk straight to the hon. Gentleman opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] They have got to separate themselves out, the sheep from the goats. There is no question about that. I have had to do with trade union leaders, and you know that when they said a thing you could depend upon it. The leaders will have to get the trade unions under their command, for the country is not going to be moved about by a lot of young fellows who say: "We are going to have an unofficial strike." That, sort of thing is no good either for the trade unions, the country, or the employers. We are ail against that sort of thing, and if it is allowed to go on the whole country will be saying, as sure as night follows day, that the Labour party wish to have unemployment and unrest, because that is the stuff they live on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. oh!"] It is perfectly true. Hon. Members opposite know it is true. They are not laughing for mirth, but are laughing because they are rather sorry for themselves.

It is usual for speeches in this House to be addressed to the Chair.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but lion. Members on the opposite side know that what I was saying was simply to cover up the matter and to be somewhat soothing to their hearts. I have said what the result of all this will he. The result will be that there is growing up a feeling all over the country that Labour does not trust its representatives quite as much as they did a short while ago: for there is all the more trouble now. I advise them, Mr. Speaker, to put their house in order, to get separated out, the sheep from the goats, to keep a clean name so that they may have a clean record.

I shall not detain the. House very long. I am not at all sure into which category, sheep or goats, I personally would be put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But I would remind him that the trade union movement is not the only movement that can be divided in that way. I see 'no reason why the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) should not seek information upon a question which is undoubtedly one of great public interest What I do complain of is that the hon. Member should expect the Minister of Labour, by the mere waving of a wand, to bring this unauthorised strike to an immediate end. If we cast our minds back to the many great disputes which have taken place from time to time we shall not discover that the Minister of Labour, at those particular times, was specially successful in immediately bringing those disputes to a termination. I would also remind the hon. Member that it is riot always advisable, when any sort of a dispute is caused, to immediately intervene, and expect that intervention to have the same result as an intervention after a careful consideration of the causes which have led up to the dispute. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) apparently fails to distinguish between the two kinds of railway disputes. In the first case, on the Tube railways we have a dispute that is unauthorised, that has not the support of the Union's Executive, and it is a most difficult situation. When we see two men fighting in the street and try to separate them when they are in the full flush of their anger, we find that neither one nor the other is prepared to break away. If you give them a little time, and let one get a little better of the other, intervention then would be much more likely to succeed. The difference between the two disputes is that the one with regard to the locomotive enginemen is a dispute that is founded upon an agreement, and is not a direct question of wages as in the other case. Here perhaps the Minister of Labour might succeed in his immediate intervention by trying to smooth out the differences that may exist as to the interpretation or operation of that agreement. I have had some connection with strikes and also some connection with Ministers of Labour in other Governments, and I have often been told by those in authority, who have the management of these disputes when they occur, that as a rule they are not prepared to intervene until they are asked to do so, because they do not wish to take up the position of being unwelcome guests.

Let me assure the two hon. Members who have placed themselves in the position of champions of the public interest, and especially the interests of the working classes who are likely to suffer because of the interruption of traffic caused by the dispute, that we are just as anxious as they are that the public interest shall be served, but we may not necessarily agree that the, methods they are suggesting to this House are quite the best to adopt. The Minister of Labour may well be trusted to intervene at what he considers to be the proper time, and I am quite sure that both he and his colleagues will be prepared to do all they can with just as much concern for the public interest as has been claimed by the hon. Members who are responsible for introducing this question.

May I at the outset pay a tribute to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone), who made a statement that in a certain case the men would be justified in striking? If there were a little more admission of the genuine claims of men, and a little less of always placing the responsibility on the men, there would be more confidence in the country, fewer strikes, and a greater belief in the fair play of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I commend the example of the hon. Member for East Willesden to the hon. Member who initiated this Debate. There can be nothing worse than an engendering of the feeling among the organized workers of the country that they get all the criticism, and never an acknowledgment of their proper claims to respect and consideration. I suggest, again, that the hon. Member for East Willesden has shown a very good example, which, if followed, would lead only to good results. I noticed that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who raised this question, was evidently of the opinion that the Government had been very lax, that the Minister in his replies had been very foolish, and that the responsibility in some way rested upon the Government. I believe that he would accuse the Government of being responsible for the earthquake in Japan, for the eruption of Stromboli, and even for the last comet. It is his method of argument. I suppose he assumes that it is valuable to his party. My belief is that it is not valuable to his party, and that it is a wrong method of argument. If the hon. Member really wants information to be conveyed definitely and in a friendly way, his best way of getting it is not to make a party attack when asking for information, but to ask for it in the courteous way in which he desires that it shall be given.

I pass from the hon. Gentleman to the 'Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who followed him. The Noble Lord put a perfectly straightforward question. He did diverge a little into the devious paths of his predecessor, but on the whole his question was a perfectly fair one. I want to ask him a question. When he is speaking of "essential services," does he mean to ask, "Is the Government prepared to run the trains?"

What I asked was, are the Government prepared to carry out the ordinary functions of Government, which, as I see them, are to ensure the fullest protection being given to those who are willing to work, to see that the dispute is tackled and brought to an end as soon as possible, to leave no stone unturned, and to intervene should they consider it advisable.

A perfectly clear, concise and understandable statement, and it does not include the idea that the Government is responsible for running the trains. Now, may I ask the hon. Member for West Woolwich whether he means by the "public services" that the Government should run the trains?

I say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that if a state of emergency arise, and matters develop as they have done, undoubtedly it would be the duty of the Government to orga nise a service for the people of this country.

Then I take it that when the country is in an emergency, the only way of settling the emergency is to adopt a Socialist system?

The right hon. Gentleman has addressed another question to me to which I will reply. I do not consider that by any manner of means the Socialist system is involved, but when the country is ruined by lightning strikes of this kind, it is obviously the elementary duty of any Government to take the necessary steps to keep public services going.

The Government would not take the railways in their charge. I suggest to the hon. Member that there can he no question of the Government taking out of the hands of the railway companies their services and running them.

I am not suggesting that.

That is enough—

I am in complete agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, lie is quibbling. When he asks that the Government should take certain steps, surely the Government are entitled to ask what be means. If he means we are to run the trains, let him say so. If he does not mean that, let him say what he does mean. Let us be plain and straightforward with each other. I admit this is a serious dispute. It is too serious to use quibbling expressions about. We want to be honest. Will the hon. Member state definitely, does he mean that we as a Government should run the trains?

I am sorry I have not made myself clear. The Minister of Labour has definitely associated himself with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was that if all methods of conciliation failed, the Government had a duty to the community and that duty was not to run the trains, or to exercise the functions of the railway companies but to promote services of their own. That has been done constantly.

I must leave this subject now. To "run trains" and to "run services of our own" are statements beyond my understanding.

I will turn, if I may, to the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) who did put his case clearly. There could be no misunderstanding about that, and I will try to give him quite as frank an answer to his frank question. He wanted to know whether the Government will give full protection to the men who work during these disputes. My answer is, "Yes, undoubtedly; the fullest protection will be given to the men who work." The Noble Lord further wanted to know whether, in the event of this dispute spreading and certain public utilities being threatened, the Government will maintain those public utilities. Again I answer quite as frankly that the Government will do all it possibly can to maintain the public utilities. When I say that, I am speaking of food, lighting, water and power. The Government will do all it possibly can, and will take every step possible to maintain all these essential services. There will be no question about the fullest, possible authority being given to every Department of Government to take the steps that. I have said the Government are prepared to take, and I hope that the Noble Lord will admit that my answer has been as frank as he desired it to be. I now want to say a few words with regard to the dispute. I think there is to some extent a lack of perspective. After all, one has to remember that, had this dispute occurred in Glasgow, or Birmingham, or Leeds, or Manchester, very little would have been heard about it in this House.

Glasgow might have had a word to say.

If this dispute had occurred in Glasgow, it never would have come before this House; of that I am quite certain. There is no worse thing, it this agitation be a Communistic agitation—and there are differences of opinion as to that—there is no worse thing, if it be a Communistic agitation, than to get "rattled" about it. If the Communists believe that they can rattle you, I venture to say that you are helping their movement very considerably indeed. If I may venture to give a word of advice to the hon. Member who initiated the discussion—and I speak from some little knowledge of the subject—there are two things that will help the Communists. One is if they think they can rattle you, and the other is if they think that you are a shivering bourgeois. I venture to say that if the hon. Gentleman will take that to heart—

Does the right hon. Gentleman think I look like one?

I venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that., if he will take my advice to heart, he will cease to be a very valuable asset of the Communist party. Now let me say a few words about the dispute itself. There is no question at all that this dispute is unofficial in the fullest sense of that term. The National Union of Railwaymen, through its executive, has already declared that it has neither part nor lot in the dispute, and has instructed its members not to stop work. The railway companies, on their part, have refused to see the representatives of the so-called unofficial strikers. Again, I want to put a point to the House, not as a party matter at all.

It is impossible for any Government to attempt to recognise a body which neither the trade unions nor the railway' companies will recognise, and the Government will not recognise any body except the body that is capable of negotiating a settlement. My Department—and here may I pay a tribute to the very skilled advisers that I have in these matters—my Department is in personal and active contact with the really representative people both on the employers' and on the workers' side. We shall do what we possibly can to get a settlement of the dispute, and I have already stated what we shall do if certain eventualities arise I think the little talk about rising for Whitsuntide might have been dropped out. Seriously, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party nor our party desire to sit during Whitsuntide, and we might have left that out. Certainly, I have not the slightest desire to sit through Whitsuntide. Regretfully I may have to forgo my holiday—and I need it; but if I have to forgo it because I believe I can be of use here, I shall stay. But I can state quite categorically that up to the present there is no intention at all on the Government's part to call the House together in the middle of next week, as the hon. Member suggested. Every other promise he really wants f can give him in the fullest measure—maintenance of public services, protection and an attempt to settle the dispute.

I am going to couch my words in the same nonpartisan, non-controversial spirit as than speeches which have been made from these benches. We have no desire whatever to hinder the Government in any way in putting an end to this unfortunate strike. It is not speeches such as have been heard from these benches which will hinder negotiations, but speeches such as we have heard from the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), which was one of the most inflammable speeches I have ever heard in the House. I challenge the hon. Member to go at 5 o'clock to Finsbury Park Station, which is in my constituency, where he will see literally thousands of people treading each other down to get into a train which only has the capacity of holding a quarter of them.

If I went to Finsbury Park any time in the last 10 years, the same thing would be seen.

I should have thought the hon. Member would give me time to develop my challenge. To boast, as he boasted, that during the War, when he should have been somewhere else, a man without a grey hair in his head—the hon. Member seems to be pleased about it. I leave it to his own conscience. He boasted that during the War he deliberately organised two strikes. He told us not to get rattled because the machinery of the Government is going to stop the strike, and that if they get exasperated they will only make the negotiations more difficult. I challenge him to go to Finsbury Park, and utter the same sentiments there that he has uttered to-day, and see what those people would say to him. The statement we have just heard from the Minister is extremely unsatisfactory. He has not given me, at any rate, the impression that he intends to deal with this situation with firmness or with tact. To begin with, he condoned lightning strikes and congratulated the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone), not on his piece of good fortune in the sweepstake, which would have been a more reasonable congratulation, but on also condoning lightning strikes. I suggest that there is no congratulation whatsoever in a lightning strike. The hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman) very rightly, I think, complained that the workers in a sheltered and highly-protected industry like the railway workers could always get the best plums, and that real industrialists like the miners have only second place. The miners did behave in a proper manner the other day, and I think the negotiations which went on between the miners and the coal owners were most creditable. If the miners had struck it would not have been in the least degree a lightning strike, which is the last sort of strike that ought to be condoned or congratulated. I must say these few words, because I represent a constituency which probably is as hard hit by the strike as any in London. Our travelling facilities are bad enough as it is, and when extra hardship is imposed on these thousands of people for no fault of their own, it is only right that their representatives could see that the Government do everything in their power to help to case their condition. The Minister of Labour keeps tellings us that this is an unofficial strike, and that the union refuses to recognise it in any way. Why does he not ask the union why they do not expel from their union the people who are organising the strike?

That is tact.

The hon. Member for Rotherhithe says tbat is tact. Whether it is tact or not his speech certainly was not tact. It seems to me that that course would help more than anything else to end the strike. The union cannot refuse to recognise the action of their members, and still retain them as members of the union. The Minister tells us that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent the picketing of the men who are a work and do not intend to join the strike. I hope that the Minister means that, because he told us that during the omnibus and tram strike, and yet every day the picketers were out trying to prevent omnibus drivers, who wanted to work, from going on to the streets. They did prevent them from doing so in many cases. Therefore, I hope that what the right lion. Gentleman says in this respect he will carry into effect on this occasion.

He did not say he would stop picketing.

He distinctly said so

I never mentioned the word "picketing." I never said a word about it. I cannot break the law.

It does not matter how the right hon. Gentleman said it. He certainly said that he, or the Government he represented, would take every possible step to allow the workers who wanted to work to do so, and to prevent them from being interfered with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Protected!"] Protected! That comes to exactly the same thing as preventing picketing. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] If the right hon. Gentleman is going to do that, then he is going to stop picketing. It is most unfortunate that, this strike should come at this particular moment. I hope the Government will approach those who are responsible for it in a most reasonable spirit. I do not want to raise any partisan feeling in the least degree. I do not say whether the men are right or whether they are wrong. I only want the Government to get the thing settled as quickly as possible.

On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the arrangement which was entered into at the beginning of the Session is to obtain in this Debate? You previously ruled, Mr. Speaker, that when a Minister had replied, no other speeches were to be allowed. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I understand that a ruling was given that on these occasions, as the time had been allotted, no ocher speeches were to be made after the Minister had replied.

On that point, I desire to say a word. On the Indian Debate, I was distinctly informed by Mr. Deputy-Speaker that, although there had only been two speeches, no more speeches could be allowed after the Minister had replied. He stated that you had made a schedule for each subject.

No such suggestion was made. It is true that I informed the House that I have endeavoured to divide the time to-day among the different sub- jects which I was informed hon. Members wished to discuss, so that each subject should have its opportunity. After the present speech has concluded, I propose that another subject should be referred to

Must hon. Members inform you previously that they desire to speak?

If I am to be able to do my duty properly I must have some knowledge of the subjects to be brought forward, or else many Members would be cut out. What I do wish is to give each subject the best opportunity I can. If I were to call on everybody who wants to speak on each subject, we might give the whole day to the first subject, and then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley would have less chance than he appears to have now.

This is not the point. I wrote, and told you that I did not intend to submit myself to go to the Table and ask as a privilege the right to speak in this House. I have sat here on occasions for four and five hours wishing to speak, and being unable to do so. I do not complain of that. I am only one, and all of us must take our chance, but to-day a new ruling is given, and apparently you are giving that ruling now that persons who desire to speak on the Adjournment Motion must come to have it arranged. I have sat here while the discussion was on, hoping to speak. Then I was informed that only two people had spoken, and that subject was finished, and nobody else could speak

Do not let me be misunderstood. I did no such thing. I never hold myself bound by any arrangement made by Members who approach me. The fact is that I am rather inclined, on the other hand, to call an interesting Member who rises unexpectedly. May I say, in reference to subjects to be discussed on the Adjournment, that those which the House desires to hear discussed should have time given to them as far as possible. If this were not done, the first subject would occupy the whole day, to the exclusion of the others.

Of course, when these subjects are concluded, any Member can, before the House adjourns, raise any subject he likes.

I was unaware that there was a desire to have any other subject discussed, or I should have been more brief.

If it had not been you, it would have been someone like you.

If I have caught the observation of the hon. Member, it seems to me that he is making a reflection on the Chair and stating that I have shown partiality in calling on hon. Members.

I say deliberately, if you will allow me, that this afternoon two different rulings have been given. One when Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair and another one now.

That is not the point.

That is my point, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am not going to be insulted. You must keep these people quiet.

If the hon. Member will resume his seat when I rise—

These are the people—

The hon Member was standing when I was standing.

That was because of Members opposite talking all the time.

Other hon. Members then called "Order."

No. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) always breaks the rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] Name yourself!

The hon. Member threw an observation across the Floor which, if I caught it aright, was a reflection on the impartiality of the Chair. If I caught it correctly, I must ask him to withdraw that reflection on my impartiality.

May f. submit one point in justification of your ruling in the hope that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will realise the value of what I say. I came to this House to-day without any intention of intervening in the Debate. I made no approach to the Chair, but Mr. Speaker called upon me, and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley that that is proof of the impartiality of the Chair.

You appear, Sir, to quite misunderstand the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

I cannot allow the hon. Member to go from this point: Did he, in an observation made just now, reflect on the impartiality of the Chair in the choice of speakers to take part in the Debate? If that be the case, I must ask him to withdraw.

I cannot withdraw the statement that two different rulings have been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!]

I am not asking the hon. Member to withdraw that statement. It is quite a different matter.

The point is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I shall not withdraw if I am ordered to withdraw. The point is this: I take away any sort of charge against you, Sir, or Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think it is extremely unfortunate that two different rulings should have been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can only take back anything that I have said across the Floor that is either disorderly or reflecting upon you as a proper occupant of that Chair.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my name. May I say distinctly that I indulged in no interruption.

You are the most disorderly Member in the House.

The Chair has dealt with the matter, and it is not desirable that other hon. Members should interfere.

I hope I shall be permitted to make a personal explanation.

If I had thought that the Noble Lord was disorderly, it would have been my duty to have dealt with him.

I made no observations.

If I had known that there was another subject to be taken to-day, I would not have tried to catch your eye. I do not often wish to speak, but in this subject I am very much interested, and so are my constituents, and I did wish to say a few words. The Government have cavilled at hon. Members on this side of the House, that when we were in office we were not able to do anything more in dealing with these strikes than the Government are doing at the present time. But we did not boast that we could hold office without strikes or of being able to settle strikes at once as hon. Members on that side of the House did when they were in opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Frequently, they used to tell us that when they came in office there would be no such thing as strikes, because there would not be the suspicions existing that there were between the workers and the Conservative Government when they were in power. I hope the right hon. Gentleman means what he says and will do everything in his power by the use of tact and firmness to deal with this most unfortunate situation.

I desire to call attention to the unsatisfactory condition of secondary education in Wales. A question was put to the President of the Board of Education recently asking if it was his intention to appoint a successor to the late Sir Owen Edwards, Chief Inspector in Wales who died in 1920, and the right hon. Gentleman gave a most unsatisfactory reply, saying that he had inherited the present position from his predecessors, and that the work of the Chief Inspector was being carried out by the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education with two assistant inspectors. It is unsatisfactory that the work formerly performed by a distinguished gentleman should now be carried on in this way, and it was no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he inherited this policy. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was head of the Administration in 1920, and made no attempt to fill the post, although probably he more than anyone else in the Government was responsible for the creation of the Welsh Department of the Board of Education. It bears the stamp of the right hon. Gentleman's work, because it is a com- promised Department, and like all compromises it has never worked satisfactorily. No one wanted it and no one asked for it, but the unsatisfactory working of the Department was in some. manner minimised by the fact that it was fortunate enough to have the services of Sir Owen Edwards as Chief Inspector. The fact of this post being kept vacant for four years forces us to one of two conclusions—either that the late Sir Owen Edwards was wasting his time and that public money was being wasted in paying him, or, alternatively, that serious injury is now being caused to secondary education in Wales. I think there is no question that injury is now being caused by the fact that no successor has been appointed. The late Chief Inspector had first-class knowledge of secondary education in Wales and could represent the Welsh point of view to the Board, and how can it be expected that the Permanent Secretary, with no special knowledge of Welsh conditions and with other duties to perform, can, assisted by two other inspectors—who were there during the time of Sir Owen Edwards—carry out these duties satisfactorily?

Welsh secondary education at present is in a chaotic state. There is the Welsh Department of the Board of Education, who are interested in certain schools; there is the Central Board, responsible for other schools: and a further number of secondary schools are outside the scope of both bodies. I wish to know if it is the intention of the Government to put into force the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that there should be for Wales a unifying body, not only with regard to secondary schools, but covering the whole of education in Wales. The present unsatisfactory position is illustrated by a pamphlet, written by the Principal of the University College of North Wales, in which he gives signal instances of the bad effect on Welsh education of the power being used by the Welsh Department on the Board of Education at the expense of the Central Board in Wales itself. With regard to the advanced courses—doubtless the Under-Secretary knows to what I am referring—he gives the instance of what the Board insisted upon at a classical school like the Prior's School at Bangor. Such a state of affairs would never have been reached by anybody exercising authority in Wales itself who had been conversant with the conditions. I should like to know whether the present Government intend to appoint a successor.

The time at my disposal is somewhat limited, but I will take the first subject first, and that is, the question of the appointment of a successor to the late distinguished Sir Owen Edwards. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) referred to the answer given here some time ago by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board. Of course, as I suppose my hon. Friend will agree, Sir Owen Edwardses are not to be found every day. He was a man of very great distinction and of very exceptional achievement, and it is rather a difficult thing, even if we desired to do so at this particular moment, to appoint a man who could be expected to fulfil those duties adequately. We found the system that now prevails in education when we came into office at the beginning of this year. Under the agreement arrived at, the present Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education, Welsh Department, acts as Chief of the Welsh Department at Whitehall, as well as Chief Inspector of Education for Wales, and that arrangement has been extended until April of next year. Meanwhile, I have no doubt the President of the Board will re-examine the position in the light of things such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I have not the faintest doubt that, long before the termination of the period of office of the present Permanent Secretary if the Board of Education, Welsh Department, an announcement will be made as to future policy.

In regard to secondary education generally, I think most people who know the facts would- agree that the condition of secondary education in Wales requires very careful re-examination. One is aware of the strictures passed upon the arrangements for controlling our educational system generally in Wales in the Clauses of what is called the Red Report. I can only state that the recommendations of that Report are receiving the very careful consideration--and have been for some time—of the Board, but we have, as the hon. Member perhaps knows, made some small attempt to initiate one part—a very small part, I agree—of the recommendations made in that Red Report, and at this particular moment I have been conducting, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, some delicate negotiations with the Central Welsh Board in regard to the question of the inspectorate in Wales. These negotiations are not yet at an end. There is to be another meeting presently in London, and I am afraid, having regard to that fact, that my hon. Friend must excuse me from discussing the matter in any greater detail.