:May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury how far it is proposed to go to-day? I am interested in Orders Nos. 6 and 7. I hope it is not proposed to take them in the absence of the Foreign Secretary.

:It is only proposed to take down to No. 5.

:I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I do not think this Bill requires any lengthy explanation. In 1922 the Parliament of that day passed an Act called the Law of Property Act which revolutionised the whole Law of real property in this country. When that Act was passed, a pledge was given to Parliament that it should not become effective until time had been given for necessary Amendments and consolidations of the various real property Statutes affected, such as the Conveyancing Act, the Settled Land Act, and the like, and a Committee was set up, presided over by Mr. Justice Romer, and comprising skilled real property lawyers, in order to consider what the necessary Amendments were. Partly owing to the frequent elections, and partly also to the amount of work that had to be done, these consolidating Bills have not yet passed, and the result is that the Law of Property Act, 1922, could not come into operation without creating chaos. The Committee has reported, and the next Order of the Day is going to be the Second Reading, I hope, of the amending Bill necessary in order to bring about consolidation. We ask the House, therefore, to postpone the operation of the 1922 Act until the 1st January, 1926, in order to enable us to implement the pledge given to a previous Parliament and to get consolidation Bills passed into law before this 1922 Act becomes effective.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (15th December).—[ The Attorney-General ]

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

:I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is the Bill to which I made reference a few moments ago. It is a Bill which was introduced by the preceding Government. It contains a formidable number of Schedules. The Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Romer divided into a series of Schedules the necessary amendments and consolidating enactments which they required for the consolidation Bill which they have prepared. Those consolidation Bills will be introduced next year, but in order to introduce them it is necessary to get these amendments passed this year, so that we may start with the consolidation Bills as consolidating and not as amending enactments. There are, I think, only three amendments not comprised in Mr. Justice Romer's Committee's recommendations. They are all matters which cropped up after that Committee had reported, and all of them were introduced into the Bill by the late Administration, and we have accepted them all. There is also one Schedule to carry out the Report of Lord Buckmaster's Committee, which dealt with the question of the University and College Estates Statute in the same way as Mr. Justice Romer's Committee had dealt with the other Statute. I hope that with this explanation the House will accept this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 15th December.—[ The Attorney-General .]

:I wish to ask what is the policy of the Government with regard to this very ripe question. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite held this office before, I brought before his notice the fact that I represent a constituency which is very much interested in transport and the canal system, and I urged that this was a very vital question indeed. At the present time in my constituency, even when trade is slack, we have the greatest difficulty in getting our imports away from the port, and they are invariably held up in a most scandalous manner. This has become even worse since the railway amalgamation schemes which were carried out upon the recommendations of Sir Eric Geddes. At a time when trade is so bad, we are actually congested in regard to one of our main imports and exports, namely, the import of timber and the export of coal. What will happen when trade revives and there is a lot more business to be done on the East Coast I really do not know.

Extra trade must pass over the railways and I want to ask the Minister of Transport what is the view of the Government upon this matter. I know that one remedy is to revivify the canal system. I think we are entitled to know whether the Government is giving this question of the canals of the country their most earnest and energetic attention, and whether they have yet thought out or considered this matter and arrived at any conclusion about their policy. The employment of men on these works at the present time would be a means of assisting the unemployed, but I do not want to go into that question on a Bill of this sort, which is only a carry-over measure. Consequently I do not want to go into details. I think, however, that we are entitled to know whether the Minister of Transport is alive to the urgency of this question, and will he inform us whether he will continue to press on the Cabinet the necessity of taking energetic and early action.

:Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think some of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken went a little wide of this Bill when he dealt with the question of railway amalgamation. This is simply a Measure to provide for the continuance of charging powers in respect of canal or inland navigation undertakings of which possession was retained or taken by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. The matters raised by the hon. and gallant Member are receiving my attention. A very strong Commission has been con sidering the whole question. At the present moment I am considering one particular canal in the Midlands——

:I had difficulty in seeing how the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was connecting his argument with the Act, but he passed adroitly on to safe ground before I could intervene. In his reply to them, the Minister of Transport is going beyond the Rules of Order.

:I most gladly bow to your ruling.

:The real purpose of this Clause is to enable certain agreements and wage rates to be continued during the coming year. The object of the extra charges is to meet the higher cost of living for the workmen engaged on canals both temporarily and permanently, and on that basis certain conditions of employment have been entered into which stand to-day. If this Bill be not passed those charges cannot be made, and consequently the agreements that exist cannot be fulfilled. The real purpose of passing this Bill is to enable the wages to be paid, and this will save a large number of unpleasant labour disputes which must follow if this Measure does not go through. I am very pleased to support the passing of this Measure.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2 ( Short title, construction, citation and duration )ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

:I beg to move, in Page 3, to leave out lines 42 and 43.

This is an Amendment to leave out of the Schedule the Wireless Telegraph Act,1904. I think it is in order to raise one or two questions in connection with that Act on which I should like a few words of information. I am glad to see in his place my hon. Friend (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), whom I congratulate upon his belated, and, if I may say so, very deserved recognition, and this will give him an early opportunity of explaining a few vital matters concerning wireless telegraphy, because I know that he studied this subject very deeply before taking office. The late Government made very considerable progress—I am sorry the late Postmaster-General (Mr. Harts horn) is not here—with regard to Imperial Wireless, and I would like to know if the present Government intend to carry on that good work, and, particularly, whether they intend to push on without delay with the Imperial wireless chain, which is even more urgently required for commercial than for strategic purposes. This matter has been a sort of shuttlecock and battledore between the parties——

:The hon and gallant Gentleman is discussing the policy of the original Act. All that is in order now is to show ground why the Act should or should not be continued.

:If the Government have not a policy on this matter, I do not see the use of continuing the Act, and I certainly think we ought to have a few words of explanation on this very vital subject. I do not know the details, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of assuring the House that the Government are alive to this matter and mean to go ahead. There is another matter which in comparison may seem not very important. It affects people who are fond of homing pigeons, and it is a very serious matter to them, because these pigeons are kept by comparatively poor people and is their one pleasure in life. They take a tremendous interest in this particular form of sport, and the loss of a homing pigeon is a serious thing for the man who goes in for this form of recreation and who is not well off. Just as it was necessary when telegraph wires were erected across the country to mark them with pieces of cork to prevent game flying against them, so it is necessary to mark the aerials of wireless telegraphy to prevent homing pigeons flying into them.

I am glad to see that a new form of aerial is now being used which is much more compact, but the old type of aerial spread in all directions is a positive danger to homing pigeons taking part in races, and great mortality among these pigeons has occurred. I want to know if the Postmaster-General can bring in a Regulation to ensure that some mark —corks, or something of that sort—is put on the wires to prevent this happening. If legislation be required, I think the House ought to agree to it. It is a very reasonable request. If he has not these powers, and does not propose to ask Parliament for them, can he use his influence through the Press to get this matter put right? I am sure that nine out of 10 of those who have aerials erected are not aware of the danger, and that, if they knew of the distress caused by the loss of valuable birds, they would mark their aerials. It is on these grounds that I move to delete this Act from the Schedule, and, unless I get some satisfactory answer, I shall resist in every constitutional way the Act being renewed.

:My hon. and gallant Friend, whom I thank for his kindly references to myself, may perhaps be disappointed but I think he will be hardly surprised if I tell him that I am unable to accept his Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has asked me to enter into some little detail about a couple of propositions in which he is interested—the question of Imperial wireless telegraphy and the question of homing pigeons and their protection. My difficulty, frankly, is that if I were to attempt to do so I should be somewhat impinging on the rules of Order, because the effect of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment would be to omit the whole Act. This Act was passed as far back as 20 years ago. Originally, it is true, it was only a temporary Act passed more or less as an experimental Measure for a period of two years. But it has been regularly continued in every Expiring Laws Continuance Bill since that date, and it is what one might call the controlling Act under which power is taken to regulate the use of wireless telegraphy, including nowadays wireless telephony. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend will feel justified in pressing this Amendment, at least I hope he will not, to the point of a Division.

:May I remove a misunderstanding? I have no intention of pressing this Amendment, providing that we get some satisfactory answer. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the only way that we can get a discussion on this Bill is to put down an Amendment.

:That is quite true, but my difficulty, as my hon. and gallant Friend well knows, is this long standing rule with regard to this particular Bill—and may I say that others before him have been, I will not say more ingenious because I think that would be impossible, but at all events equally assidious in trying before the passage of any legislation takes place to secure that it should receive due consideration that it is out of order on the Committee stage to amend any provisions of the principal Act.

:I understood the hon. and gallant Member to suggest administrative action, or hortatory action towards wireless users, and the hon. Gentleman would not be out of Order in replying to those specific points.

:I am glad to be able to say this and perhaps it will meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view. The policy of Imperial wireless is engaging the closest attention of this Government as it engaged the attention of the last Government, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Government have a policy and are engaged in maturing it. With regard to the question of homing pigeons, I will take note of what he has said, and will certainly give consideration to the question.

As regards the general question of the continuance of the Act, I do not think there will be any doubt in any quarter of the House. You must have an Act to regulate the use of wireless telegraphy otherwise you will be reduced, not merely to a state of communism, but to a state of anarchy. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to say that, although this Act has been continued in the past from year to year, and figures in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, the Government propose to take occasion early in the Session to introduce a Bill to make this Act permanent. They propose on that occasion to make certain Amendments and improvements in the Act which experience has shown to be desirable, and, although I have even greater doubts as to whether it is strictly in order, yet, as a great deal of public interest attaches to it, perhaps I may be allowed to add that certain doubts have arisen with regard to the construction of the principal Act—the Act of 1904—in its application to wireless telephony and in its application to the act of receiving. While I am not prepared to say that those doubts are well-founded—on the contrary, my advisers think they are ill-founded—undoubtedly they can only be resolved in the ordinary way by a protracted course of litigation in the Courts. I do not think that that is a common-sense proposition, and I do not think it is for the convenience of anyone. Therefore, in the Bill which, as I have said, it is our intention to introduce, I hope very early in the next Session, we propose to take occasion to resolve those doubts and make the position clear beyond any further question. I hope that with this explana- tion and undertaking, my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way not to press his Amendment.

:After the hon. Baronet's very satisfactory explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 45 to 48.

This is an Amendment to exclude the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907. I am not quite certain whether it will be dealt with by the Minister of Transport or by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry?

:By the Home Office.

:Then I am delighted to have the opportunity of questioning the right hon. Baronet. I particularly wish to ask him whether his Department propose to take some action with regard to the very old and decrepit taxi-cabs on the streets of London. This is a matter of some importance. After all, we do not want to give our overseas and foreign visitors who come to this great capital, the greatest city in the world, the bad impression which I am sure they will get if they try one of the really scandalously ancient taxi-cabs which are plying for hire at the present time. We have seen, since the removal of the McKenna Duties, a new and most excellent type of cab put upon the streets. No one would wish to ride in anything better. It is one of the immediate good results of the removal of the McKenna Duties. At the same time——

:I can diagnose on the countenance of the hon. and gallant Member the consciousness of guilt.

:Side by side with these excellent vehicles, we have these shaky and even evil-smelling cabs plying for the same fare. I would respectfully make to the Home Office two suggestions. One is to tighten up the Licensing of these old cabs, so that, where a cab is obviously beyond its work, when it is being run almost to death, it would not be relicensed. I believe they have to be relicensed every year. Here is another suggestion that I would make to the right hon. Baronet.

:The hon. and gallant Gentleman must base his remarks on cabs connected with railway stations. He seems to be going outside that.

:After all, the great majority of people who use taxi-cabs use them for getting to and from railway stations, but, at any rate, my remarks will be quite brief. I would suggest, with regard to cabs at railway stations, that they should be divided into two classes, first class and second class, with different fares, as is done in Paris. I think the division into first and second class cabs which obtains in Paris is a much better arrangement, and I throw that out as a practical suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) asks, will this develop class war? Of course it will not, and I will tell him why not. What would actually happen would be that, if a man were in a hurry and wanted to get to a distant point quickly, he would take a first-class cab and pay the higher fare; if he were not in a hurry he would take a second-class cab. To take another example, if he were with his wife he would take a first-class cab; if he were alone he would take a second-class cab. I am sure my right hon. Friend will appreciate that. It is simply a question of whether one wants to be a little more comfortable or is in a greater hurry. I think that that would be a very good idea in connection with the licensing of cabs frequenting railway stations. I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill. [HoN. MEMBEKS: "Oh!"] This is the last Order and it is only 12 o'clock, so that there is no advantage in delaying it, but I have these practical suggestions to make. My third and last point is that I hope we shall have no renewal of the attempt, which I was glad to see was not pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), of allowing advertisements to be put inside or outside cabs. I think we have too much advertisement in life already. [ Interruption ] Good wine needs no bush. I do hope that the right hon. Baronet has his æsthetic sense as keenly developed as his predecessor, and will prevent this attempted outrage on what ought really to be the gondolas of London.

:I am much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for his suggestions. I am glad to see such useful suggestions from him, as all his recent ones have not been quite so good. With regard to the question of cabs, I am not at all sure that the division of cabs into first-class and second-class is a distinct advantage. It has been tried in Paris, but I have not the intimate and peculiar knowledge of Paris which the hon. and gallant Gentleman possesses. I am told, however, that there is very great difficulty, when people are unacquainted with the language, in ascertaining whether they are in a first-class, a second-class, or even a third-class cab It has been my fate, whenever I have been in Paris, only to pass from one railway station to another. I do not know anything about the Montmartre cabs.

:I do not think that any of the Paris terminal railway stations are in the Montmartre district.

:I bow to your superior knowledge. I will endeavour not to offend again. Speaking as seriously as one is able to do of this matter, f have caused some inquiry to be made and I am not satisfied that the system that obtains in Paris of two classes of cabs is one which it would be desirable to introduce into this City, at all events, at the present moment. In regard to advertisements, I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

:The right hon. Baronet, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be getting far away from the railway stations. If it is a matter of cabs plying for hire at railway stations it is in order.

:That is exactly what I thought. Had it not been for your ruling, I was doubtful whether the whole of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was in order or not, but you allowed him to refer to advertisements in cabs and I assumed they were advertisements in railway station cabs. Otherwise you would have pulled him up, as you have quite rightly pulled me up for my unconscious dereliction. So far as cabs relating to railway stations——

:It was difficult for me to know the precise moment to interfere in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's somewhat elusive argument. The precise-ness of the right hon. Baronet leaves me no alternative.

:That is what I was rather afraid of. I cannot hope to be as elusive as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, therefore in regard to that portion of his speech which was not elusive I cannot agree with it. In regard to that portion which was elusive I am unable to deal with it.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 45 to 47.

:On a point of Order, I have an Amendment before this to leave out lines 5 to 7, but the discussion last night covered the points I wished to raise and I do not propose to move it.

:The Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act was passed in 1917 on the ground that it was difficult to obtain a sufficient number of men..

:On a point of Order. I have handed in an Amendment raising a very important matter, overlooked on the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, which comes in order of time before the Amendment the hon. Member is now moving.

:I actually called on the hon. Member to move before I had even seen the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. I really do not think I can go back on it.

:The Act substituted 7 and 11 for 12 and 23 as the minimum and maximum numbers of jurors to serve, on a coroner's jury. The argument used in 1917 was that it was impossible to get the larger numbers demanded by the Coroners Act of 1887 to serve on juries owing to war conditions. Those conditions have now passed by and it is time the whole of a coroner's jury system was reviewed, exactly in the same way as the civil jurors have been restored after the War. The arguments applying to the passing of the Bill in 1917 no longer obtain. The conditions have passed away.

:I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. There has been in preparation for some little time a Bill to deal with the whole question of coroners and it deals with the question of juries. I have that Bill before me now in draft, and I hope, if I find the Chief Whips fairly complacent, at the beginning of next Session to be allowed to introduce it. It is not very controversial, and it might very well go at an early stage to a Committee upstairs, when we shall be able to meet and discuss Crowner's Quest Law and the arrangements for it, and we might be able to arrive at a useful Bill on the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I have another Amendment of the same character, in page 4, to leave out lines 49 and 50. The Government, of course, gave a pledge of a similar character in 1923 with regard to the whole of this legislation for the restoration of coroners' juries. That pledge has not been carried out. The Acts are still repeated in the Schedule. However, an assurance has been given, and I hope the Government, while they know when to make a promise, also know the way to keep it I do not move.

:I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 20 to 22.

I am unable to understand why, years after1 the War, we want to continue these excessive restrictions in regard to aliens resident in this country. The Home Secretary, replying to a deputation the other day, stated that the number of aliens in the country was something like 271,000. Many of them, of course, are really British-born, being wives who have married aliens. I have lived in the East End all my life and have heard a good deal of the agitation which has been engineered regarding aliens. At that end off the town we find no difficulty at all in residing there with our friends who come from other countries. We find there is no trouble, and it is also true in other parts of the country where they happen to be. For a great country like this to trouble itself with all this excessive deportation and regulation when the number in the country is only one in every 160 is absolutely absurd and a reflection upon us in every sense of the word. If any of these persons offend against the ordinary law of the land they can be dealt with and punished. It is said they are taking away the bread from the mouths of the British people. It is absolutely untrue. They work honestly and sincerely and very hard, and so far as their characters and the bringing up of their children are concerned they will compare favourably with people of British birth. It is absurd nonsense from beginning to end. We have heard of this time after time. There was a time when we were familiar with the notice, "No Irish need apply." We have gone past that. We have recognised how absurd it was. With regard to aliens it is absurd at this time of the day, whatever may have been necessary in time of war, that we should place in the hands of the Home Secretary powers which are dangerous and which ought not to be placed in the hands of anyone.

:This may be the only opportunity for some time to come that will fall to us to deal with what I would call the rather alarming statements made by the Home Secretary regarding the alien problem in this country. I have read one or two of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, and one of the newspapers declares he said that

I do not understand the fear of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with aliens. I would remind him of one or two things connected with this Order. He has not only a difficult task to perform, but he has enormous powers, and he can make or mar the alien according to his will. What we are anxious for in dealing with this problem is that the Aliens Order shall be administered fairly and justly to the aliens themselves with proper regard to the claims of the people of our own land. We have to remember that whatever our Government does towards its own alien population is bound to find its repercussion in other countries. That is to say, unless we are fair and just to the people who come to our shores from other lands we cannot expect fair play from foreign Governments when we go abroad. It is well to remind the Committee that there is probably a bigger proportion of Britishers in other countries than there is of aliens from each of the various countries in our own land. That is a very important factor to bear in mind.

I venture to offer one other criticism. I understand from the spirit and the mood of Gentlemen on the opposite benches that they have a great fear of aliens coming to this country. I am rather astonished to see occasionally in this House of Commons, the centre of the biggest Empire in the world, comprising within its domain people of many nationalities, colour, race and religion, Members so very antagonistic to aliens. The fear arises from the suggestion, I should imagine, that the alien has recently been allowed to come here to take work that should be performed by a Britisher. I want to say very emphatically that although I am an internationalist, I have never yet said that I would prefer giving work to aliens than to our own people. Our own nationals must be safeguarded in that direction, but that is a different proposition from the arguments used by the Home Secretary in some of his speeches.

Strangely enough, when this House deals with the alien problem it forgets what is to me one of the most humane little difficulties that I came in contact with when I occupied the position of Under-Secretary at the Home Office. Nobody seems to care for, and nobody seems to speak on behalf of, those men who came here when they were boys, many years ago, and later married British women, and brought up families, but forgot to be naturalised, and who, when the War came, were deemed to be enemy aliens, whereas, in fact, they were Britishers. [ Laughter .] Oh, yes, they were. A boy coming here at two years of age, and having married an English woman when reaching adult age, and having lived here until he was 60 years of age, and his sons having served in the British forces—how can hon. Members opposite say that a person of that kind has feelings towards an enemy country and its institutions and opposed to us? Such a person would be educated in the schools of this country, imbued with all the traditions and culture of this country. The point I want to make is this, that I trust the right hon. Gentleman, when he is administering these Orders, will pay attention to the fact that these men, fathers and husbands of our own folk, but deemed to be enemy aliens, are still in Germany. They ought, if possible, to be brought back to their wives and children and homes in this country. Strange enough, nobody has ever asked a question about them in this House. We have had questions about all manner of things connected with the alien problem, but these people to whom I refer, somehow or other, have never been mentioned by anyone, to my knowledge, during the last 12 months. I again submit to the right hon. Gentleman that these fathers ought, whenever opportunity occurs, to be brought back to this country to join their families.

12 N.

I appreciate that the Home Secretary's task is not easy. It is a most difficult one. When you find people desiring to come from the Far East, who would be willing to live in this country probably under any conditions, it is a serious matter. I know full well that because you declare that you desire to do the right thing towards aliens, it is not easy to allow every type of alien to come here. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side are becoming seriously alarmed because during last summer a greater proportion came to this country than ever before. They came here at our invitation, to see Wembley. They came here to see that great exhibition. Strangely enough, some hon. Gentlemen have been criticising the Labour Government because we admitted a larger proportion of aliens in 1924 than in any other period. They say in effect that our internationalism carried us away. What happened was this: that the Wembley exhibition attracted a larger number of people from the Continent of Europe than had ever been the case before. That was all to the good. They did not come here to work; they did not come here for permanent residence. We are not to be blamed for allowing them to come here. So far as I am concerned, I would have allowed more aliens to see Wembley, if that were possible.

The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate, as we appreciate, that he has enormous powers, and I trust that the nearer he approaches the subject he will become less alarmed over the aliens that are here. After all, decent people have a right to travel from one country to another. We have demanded that right and claimed it in regard to other countries, and I trust that the rights which we claim when we enter another country will be given to foreigners when they come to our shores.

:There seems to be in this matter a difference of opinion between the last speaker, who was Under-Secretary at the Home Office in the last Government and therefore responsible for the administration of these Regulations, and his supporter on the Back Benches who moved the Amendment. His supporter desires to clear away the whole of the restrictions on the admission of aliens. In the popular phrase, he would "let them all come," as many as like to come—lunatics, diseased, paupers and people seeking work. He would allow England to be flooded with the whole of the alien regiments from every country of the world. That is the object of the Amendment. He would sweep away the whole of the restrictions by law placed on aliens. He would also sweep away the whole of the provisions under which I could deport undesirable aliens. Every day it is my ill fate, perhaps, to go through cases and to order the deportation of men of various nationalities. Only yesterday I ordered deportation in consequence of conviction by magistrates of two Chinamen engaged in undesirable traffic in the East End of London, men who, everybody in this House would agree, were far better out of the country. Pass this Amendment and I have no more power. The magistrates might convict and might express opinions in favour of deportation. I could not sign an order for the deporta- tion of one such man if the Amendment were passed.

The last speaker took an entirely different and more reasonable attitude on the question. He wished me to realise the importance of the powers I possess. I agree that they are very important and very responsible powers indeed. May I explain to the House the grounds upon which I am going to administer these powers? They are powers given to me by law to prevent the incursion of undesirable aliens. The hon. Gentleman referred to visitors to Wembley. I will give him a figure which will, perhaps, help his case. There were last year, out of the 320,000 aliens who came in, 100,000 American tourists. Of course American tourists coming to Wembley, and coming to stay here, we do not desire to place the slightest restriction upon. Nor do we do so. We are here to extend the hand of welcome to all men and women who desire to come into this country, so long only as their visit is desirable in the interests of this country. The object of the immigration Orders is to prevent the influx of undesirable aliens. I am proud to say that a very narrow net is spread at our ports to prevent the entry of aliens suffering from disease, of impecunious aliens, and of aliens seeking work which could be done by English people. They are stopped at our ports. The moment you take away the provisions of this Act they would flow in.

The hon. Gentleman referred to another point, that of men who have lived in this country for years. I have made very careful inquiry into the 272,000 aliens who are the resident alien population in this country. The numbers that come in every year are more or less balanced by the numbers that go out. I have been asked whether there are men who slip through the net. There are undoubtedly cases of those who slip through the net, stowaways and men who land on the coast where there is no immigration officer. But the moment an alien is discovered without the necessary permit—it is not very difficult to discover him, for he comes across the police force sooner or later—if he has come in as a stowaway and without authorisation, he is at once deported. What I may call the resident population is a matter of very much greater difficulty. Yesterday I gave an answer, which some of my hon. Friends thought a very terrible one, that there were 89,000 Russians living in this country. Practically the whole of that population came in before these restrictions were enforced. Of the 272,000 a very large proportion, I think I may say over 90 per cent, have been here since pre-War days. They came in when there was a very large influx of aliens under a Government of which I was not a member. I do not wish to make aspersions on previous Governments. But they were allowed to come in. They flooded our markets and industrial centres from all parts of the world, particularly from the east of Europe and from Russia. Many of them have been here 15, 20, 30 and 40 years. They have married British wives and they have British children.

Of course I am not dealing with them harshly, so long as they came here before the War, so long as they have established themselves here. They came with our permission. I want to say that to my own friends. They came with the permission of the English Government of the day, speaking on behalf of the English nation, as they were perfectly entitled to do. I am not proposing to exercise my power harshly by turning them out bodily. Such a thing would be a grave injustice. The last speaker knows me well enough to know that I should never think of perpetrating such a monstrous iniquity. The only ones of those who come under my ken are those who commit offences, who are brought before the courts and are convicted of offences against the laws of the land. Then I have exercised my power, generally in accordance with the views of the magistrate. The hon. Member knows that there are on the records of the Home Office many cases in which he has dealt with these men. He has deported and I deport those who break the laws of the land and forfeit the right of asylum given to them in pre-War days. While I shall continue to administer the law in that sense, the main principle which guides me is the one which I laid down in my first speech on this subject. The whole question has to be looked at from the point of view of the interests of the people of this country first, second and last. With 1,200,000 unemployed in this country, I am not prepared to allow an alien under any circumstances to come into this country to seek work. The Ministry of Labour would not allow an alien who has got work from an English employer to come into this country unless satisfied that the work he is to perform is work which could not be equally well done by an English workman, and, in fact, that it is in the interests of this country that the particular foreign workmen should come in. There were cases raised yesterday of the Russian Soermus, and others, who are allowed to come in.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of explaining a little more fully to the House the precise reasons which actuated him in refusing to renew the permit to Soermus?

:The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a clever wild fowler, but in vain is the net spread in sight of the bird.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman think it an unreasonable request for the House of Commons to ask the Home Secretary whether he is exercising his administrative powers for any explainable reason, or merely for some reason which he will not disclose? Is it not in the public interest that he should tell us why he has made up his mind? If he has a reason, why cannot he give it to us?

:I may not consider it desirable to give further reasons beyond those which I gave yesterday. I will repeat for the benefit of the hon. and gallant Gentleman shortly what I said yesterday. A Russian violinist, and I think a German pianist, came here. The Russian had been here and he had, in the interests of this country, been deported, not by me, but by a previous Government. He wrote to the late Prime Minister asking for permission to come in for a perfectly definite period and for private reasons. He was given that permission. I do not complain of the late Prime Minister or the late Home Secretary giving that permission. I give permission from time to time for aliens to come in here for private reasons when I think those reasons are justifiable, but I am not bound to give permission to any alien to enter this country. I am given by the House of Commons certain powers and certain rights, and attached to those nights are certain duties and responsibilities. I have to carry out these Acts of Parliament. I am—unfortunately from some points of view—the sole authority in this matter. As I say, I do give permission in justifiable cases for men or women to come in here for a limited period. This Russian came in for the limited period and then applied to the hon. Gentleman opposite for an extension, which was granted. He then applied for a further extension until the 31st of this month. That extension was granted, but it was intimated to him that then he would, in the interests of this country, have to return.

He came here for private reasons; his permit has been extended for eight or nine months; he is an alien whose interest here is not for the benefit of this country but for the benefit of himself, and the time has come when the permission which was accorded to him should be at an end and when he should go back. I am not prepared to give any reason other than that. The object of his coming in here has been long since fulfilled. He now becomes an alien who must go back to his own country. If he were to apply to me at some future period for leave to come back here for urgent private business, I should consider his application with the desire to help him if possible, but I should consider it first and foremost in the interests of this country and not in the interests of the alien concerned. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) takes a different view from me. I know he does so on many matters. We cannot all expect to agree and though he and I have been in the House for many years, we have differed on many occasions, and doubtless we shall differ again on many occasions.

I wish to assure the House, however, that I am seeking to administer these Acts and regulations primarily in the interests of this country. I am on the other hand trying to administer them entirely without hardship or harshness to those old-established aliens who are here now, and who have received asylum in this country for so many years past. But when I find an alien in this country who has been convicted of any offence against the country, or when I find that for any other reason whether he has been convicted or not, it is in my opinion undesirable in the interests of the country that he should remain here, I shall exercise my powers without the slightest hesita- tion to whatever nationality he may belong. I am determined while I have the confidence of the Prime Minister in my great office, and the confidence of the House of Commons to make it difficult and not easy for aliens to do harm in this country. So far as the immigration of aliens is concerned—those who are coming in—I am largely satisfied that every effort is being made by the immigration officers to do their duty and to keep out the undesirables. I am now preparing a circular for the whole of the immigration officers pointing out to them what are their rights and powers under the provisions of the Act in regard to the possible immigration of undesirable aliens, and I am authorising them, as Home Secretary, backed up as I believe by a very large majority of opinion, not merely in this House, but throughout the country, to see that these Acts are properly and strongly administered.

:The right hon. Gentleman has just said he is administering the law without harshness and with justice to all concerned. I am sure one would be prepared to concede that point. But one must ask why are these onerous duties conferred upon the right hon. Gentleman, as he says himself, without any guidance? Why should he have purely arbitrary powers, exercised as he has just instanced, according to his own private views, which are not disclosed to the House? In the case which has been mentioned, was this man deported as the result of a conviction registered against him? What crime did he commit before he was deported? Was any charge made against him? Was he brought before any Court and duly convicted? If not, we are surely entitled to know on what ground the Home Secretary exercised the power to order this man out of the country. We are all the more entitled to that information, because this legislation was passed during the War. It was passed for one year only, an assurance being given that it was required only for the one year, but now it is sought to make it permanent by including it in the Schedule to this Bill.

The powers conferred on the Home Secretary during the War were very large indeed. This legislation does not pretend to deal with the whole alien question, but it conferred on the Home Secretary the power of restricting the landing of aliens in this country, and powers in regard to the place of abode of aliens who did land. The reason for that was clear. There were then war conditions, and the Aliens Restriction Act was directed chiefly against Germany. The international situation to-day has changed. It is not suggested now that these restrictions are directed against any enemies of ours. Against whom are they then directed? Why should we be asked, five years after the promise was made, that the legislation was only required for one year, to renew restrictions which were then directed only against our enemies? Those enemies have disappeared. There is now peace. We are not building a navy or increasing armaments against Germany to-day, and why should these powers be renewed in this manner? I suggest it would relieve the Home Secretary of a great deal of embarrassment if he were not asked to exercise these powers in this arbitrary way, and, in any case, the country is entitled to know upon what basis a man is deported, especially when he is deported without trial and without conviction.

:I desire to speak in regard to this matter not so much on the question of policy as on the actual state of the law as it exists, which seems to me profoundly unsatisfactory. The Act of 1919 which we are now asked to renew was an amendment of the original Act of 1914, which was passed as a War emergency Measure. Section 1, which we are now asked to continue, provides that the powers given under the Act of 1914 shall be exercisable with respect to aliens at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign Power—that, of course, does not arise—or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen, shall be exercisable, not only in those circumstances, but at any time. Then the words referring to state of war and occasions of national danger are omitted, but the whole provision is obviously made as a continuance—and is so described—of the emergency powers. Therefore, we are asked, in effect, to renew and continue the provisions of the Act of 1914. Those provisions are very drastic, and no doubt were very necessary at that time. They gave to the Home Secretary during the period of the War, powers which have probably never been vested in any Minister since the great times of the Napoleonic Wars.

I am not complaining in the least of those powers. They were probably very necessary, but it has been pointed out that the condition of affairs to-day is not quite the same. While, as a matter of policy, I am not saying for a moment that I disagree with anything that has been said as to the necessity for regulating unemployment and so forth, I suggest to the Government that at any rate next year they should 'consider whether fresh legislation should not be introduced and this method of patchwork emergency legislation cease because it arouses, altogether apart from policy, of which I do not pretend to have personal acquaintance, very well-founded suspicions. There are powers given here to the Home Secretary which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person in the world to use at the present time, but they are there, and they are to be renewed. If you look at the Act of 1914, you will see that it not only prohibits aliens from landing here, but it requires them, when residing here, to remain within certain places or districts, and that will still be the effect of carrying this into law. If you wish to intern these people in time of peace, very well, but I do not think the Home Secretary himself has ever exercised this particular provision since the War.

I suggest there is here a very serious omission. No doubt in the emergency of war it was necessary that drastic action should be taken, but I suggest that when this matter comes to be reconsidered, as reconsidered it must be very shortly—for we surely cannot go on continuing an emergency war Measure year after year until our great grandchildren say, "In which war did this particular provision arise?"—some form of tribunal should be set up, something in the nature of a judicial court, which would relieve the Home Secretary of the embarrassment of having to decide these cases entirely of his own motion. It is contrary to the whole tradition of British justice that persons, many of whom have acquired a domicile in this country, even though they may not have become technically naturalised, should be liable to deportation, after many years of residence here, merely on the decision of one Minister. I am not complaining of the particular Minister who exercises the administration now. It was equally undesirable when the power was administered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson). The system is undesirable, and what is needed when this matter is reconsidered is that, at any rate with regard to certain classes of aliens, such as those who have been domiciled for a long time in this country, there should be an appeal to some tribunal, or at least to some advisory committee, such as you have in the case of naturalisation, so that the Home Secretary might have behind him some court or authority for exercising these powers.

We must realise that as the law stands, and as we are going to continue it to-day, we are giving power to one Minister to decide practically the life and future prosperity of a man against whom nothing at all may be known. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] One hon. Member1 apparently applauds that suggestion. I should have thought that it fell within the category of powers which not so long ago would have been described as Prussian. I think it is a most objectionable system, and objectionable to the right hon. Gentleman himself, that he should have this vast power, and I am asking, therefore, though I realise that it is not possible at this time, that before next year, instead of being asked to renew this matter, we should have put before us a comprehensive Bill dealing with this class of case. In the meantime, I would ask for a careful inquiry to be made, or for a Committee to be appointed, to reconsider the whole position, not approaching it from the problems of war or from questions of national emergency produced by war such as these Statutes are founded upon, but approaching it from questions such as that of unemployment and other matters which are really the vital issues to-day, and which are not the issues contemplated by these Statutes. I have been told that in the Bolshevist Republic of Russia no one may be admitted into that country who is not a Communist, and I do not know whether we shall come to a time when no one is admitted to this country who is not a member of the party of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I suggest that it is a vicious system. I am not defending the Russian system—I never have—and I do not defend this method here, either. I ask, and I think the party to which I belong is entitled to ask, that the matter be given careful consideration by the Home Office, and that new legislation be drawn up, after careful inquiry, having regard to the actual facts as they exist at the present time.

:I have before me the draft Bill in print, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which was ready to be brought in by the Government of which the hon. and learned Member opposite was one of the legal advisers, and it is exactly the same as the Bill now before the House.

:I do not think that is a point that can quite fairly be made against me. I have said, perfectly frankly, that during this year probably it is necessary, and probably we had not time when we were in office to make the necessary amendments. I am not making that point, I hope, against the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he would not desire to make it against me. I am only asking that this be not brought up again and that the matter be considered. It is quite possible that in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill we had to do the same thing; we had so little time for consideration. I say the Bill is vicious in its present form and that it should not be continued in this form another year. I do not think the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman really meets the main point of my argument.

:I hope the Committee will exercise a large toleration in this matter with reference to the aliens. As Britishers we are found all over the world. It was my good fortune to live for over 10 years as an alien in China, and I want to say that the Home Secretary, in deporting two Chinese, has exercised a power that he would not allow the Chinese to exercise over two Europeans in China. In China we have forced the Chinese to allow foreigners to reside in the country, and we have compelled them to cede territory to foreigners and traders, and if the right hon. Gentleman is asking for these unlimited powers for himself, I think it is only a matter of justice that these powers should be conceded also to other nations with reference to Britishers. He would not allow this power to be exercised by the Egyptian Government against Britishers who are residing in Egypt, and I think it is unworthy of British credit to exercise this tyrannical power over aliens.

We are not afraid of a few aliens. I am sure, myself, that this question is largely a class question, for it is not the rich who are being deported in any case, and we have thousands of rich aliens who are tolerated here. We have no grounds of complaint against them. They do not commit political crime in this country. There is a distinct absence of crime amongst the aliens, and this political fear that is existing against Russia and other countries is without warrant in the experience of this country. It is unworthy of us, as British people, to exercise this tyrannical power against the aliens, especially when we are under the sufferance of so many countries ourselves. We have our own kindred all over the world. I have a son who has been in China for 18 years, and I would plead in this House for a larger measure of toleration in this matter. The War has gone, and all this miserable special legislation connected with that unfortunate disaster should be wiped off the Statute Book as early as possible. I hope, if this Amendment be not carried, at any rate the Home Secretary will exercise his very vast powers with the greatest caution and the greatest consideration. That is the reason I have interposed for a few moments in this debate.

:I think we are in agreement, or, at any rate, in partial agreement on one point I do not know whether I can speak for any hon. Friends around me, but I am in agreement that circumstances justify some sort of power in the hands of the Home Secretary to safeguard employment. I am in agreement on that point, for the time being at any rate, but where we do not agree is in the attitude of mind of the Home Secretary, and I think that of most hon. Gentlemen opposite. We regard as one of the greatest prides of our country the right of asylum, and it has been of inestimable benefit to this country. The attitude of the Home Secretary might have excluded from these shores anyone from St. Augustine to Tetrazzini. He does not like foreigners as foreigners. That is not the attitude of this side of the House, and, therefore, in order to protect those liberties, which we consider one of the glories of our own country, but in order to meet the reasonable point of view put forward by the Home Secretary with regard to employment, I propose to move an Amendment.

:I am afraid that is not now possible. The Question has been proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part." No Amendment will now be in order.

:Will it be possible, if the words stand part, to add words at the end? The Committee might well decide to leave in the words "Section one," and I would raise no objection to that, and I would then move to add certain words.

:I am afraid that cannot be done now. I will not say, if I saw the Amendment, whether that would not be possible, but as there was no question of an Amendment when I put the Main Question, I did not save any part of the words in order that an Amendment might be inserted. It is quite certain it is now too late.

:Suppose the Committee decides that the words "Section one" stand part of the Schedule, am I not then in Order in moving that words be added to the Schedule? That seems to have no relevance to the insertion of the words "Section one," to which I do not object. If so, I should propose to move, as soon as this Question is disposed of, to insert the words "so far as regards the power to make regulations to safeguard employment in this country."

:I would not say that would not have been possible if the words had been proposed in time, but now the Question is put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part," all the words now in the Schedule will stand part, and, therefore, an Amendment is not possible.

:Naturally I accept your ruling.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 37.

:I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 42 to 44.

This Amendment deals with the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920. I propose very briefly to deal with the matter, seeing the time is getting on, but I do so in order to try to draw from the Government some statement as to how they propose to deal with unemployment during the coming winter. I have listened with great pleasure in times gone by to the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Labour, and doubtless he has some very fruitful and fertile ideas with respect to this very great problem. Now he has a great opportunity to put his theories into practice. I desire to give him a further opportunity of explaining how he will do it. This is the fourth winter of acute unemployment—at any rate it is the third——

:The Act to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring is "an Act to make better provision for the employment of unemployed persons by facilitating the acquisition and entry on land required for works of public utility and for purposes connected therewith." Doubtless the hon. and gallant Gentleman will keep his observations in conformity with the Title.

:I shall endeavour to do so, but I should like to ask why more has not been done? Is it because the Act has not been properly administered? Is that the reason why more work has not been provided for the unemployed? Is it because of difficulties raised by vested interests, or by the landed interest that the Act has not been more fruitful? If that be the case what does the Minister of Labour propose to do to make the working of the Act and its administration more fruitful in the way of providing employment? Does he propose to continue the policy of the last Government? If we get satisfactory replies to the questions that will relieve me from bringing the matter forward time after time, and perhaps enable us to get away in good time this afternoon. Are the Government satisfied with the way the work has been arranged up to mow, or have they any new proposals that they intend to bring before Parliament? Do they propose to amend the Act during this Session? These are my reasons for putting down the Amendment, and it may be that a satisfactory reply will be given. If not, I would like to ask the Committee to support me in pursuing the matter further.

:For a few moments I should like to point to the fact that it does not appear that the Act has borne out anything like the hopes, aspirations and views held out when it was introduced. I have refreshed my memory with the views that were put forward, and there is no doubt large views were held out, and hopes for 'benefiting the unemployed people in this country. I have no doubt that it was all done in good faith, and with the best intentions by those who spoke. They were anxious to alleviate the condition of the people whom we all represent, and they thought the Measure would go far to do this. I do not think, with all respect to the Ministers of Labour who have held office, that this Act has operated in the way it was thought it would do. My point to-day is not to oppose the Act, but to secure, if possible, from the Parliamentary Secretary some announcement that the Act will be made, if it can be made, a more live proposition in the future than it has been in the past. May I add this: that I do not think the provisions which we are asked to pass here to-day are anything like sufficient, anything like so far-reaching as the case demands, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if we are going to pass this Act again to consider whether the time has not now arrived to introduce an amending Measure containing more far-reaching and more drastic proposals for the relief of unemployment.

:The Act in question is an Act to make better provision for the employment of unemployed persons by facilitating the acquisition of, and entry on, land required for works of public utility and for purposes connected therewith. The first Section applies mainly to a provision for facilitating the compulsory acquisition of and entry on land required for works of public utility.

The second Section contains power to enter on and acquire land for the construction and improvement of roads. In each case the Minister of Labour, before giving a certificate, has to have regard to the amount of unemployment existing in any area. If he thinks it is desirable to put the provisions of the Sections into operation with a view to the speedy provision of employment for unemployed persons, he grants a certificate. So the House will observe that the whole object of this Act is to give the Ministry of Labour power to expedite in cases of need and emergency the provision if this work. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has asked whether it has been fully administered. During this year alone at least so I am informed, over 150 certificates have been made under Section 2 and I am informed that not less than 550 have been made since the Act was passed so the House will see that very full use has been made of the Act and a certificate granted in all cases where the Minister of Labour thought the circumstances warranted. I think the hon. Member will probably agree that it will be to the detriment of the unemployed themselves if the Ministry of Labour at this stage were deprived of the power of making these orders which are only used in cases of emergency and necessity, when urgency is the very essence of the whole problem. I am afraid I do not pretend in this case to have gratified the curiosity of the hon. Member for Central Hull in making a detailed statement of the Government's policy in regard to unemployment nor indeed do I think it would be in order. We have experienced no administrative difficulties and the Act so far as we can do it has carried out the objects for which it was intended. I am quite certain that after this explanation the hon. Gentlemen who have raised this question would not desire to press an Amendment which would act most detrimentally in the interests of the unemployed themselves.

:In view of the very satisfactory statement of the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:On a point of Order. I wish to raise a point of order in reference to Part III of the Schedule. I do not know whether this is the moment but I want to mention it to you in order that I shall not lose any rights.

:I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 45 to 48.

1.0 P.M.

The Government are holding an inquiry into profiteering, but if one thing causes more profiteering than another it is the Shops Act. It has driven all the trade into the hands of the multiple shopkeepers and big combines, and has killed the enterprise of the small shopkeeper. He cannot get a living. If this Act is to be continued, then it should be continued subject to some provision that the shopkeeper, standing behind his own counter, with the assistance of the members of his family, should be completely free from its restrictions. Then you would develop any number of small number of individuals instead of having a great number of wage slaves, as hon. Members opposite call them. You will have independent citizens, men who are their own masters, working for themselves, not exploiting anybody, and content with a reasonable profit, which the rich combines are not. The telephone has led to inflated prices by the combines. It is a monstrous thing that every shopkeeper of the combine should be able to get on and 'phone up to the others and say, "What are you going to charge for fish to-day?" and then they fix their prices and rook people generally all round. You will never get a proper reduction of prices until shopkeepers are content with a reasonable profit. They got in a bad frame of mind during the War. I saw it stated in the "Daily Herald" that the big shopkeeper, the combine, buys at a much cheaper rate. So it does, but it does not sell any cheaper. It sells at a much bigger price. They will not do it and you cannot compel them to do it by any regulation. It is possible to get their big organisations, with supervisors and inspectors and clerks of all kinds, only by raising prices to keep all these men alive. It is just like the London Street Traffic Combine which the last Government set going, giving a monopoly of the traffic on the streets. They were not aware that they were doing it, but it is done and it is being worked out, and it will raise the cost of travelling. What a piece of tyranny it is to say that the small shopkeeper shall not stand behind his own counter as long as he likes and conduct business in his own way! It is perfectly right to protect the individual man from being exploited by his employer and perfectly fair to limit shop assistants' hours, but what right have you to limit the hours men work for themselves? What members of the Treasury Bench would have found his place there if he had not been prepared to work all hours?

:Look (how hard you worked!

:Yes, and that is why I am here, representing the largest constituency of free men who work for no boss but for themselves—crofters and fishermen, independent men, every one of them. It is as important to get small shopkeepers as it is to get small holders—

:The hon. and learned Gentleman is going a little wide. I do not think that the crofters are affected by the Shops Act.

:I was only taking an analogy. I want to see more men working for themselves and fewer working for employers. This is the perfectly natural economic result which will accrue if freedom were given to the individual. The small shopkeeper will always beat the big combines if you give him freedom. But if you shackle him, as is done by this Shops Act, then he will not. You can fix all the hours for shop assistants as short a you like—whatever pleases them. Let the early closing movement stipulate what hours the shop assistants will work, and I will support it. But I am not prepared to support restrictions on a single man's living. Imagine the absurd result! You can buy a box of matches to light your pipe after the shops are closed. That is requisite to tobacco. But if you buy a box of matches to light a fire for a sick child, you cannot do it because it is illegal. Not so very long ago a man was fined £20 for selling a box of matches after eight o'clock. Fancy that in a free country like this! The thing is perfectly monstrous. The whole early closing movement is run by the big shopowners, by the multiple shopkeepers, who have placed their paws on the whole retail trade of this country and who are at the bottom of all profiteering. There are these organisations, with means of communication, all through the big towns, and they fix prices—they buy in bulk in the market, and they sell retail—and the only possible way you will ever break them down is by giving the individual shopkeeper, who is working for himself, absolute liberty to work such hours as he thinks good—all night if he chooses, and if he has the customers.

You cannot ask the shop assistant to stay long hours, because it is an uninteresting job to stand behind another man's counter, but it is an absolute joy to stand behind your own counter. That is a totally different business. The principle of this Act is just as wrong and restrictive of liberty as if the farmer were to say to the smallholder or the market gardener, "Look here, my ploughman 'louses' at 5 "—or stops work at 5—I am using the country phrase—" and you have got to stop work too. You will not be allowed to work an hour longer on the allotment, or on your croft, or your market garden." You would have very little market gardening if you did that. The thing is perfectly monstrous. In the pushing on of this provision the shop assistant has been used as a cover behind which the big shopkeeper and the big combines have captured the small business. The shop assistant is merely a tool, and the unfortunate thing for him is that this is depriving him of his birthright, of his opportunity to start a little business of his own and become an independent man, become his own master.

That is the purpose of the Act, and that is what it has done. When the shop assistant grows older, when he is too old at 40, what is to become of him? One often wonders what becomes of these bright young men in shops. You seldom see an old man in the big stores. I suppose that is why we have introduced old age pensions. We shall soon need to bring the age down to 50 years, if we go on with this class of legislation. This may go through for what it is worth on this occasion, but I put in a proviso that, if I do not press my Amendment to a Division, it is because I purpose early in the next year to bring in a Bill to restore to the individual the right, his absolute liberty, to stand behind his own counter and to sell what he likes. In so doing, you will increase the number of independent and free citizens, and you will strike a deadly blow at the enormous profits which are being made and the profiteering which is making the cost of living higher for every one of us.

:I do not intend to vote against the Shops Act, because I know there is a great demand among shopkeepers for it, but there is a great deal in what the hon. and learned Member has put forward. In my own constituency there are many disabled men who do not and cannot possibly make a living owing to the Act, and there is a great demand among certain men for a change, as the hon. Member opposite has mentioned. I would like to ask the Government whether there is any possibility of their bringing in legislation in future to deal with exceptional cases which will meet the case of these men.

:The Committee, I feel sure, will be delighted to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman giving us his humorous speeches once again. He has addressed the House before on the same subject, but he has brought forward no new argument to-day. I feel sure the Committee is absolutely unmoved by the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am certain that no Government, it does not matter to which party it belongs, would accede to his request in this connection. Prior to the War it was quite common for shopworkers to be employed for as many as 80 to 90 hours a week. When the War came the shopkeepers themselves desired, in order to save the expenses of illumination, and so forth, to reduce the number of hours worked in shops. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on one important point. This Act was not called for merely by the large combines. The small shopkeepers themselves were tired of sitting in their own shops waiting for trade; and it would be the biggest calamity that could ever befall the people of this country if we went back to the bad old times I have referred to. I took some interest in research work in connection with the health of shopworkers some years ago, and I found that the shop assistants of this country suffered more from consumption than almost any other class of workers, and that they suffered chiefly because of the long hours they were compelled to stay behind the counter. And the tragedy of it all was that it was not a case of people being called upon to fight foreign competition for there was only so much trade to do. Supposing we accepted the hon. and learned Member's point of view, that an individual was allowed to open a shop in a street and the law provided that only he personally was to be allowed to work in the shop because it was his own.

What would happen? He would have two or three of his sons, and maybe two or three of his daughters, and a few of his relatives employed casually behind the shop. What would then become of the other shops in the same street owned by people who employ six or seven assistants? We have had this same argument before; and I venture to tell the hon. Gentleman that he can move Motions in this House as often as he likes, but the sense of the people of this country, of the Chambers of Trade, the Chambers of Commerce, the people who keep shops themselves, and those who are employed in shops would declare emphatically and almost unanimously that we must not go back to the bad old times when shop workers were employed for the number of hours per week I have mentioned.

:Nobody wants that. Let the shop assistants have as short hours as they possibly can, the shorter the better. But I say a man and his family are entitled to be behind the counter as long as they like.

:I would like to find the brains, even in a Scotsman, that could devise the means of deciding when a member of a shop-keeper's family becomes an assistant and vice versa. I feel sure that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I fear, however, that this movement from some quarters of the House to extend the hours of labour here and there is merely part of the whole trend of thought of employers in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I want to say this: We are not going to have it, we shall use all the powers we possess to prevent it, and if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted, as I feel sure it will not be, the next step would be that the employers in the mining industry would come along and local authorities would come along and engineering and other employers would come along, all saying "Parliament has granted an extension in the case of shops, why should not we get an extension?" That is the whole trouble with regard to hours of labour. Once you make a breach in the wall, the whole building ultimately falls, and I trust that this House, as it has done repeatedly since the War, will declare that shop workers and owners who keep shops for personal profit, shall be safeguarded even against themselves and that we shall not go back to those bad and miserable times I have already mentioned.

:I am sorry that the first proposal made by my hon. and learned Friend who had moved this Amendment upon his return to the House is one which the Government cannot accept. I rather gathered that his view is that small shopkeepers generally are in favour of this proposition, but my information is very different. The correspondence which I have received on this subject during the last few days, and what I have heard from other hon. Members leads me to believe that a vast number of shopkeepers are in favour of the retention of this Act. If this Amendment were carried, we should only have the Act of 1912, and under that Act the only thing that could happen would be the making of closing orders for particular localities, and there is the condition attached that two-thirds of the shop-keepers must be in agreement before the local authority can make an order.

The 1912 Act has proved completely ineffective, because it was always extremely difficult to get two-thirds of the shopkeepers to agree. During the War special Regulation No. 10B was passed in order to save fuel, and so complete was the demand that this Regulation made during the War should continue, that the Act of 1920 was brought in and passed into law. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there are special cases which might very well be dealt with. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) has made the same point. I think there are special cases of this kind, but at the present time they are cases in regard to which we should like to have more power in order to deal with them. At the present moment the Home Office has no power to meet these special cases which have been referred to. The only thing the Home Office can do is to make some provision on this matter which applies to the whole of the country. I should be out of order if I discussed this particular question, but on behalf of the Home Secretary, to whom I have spoken this morning upon this matter, I may say that the Government are prepared to look into the question of these special cases, and if we come to the decision that those cases ought to be met, and can properly be met by legislation, the Home Secretary is prepared to bring in a Bill to deal with them.

:I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. I have had some practical experience of this question in my younger days when I was a shop assistant under the old conditions before there were any restrictions upon the individualism which the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) favours so much. In those days I had to begin work at 8 o'clock in the morning and continue till 8 o'clock at night, and 11 o'clock on Saturday nights.

:I do not propose to interfere with the hours of shop assistants. The better conditions you give them the more I shall be pleased. What I refer to is the individual shopkeeper. I agree that my object would not be achieved by the passing of this Amendment, and I am quite prepared to withdraw it.

:I am well aware of the purpose of the hon. and learned Member, but that purpose will not be served by his own proposal. I was saying that during the time I was a shop assistant I was working all the time in an amount of space equivalent to about the length of the Table of this House and about half the width, and from 8 o'clock to 11 o'clock at night I occupied that space, and had every one of my meals behind a screen upon the shop counter. Those were the conditions of the average shop assistant in the trade to which I belonged at that time. I afterwards became a small shopkeeper myself because I was anxious to become my own master. I compliment the hon. and learned Member who has made this proposal upon admitting that it is bad for a person to have a master employing him for profit. I would like to point out that if we Socialists were to say the same thing we should be regarded as revolutionary and impractical. I wanted to be my own master and I was compelled to continue behind the counter of my own shop for all those long hours against my own interests, although I very much desired opportunities for recreation and culture. I had to keep behind my own counter just as many hours as I should have had to do had I been working for someone else simply because of the competition of the freedom-loving individualist, in whom the hon. and learned Member opposite believes so much. I think the Mover of this Amendment is somewhat behind the trend of economic development in his belief that it is possible by the small, inefficient, and almost totally incompetent retail trade system to beat the multiple shops which exist because of the necessities of economy. You cannot kill the multiple shops. I do not believe in killing trusts, but I do believe in controlling them. The multiple shop stands for efficiency and I believe in that.

The principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to maintain is entirely old-fashioned and inefficient, and I hope before he presses a point of this kind again he will make sure that the interests of the shop assistants and the family of the small shopkeeper as well are safeguarded because, after all, they are just as much slaves of the employer even if the employer is the father, and such long hours are bad for them both morally and physically. Under these circumstances, it is essential that the interests of the shop assistants shall be safeguarded, even if you think you can get back to the old principles of individualism which have proved an economic failure in the development our times.

:I wish it to be plainly understood that when I said "exceptional cases," I was speaking of disabled ex-service men who have taken a lump sum down and have opened a little business and are finding it very difficult to live. It is a little strange to hear the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) saying things like that when one remembers that the Ministry of his own Government sent down men to ask these men what business they wanted to go into. I believe in the individualism of the subject, and there is a great cry out among these ex-service men who want justice done to them. I was very happy that there was such a good answer given and to hear that these exceptional cases of these ex-service men who are trying to make a living will be dealt with.

:While one has the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member's feelings for these disabled ex-service men, surely she realises that the fact that these men are trying hard to get a living in this way may endanger the hours and the health and the vitality of thousands and thousands of assistants who are employed in shops. We must not be led away by our sympathy or blind ourselves to the fact that this Shops (Early Closing) Act is in the interests of so many shop assistants, who must be protected against exactly that kind of competition.

:I am bringing forward cases of men in little shops probably with small families to bring up. I am not at all blind to the fact which the hon. Member mentioned, but these are what I mean by exceptional cases. The individual has a perfect right to live his own life.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 11 and 12.

In moving this Amendment, I must congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Argyle (Mr. Macquisten) who withdrew the last Amendment on coming back here as one of the new patient oxen to keep the present Government in office. I hope, however, he will support me in another Amendment which interests shopkeepers very much. It is the question of summer time, and I move this Amendment because I think it is time that summer time was made permanent. It is absurd that we should renew it year after year. It has proved of tremendous value, and the small opposition from certain agricultural interests, I believe from some educationists, and I am afraid from a few very lazy people has really been ineffective. The summer time movement has the support of the great mass of urban dwellers, and, if the Government withdrew this Act, they would have to bring in a Bill making it permanent. I am sure that that Bill would pass, because even Conservative Members would not dare to oppose or emasculate it, and we should then have it permanently on the Statute Book and know exactly where we were. It has proved its efficiency and benefit during its lengthy trial—it was first a provision under the Defence of the Realm Act and then a statutory provision —and it should now be made permanent.

:I support the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment for precisely the opposite reason. I think that the Summer Time Act should be put an end to altogether. It is a tremendous outrage upon the agricultural worker. It is one of the most childish Acts ever put on the Statute Book. Nobody has had any right to alter the Lord's time except Joshua, and he went to the source and stopped the sun and moon. The inconvenience of this Act, especially in country districts, is enormous. I know people who have to get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to supply the town inhabitants with their milk, and now, under this Act, they have to get up at 2 o'clock. It takes an hour off the farmer's time, and a lot of town people who begin work at 9 or 10 o'clock have no right to inflict this intolerable hardship on those in the country districts. If they want a little extra time in the evening—it is mostly a question of the lads and lassies who want to meet together in the evening— they will get much forwarder in the gloaming. The whole thing is an intolerable hardship on the country, and I am sure, if it was put to the mass of these agriculturists, it would be rejected with great indignation. It is the result of one of those worked-up movements by new associations. One of the troubles is this. Workmen in country districts who have allotments get up at an early hour, and they work so long on their allotments that they do not get enough sleep, and are worked out. The man Willett, who first proposed it, could never have had the privilege of bringing up a family, or he would have known the difficulty of getting children to bed and of getting them up in the morning. The whole thing militates in the worst possible way against the interests of the agricultural community and the general health of the people. Therefore, I would like this Amendment to be carried so as to put an end to this wretched artificial Act which has done so much harm to hardworking people in the country.

:I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) by his strange mixture of cows, love, and people with allotments will have convinced the House that it is really desirable to cut out the Summer Time Act from this Schedule. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy, who moved the Amendment, did so, of course, in an ironical manner, because he is in favour of Summer Time and is rather like the man who cuts his throat in order to make himself permanently better. He would cut out this Act in order to get a permanent Act. The effect, however, would be, not that he would be permanently better, but that there would be no Summer Time next year. The present Government may take a different view from the last Government at to the necessity of making this Act permanent, and in that case they will bring in a permanent Bill. I must not be taken to be pledging them in any way, but we are prepared to renew the Act in this Bill, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not, in the interests of lovers or any other constituents, think it necessary to press the Amendment.

:if the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) could give us any statistics showing any fall in the marriage rate since summer time was introduced, I would be prepared to listen to him. I think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory, and, if there be no time to make it permanent this year, I would not imperil this benefit to the people who live in the towns and do the business of the country for the sake of the comparatively few in the countryside who object to summer time altogether. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:On a point of Order. Perhaps this is the right time to raise the point which I mentioned to Mr. Hope when he was occupying the Chair. It is in reference to line 21 on page 6—the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896. It is proposed in this Schedule to prolong the operation of that Act, I think, for two years, and my point of Order is this: As you are well aware, it is a set Rule of this House that no grant of public money may be made without a Resolution passed in due form by a Money Committee of the House. This Act of 1896 permitted grants of public money. The reference will be found in Section 2 of the Act, under which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were empowered to make payments out of the Consolidated Fund for a limited time, and the Money Resolution which accompanied the Act of 1896 only permitted that grant for a limited time. It is now proposed to extend this for a further two years, and my submission to you, Captain Fitzroy, is that it is not in order to extend the grant of public money for another two years unless this House votes a Money Resolution authorising the same. In support of my submission, I would remind you that yesterday, when we had before us a proposal to extend certain benefits and make certain demands for a further period, it was held that a Money Resolution was necessary, and such a Money Resolution will, I understand, be moved. Therefore, I submit to you, Sir, that it is incompetent for the Act in question to be extended merely by its inclusion in this Schedule, inasmuch as it makes a grant of public money, which demands a special Resolution of a Money Committee.

:May I first say, though this does not really arise on the point of Order which has been raised, that there is no proposal to extend the Act for two years. It is only for one year. As is shown in the Act, it would expire at the end of next March, so that the effect of its inclusion in the Schedule is only to extend it for one year.

:May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? This is Part III of the Schedule, and if he will turn to Clause 1 of the Bill he will see that it provides that the Acts mentioned in Part III of the Schedule shall be extended till the 31st March, 1926.

:But it is really only extending the Act for a year, because it is already in force until the end of March, 1925. It is not of any great importance, but I wanted to make it clear. As to the necessity for a Financial Resolution, that matter was dealt with by Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1907, which provides that the grants specified in the Second Schedule to the Act—which include this Measure—

"shall, instead of being charged in manner provided by the Acts relating to those grants, be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, but in the case of grants which are payable during the continuance of any temporary Act only so long as that Act is continued."

It has been the practice ever since to keep this Act alive, and this general continuing provision in the Finance Act, 1907, has enabled the charge on the Consolidated Fund to be carried on. It is quite true that we are treating in another way the Bill of last year, but that is a technical point, and the Bill deals with that technical point, so that in future we shall be able to follow the same procedure in the case of that Bill as has for many years past been applicable to the Act of 1896.

:On the point of Order. I understand that the reference made by the right hon. Gentleman was to Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1907, which really means that the payments made in relief of the rates are taken from the Consolidated Fund instead of from the Estate Duties. That appears in the annotated edition of the original Act of 1896, but my submission is that it is incompetent for the Government, without asking for a Money Resolution, to continue payments beyond the time authorised by the House of Commons.

:I think the hon. and gallant Member will realise that it has been the custom always to deal with this particular Act of Parliament in this manner. Indeed, by reason of the Act of last year, if for no other reason, it is necessary to deal in this way with this particular Act.

:Do we understand that the ancient rule of the House governing Money Resolutions is modified to the extent of this precedent? If so, it would be well for us to understand it.

:No, we are not to understand anything of that kind.

:May I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member has not, perhaps, appreciated the last words I read, which make the provisions of the Acts named, provided that they are contained in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act a standing charge.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

rose ——

:On a point of Order. Is there not a Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," and is that not debatable?

:No.

:Under what Order is that? I think it should have been moved from the Front Bench.

:Standing Order No. 3 reads:

"When such business has been disposed of, or at half-past five o'clock precisely, notwithstanding there may be business under discussion, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Question."

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, until Monday next (15th December) pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before Two o'Clock.