reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

I object.

It is very unusual to object to a Return moved for by any Member, if it be agreed to by the Department.

This is not a frivolous objection. I objected last Session to the form in which this Return was made, largely on account of the obsolete vessels and vessels of non-military value being included in it, and after consultation with the head of the Department of Naval Intelligence it was agreed to alter the form. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Baronet who has moved for this Return has not been aware of the proposed alterations, and that in putting this Motion down he has simply copied it from last year's Motion, whereas the Admiralty agreement is on different lines. In any case I have an objection to the proposed new form of this Return. I have been in correspondence with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Civil Lord, upon it, and until he agrees with me, which I believe he will do very shortly, I feel bound to object to the Return in this form.

Perhaps the hon. Member who moved for this Return will postpone his Motion until after the Recess, and meantime see whether an arrangement can be reached.

I see no reason for it, but I will do as you wish.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

It has often been debated whether it is desirable to have this automatic curtailment of the Debate on the Adjournment Motion, and I do not wish to raise that point again, because many hon. Members know full well its force. I desire to direct attention to the fact that we have here a Motion which will have the effect of concluding the sitting at four o'clock at the latest, and we are thus supposed to be allowed five hours for the discussion, the very important though it may not be very effective discussion which always takes place on the Adjournment Motion. Now, however, we find that in advance of this discussion the Government Chief Whip has put down seven Orders. Some of these, no doubt, are non-effective, but I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to say which of these Orders he intends to take. The first one is of extreme importance, and I have received many representations concerning it from interests in my own constituency which are adversely affected I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that what was originally devised as a method of supposed convenience—to which some Members object and of which many approve—has now become a means of getting through Government Orders and depriving us of the opportunity for a general discussion.

The House is surely going to have soma reply to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. I make an appeal to the back benchers opposite. They have a large majority, but they will find their opportunities of raising matters affecting their constituents very limited, while they are on the Government side of the House. During this Parliament, the Government Whips will be bringing pressure to bear on their own Members not to talk except on the Adjournment or in Supply. The only opportunity Conservative Members will have of raising matters will be either in Supply or on the Adjournment, as otherwise they will be interfering with the Government business. Here we have one of the most valuable opportunities curtailed by the placing of Government Orders on the Paper. I hope we shall have some reply from the Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury even if it is only to say that they will not do it again.

I shall be only too glad to answer my two hon. and gallant Friends. There is no danger in this to the private Member. The only danger to the private Member is if the House be counted out, and I do not think there is the slightest chance of that. There might be some difficulty on the part of the Liberal Party in keeping a quorum——

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed my point. I am not talking about the House being counted out. I am pointing out that if we take even an hour on these Orders, we are depriving private Members of their opportunities.

I was dealing with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the member for Leith (Captain Benn). I wish to assure him that I will stand by his party to-day, and help him to keep a House. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) we have no intention of taking all these Orders. There is an automatic process of putting down Orders day by day, and when they are read out I shall put them off until 10th February, except the first three. I have already received the assent of the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party to the taking of these Orders to-day.

We agree to that of course.

It seems to me the first three Orders are very important. Probably I shall be told that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has an agreement with the Whips of this party.

Yes, Sir, I have.

That is scarcely a satisfactory explanation to the private Members. We know quite well that the Whips are always prepared to negotiate away the time of private Members in return for substantial concessions to the party as a whole. This is time which is, or which was formerly, sacred to the private Member, but we have seen what has happened at Adjournment after Adjournment. We saw the afternoons of last week go. Now we have three Orders which would take up the whole of the time to-day if opposition were offered to them as opposition should be offered, while the very important matters we desire to raise on the Adjournment Motion have to go by the board. We are placed in the invidious position of either having to allow these Orders to go through without criticism, or having to leave matters of local or sectional importance undiscussed in this House. I suggest that on future occasions the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should show a little more consideration for those who sit on the Back Benches. In a matter of this sort consultation should not be with the Front Bench, but with the humbler individuals who sit on the heights both here and on the other side of the House.

May I point out that a great deal of time which on this occasion might have been occupied by Back Bench Members in airing their views, have been curtailed by hon. Members rising to complain that there is no time?

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 10th February next."

I deprecate very much the way in which the House has been treated over this matter. We had a prolonged Debate last night, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture himself admitted that there were very powerful, cogent, and logical reasons advanced against the granting of public money in the Money Resolution which was in Committee last night, and yet the Minister lose and made no attempt at all to reply to the detailed criticism which had come from three or four hon. Members in various parts of the House. While I do not wish

respect of sugar or molasses manufactured in Great Britain within the period of ten years beginning on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, from beet grown in Great Britain of a subsidy in respect of every hundredweight of sugar or molasses at the rates following:—

to delay the business to-day, I think that, before this Resolution is reported to the House, we ought to expect from the Minister of Agriculture a reasoned statement in reply to last night's Debate.

I understand that an arrangement, to which I consider myself a parity, has been made not to have a prolonged Debate on this Resolution, but I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, this question. By permitting this Resolution to pass without Debate, do we sacrifice our right in any way when the Bill comes forward to move Amendments in Committee—because the Bill will be token in Committee on the floor of the House—and to discuss the matter fully, or will it be argued by the Government that, inasmuch as we have assented to the Money Resolution on the Committee and Report stages, we have lost our opportunity to raise our difficulties?

The acceptance of this Resolution from the Committee in no way limits future action in Committee on the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

I do not desire to renew the protest which I made last night against the very gravely unconstitutional character of this Resolution, but I would venture to point out that there was no reply from the Treasury Bench to the speeches which were made from various quarters of the House, and I think it right to warn my right hon. Friend that he cannot expect that the Bill of which this Resolution is a necessary preliminary will be regarded as an uncontroversial Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Guinness, and Sir Burton Chadwiek.

War Charges (Validity) Bill,

"to make valid certain charges imposed and levies made during the late war," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th February, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

Agricultural Rates (Additional Grant) Continuance

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue in force The Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, it is expedient—

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

I think the House generally will agree that it would be singularly unfortunate if we separated until 10th February without, at all events, a short discussion on the problem of unemployment. Following the Rules of this House on Adjournment Motions, I remember that we are expressly excluded from discussing anything which suggests legislation; in other words, this morning we are tied completely to the administration of existing Acts of Parliament and steps which, in our judgment, should be taken under those Acts to hasten the provision of employment at the present time. I also remember that there are other subjects to be discussed to-day, and accordingly, as briefly and as quickly as I possibly can, I want to summarise under two or three heads some definite suggestions which I think will help us, in the months which lie ahead, in expediting the use of the legislation which we now enjoy.

Hon. Members in all parts of the House are familiar with the present position of the problem. We remember the artificial boom of the war period, and we remember the manner in which that artificial boom was continued after the Armistice of 1918. It has been said of 1919 and 1920 that it was a boom in prices rather than a boom in actual production, but in any case from that time a depression in employment set in, until in its worst stage rather more than 2,000,000 people were out of work and registered as unemployed, to say nothing at all of the very large numbers who were unemployed and unregistered. Since that time there has been a slow and laborious improvement in the position. The numbers of unemployed have fallen—and I am here speaking of registered unemployed—very slowly and very gradually, until to-day on the lists of the Exchanges there are 1,233,000 out of work. But the unfortunate feature of that one and a quarter million unemployed is that it seems to be almost a kind of stationary total, upon which we can make very little impression at all. The tragic feature of it, as we commonly recognise, is the loss of industrial skill, the absence of opportunities for the training of apprentices and others to enter industry, and the growth of what I venture to call an economic fatalism, of very grave danger to Great Britain and to all the enterprise in which we are engaged.

Therefore, I think it behoves every Member of the House to try, as far as possible, to lay mere party controversy on one side, especially in this sphere of administration, and suggest definite and practical steps for such immediate improvement as we can secure. We do not yield in the very least in our opinion that a cure can only come from a fundamental change in our industrial system, and we do not forget that a very large part of our unemployment is due to the dislocation of our overseas trade. But I can make no statement worth anything at all this morning on either head without suggesting legislation, and that is expressly debarred in this Debate.

Let us take, first of all, the twin schemes of export credits and trade facilities, because we are committed to a large scale policy under that new type of legislation in this country. There was set aside in Export Credits a sum of £26,000,000, but I think I am correct in saying that at no time has more than half of that total amount available for guarantees been employed. That—I do not call it comparative failure, but, at all events, incomplete success—is due to the collapse of our European markets, to the impossibility, in many cases, of conducting export trade at all, and to the absence of a demand for this class of facility. But there is, at least, one suggestion that I would venture to make. My hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department announced a few day ago, in reply to a communication from my own division, the extension of this scheme to certain countries, and I venture to urge very strongly that, as far as we can possibly go, we should proceed in that way. In the second place, we should take whatever steps are in our power to bring export credits to the attention of larger numbers of would-be exporters in this country. During the time I was at the Treasury, I was amazed to find that even among business men, who are supposed to be in touch with industry and commerce, an almost complete ignorance of this scheme, and the more we can do to give it publicity, and to stimulate export trade through that, the better for considerable numbers of our people who are now without work at all.

The next point concerns the administration of the Trade Facilities Act, and here I venture to make two definite suggestions, first of all in regard to that part of the Act recently extended, under which we gave a grant of three-quarters of the interest to the Dominions on loans, covering a capital expenditure extending to millions, designed to provide employment in this country; and, secondly, regarding that other part of the Act in which we give guarantees for capital expenditure as a whole within Great Britain. Let us take, first of all, the device which applies to Colonial schemes. Under the Resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference, a definite gift is made to the public authorities in the Colonies, Dominions and Protectorates of an aggregate sum of £5,000,000 spread over five years, to give them three-quarters of the interest on loans to encourage capital expenditure, the money to be raised in this country, and the goods to be ordered here.

At the moment I forget whether we were tied down to specific allocation of the existing £1,000,000 a year. In any case, the total amount of the gift was £5,000,000, but if that scheme be capable of administrative adjustment at all, on that point I think the Government themselves would agree that it might be good business, in existing conditions in this country, to try to hasten the applications from the Colonies, Dominions and Protectorates for the enjoyment of that sum, because what we really and urgently require is employment now, and more particularly employment in the great industries of iron, steel and shipbuilding, which, it so happens, would be, perhaps, primarily affected—I think largely affected. Accordingly, I ask my right hon. Friend, who, no doubt, will reply, whether in conjunction with the Colonial Office he could hasten the application for the grant of that three-quarters of the interest in such a way as to give the biggest immediate stimulus to the demand for the goods in this country, and so to hasten the provision of employment under that head.

I turn to the second part, and by far the larger and more important part of the Trade Facilities Scheme. While we were in office—I do not claim any particular credit for it, because it was already the policy of this House—we extended the total sum available for guarantee under Trade Facilities from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000, and that is the sum which stands in existing legislation. I do not pause this morning to notice at all the criticism of this new departure in the use of the credit of this country. I am quite content to say that it is demanded by existing conditions, and while I would like to see it on another basis, in which the State was represented in the ownership of the capital asset created, I am obliged to recognise that we are in a minority, and cannot carry that view. Taking the scheme as it stands, there is now available £65,000,000. There has been taken up, by way of guarantees, approximately £48,000,000, and there remains available about £17,000,000 under the existing legislation apart altogether, of course, from anything which may come back into the scope of existing guarantees. On that last point, I ought to remind the House that most of the guarantees are for comparatively long periods, and you will not get much return under that head for some time to come. I do not dispute that we 'were cautious in the use of the Trade Facilities Scheme, and we were cautious, like our predecessors, because in the aggregate this is a contingent liability of £65,000,000. That would have its effect upon our general credit. And it is a matter which students of financial and economic problems must keep in view. The Government themselves seems to have complete confidence in the new departure, because the Prime Minister himself indicated in his speech a couple of days ago in this House that the Government intended to encourage further guarantees in the shipbuilding industry of this country. I made some comment upon the matter at the time, and there is no doubt that at the present there is much unemployment and great depression in the shipbuilding and steel industries of the country. The right hon. Gentleman apparently is prepared to take some risk in the matter—I do not put it higher than that—in view of the very great distress on the Northeast coast, the Tyne, Barrow, and the Clyde. The Prime Minister has come to the conclusion that he ought to give further guarantees to the shipbuilding of this country notwithstanding the amount of unused and efficient tonnage lying idle, and notwithstanding the undoubted problem of the remunerative use of the tonnage once it is built. If that is to be his policy, then, I think, we are justified to-day in looking for a similar spirit in respect to other parts of the scheme.

There are really three kinds of applications under the Trade Facilities Act, and anybody who has been at the Treasury is familiar with all three very soon after he arrives there. First of all, there is the class of scheme that no man in his senses would entertain. The experience of some of the proposals that were put before my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and myself were calculated to make us ashamed of the moderation and restraint of the South Sea Bubble! Moreover, may I say in passing, that these schemes were not put forward by crazy Labour men or Socialists—as they are sometimes called—but they were put forward by business men—in this country a most misleading term. They were put forward by business men who said they have had long experience and who argued with tremendous conviction that they could make the schemes a success. We ruled out every proposal of this kind. With a Yorkshire-man and a Scotsman at the Treasury these men cut no ice at all! Proposals of this kind would not have contributed at all to the solution of the unemployment problem.

There is, secondly, the class of scheme that is perfectly safe. The Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act have been criticised because in the view of their critics guarantees have only been given where there was no real risk at all. The practical point there was that the promoters of these schemes could have got credit through the ordinary banking and other credit institutions, and that they received a Government guarantee, and have subsequently got the money at perhaps a half per cent, less than they could have raised it in the absence of the guarantee. Thus the taxpayers of the country were giving their credit to concerns of that kind, and in fact a gift for which they had no part in the capital asset. These schemes, there- fore, ought not to delay us long in today's discussion.

There is a third class, and it is here that we come to the real issue of trying to provide employment to a greater extent—a third class which put forward neither foolish nor unsound schemes, but schemes in which there was perhaps a greater element of risk. Hitherto I think the tendency of the Advisory Committee has been to turn down schemes of this kind, or, at all events, to postpone the guarantee. On this question there is one step which I understand the Prime Minister is takings—I do not say he is directing the Advisory Committee, for that would be altogether a wrong policy, and it would bring the various interests into the very Lobby of this Chamber—I do not say there is any intention of directing the Advisory Committee—but at all events the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is prepared in the case of shipbuilding to take a rather greater risk. If that is the position of affairs I think he will find it very difficult indeed to resist looking with greater favour upon many of these other schemes which are quite sound, but which perhaps involve a little more risk than the very safe schemes which so far have obtained most of the £48,000,000 of the existing guarantee. I do not depart from one single sentence from all that I argued or the other side of the House during the time I was in office. I think we are bound to be careful in these matters, but, after all, the real difference is between giving a little further guarantee for schemes of the kind which on the whole will be perfectly safe, and so using up the remaining £17,000,000, or continuing to pay large sums in unemployment benefit which provides no capital asset at all.

There has always been a great deal of criticism on the ground that the Trade Facilities Act, in the endeavour to provide employment, has only covered large scale concerns, and that many of the smaller promoters have been excluded. There is a great amount of small scale subsidiary industry in this country which could use with good result a guarantee of this kind. Let me make it perfectly plain that there has never been at the Advisory Committee any hostility to small promoters at all. The small promoter, relatively, has not been able to offer the security of the big contractor, and, moreover, he has been handicapped as compared with the big concerns during the time of acute industrial depression. But if, as we all hope, we are now getting towards industrial recovery, may I suggest to the Government again that they should, within the limits of the existing guarantee or any extension of it, do the best they can for the small man as well as the large one. Undoubtedly some of these new subsidiary industries can absorb Certain classes of unemployed which the bigger concerns find it very difficult to absorb.

I must now turn very hurriedly and, I am afraid, very briefly to one or two rather different things. The Government is interested in administration by the Electricity Commissioners under the Acts of 1919 and 1922. We have relied very largely upon voluntary co-operation in the establishment of the larger electricity areas. The last report of the Electricity Commissioners makes it perfectly plain that, relying, as they are compelled to do, upon that voluntary co-operation, they have achieved little success under the Act of 1919, and have not been able to secure that co-ordinated generation of electricity in the different districts of this country which would not only reduce the price of electricity for power and lighting, but, by the very reduction of price, would largely stimulate the demand for it. That is behind a good deal of our unemployment in a time when we are looking to industry and commerce to recover, and when we are all pressing very strongly that that recovery should be hastened by the widely-extended use of electricity.

Under the head of the Development Commissioners, I have mentioned only one important industry. Before the War the fishing industry round the coast of Scotland was worth about £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year; to-day it is worth probably £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. I do not remember at the moment the value of the fishing industry round the coasts of England and Wales, but it must be very substantial. The tragedy of the fishing industry has been its dislocation through the practical disappearance of its Continental markets. We are beginning now to witness the process of recovery, but it is very largely retarded, first by the losses which the fishing community sustained during the War period and, secondly, by the fact that many harbours and piers have, unfortunately, been allowed to fall into decay. We can provide a good deal more employment than we generally recognise round our coasts by the reconstruction, of those harbours and the provision of facilities under which the fishing community, which is so closely allied to the agricultural community behind it, could resume its work. What is the principle of the system of giving assistance towards the provision of harbour accommodation at the present time? In a single sentence, it comes to this, that the State gives certain grants, under the Development Commission and other heads, for the provision of extra harbour accommodation, or for the repair of the existing accommodation, but relies also upon the locality for a contribution. The trouble is that the rateable value in those fishing localities is often small, and their resources are so limited that they cannot make any capital contribution at all, and, accordingly, no scheme is undertaken, and the recovery of the fishing industry is retarded. I suggest the Government might very well consider finding extra financial facilities for these harbour centres. In the case of Flamborough, there is a very practical illustration of what can be done, even when the locality itself cannot put up any financial provision at all. That was a case in which extra facilities were wanted for fishing purposes. The local men were poor, and could make no financial contribution, but they offered their labour free of charge in their spare time for the construction of certain harbour works; and as a result of that voluntary contribution they were able to effect an improvement which not only held out hopes to them in their industry, but was very warmly commended by the Development Commissioners as a plan which might be adopted elsewhere. I should, in circumstances of that kind, increase the Government grant, recognise the local service whicn was rendered, and try to stimulate the industry in that way.

Except for one last point of great importance, my time has gone, and I must make way for others. For a considerable amount of immediate employ-12 N. ment we are depending upon what the railway undertakings in Great Britain propose to do. I say at once to the Minister of Transport and to the Government that this House and the taxpayers have every reason in the world to press the railway companies on this point, notwithstanding the weaknesses of the legislation of 1919. What are the financial circumstances in railway development? During the War the railways were nominally controlled by the State. I use that word nominally because the control was really in the hands of a Eailway Executive Committee. Under the agreement which was embodied in the Railways Act of 1921 the railway amalgamations got £60,000,000—in exact figures, after a deduction of Income Tax, about £51,000,000—in respect of depreciation, wear and tear and a hundred and one other considerations under those War-time agreements. Undoubtedly that very large contribution from the State was intended to enable them to undertake the repair of their lines, to make good after the exhaustion of war, and to employ a good many people. But the legislation of 1921 went very far beyond that contribution. Not only did it give a form of guarantee to the four railway amalgamations of their revenue of 1913, which was a comparatively good year in British railway experience, but over and above that it gave a direction to the Rates Tribunal when fixing the rates to make such allowances as it thought fit for capital expenditure incurred after 1st January, 1913, in so far as that remained unremunerative. That was very substantial financial protection to the four railway amalgamations.

I do not want to belittle, because it would be unfair to do so, what the railway companies have already done, and I do not forget the fact that important economic considerations are attached to that guarantee. No doubt it may be argued by many Members that from the point of view of providing employment railways in Great Britain are in a difficult position. They are faced with the growing competition of road traffic. But there is undoubtedly a large amount of perfectly necessary capital expenditure which can be undertaken, and which in my judgment should be undertaken without delay, in the light of those guarantees given under the Railways Act of 1921, and in the light of the undoubted improvement in British railway finance.

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that important point, what is the exact nature of the guarantee of which he speaks? It is not a State guarantee?

It is not a State guarantee. The course imposed on the Rates Tribunal was to fix the rates so as to give as near as may be the net revenue of 1913, plus allowances for capital expenditure over and above the standard revenue. The railway amalgamations are now in the nature of a powerful trust and I do not think that is an unfair description. They have eliminated largely the competition which existed before the Act of 1921, and to that extent they are in a much stronger position.

I think not.

I have looked into this matter very carefully, and I submit to the House, because part of the development applies to iron and steel and kindred industries, that it is our duty to get the railways to speed up the work on capital expenditure as fast as they possibly can. Those are a number of concrete and definite suggestions which I think would help us in the months lying immediately ahead in providing, at all events, a partial solution for what many of us regard as the greatest and most tragic problem of our economic and.social system.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very friendly and helpful speech on the administration of our existing legislation to hasten up employment and to deal with the evils to which he has referred. I, therefore, immediately respond with some account of the present position as regards various schemes which the Treasury administer in order that the House, which has a very small amount of time to cover a great many subjects, may not have to waste that time by pressing for information which can be given at once. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was happening about the arrangement which was put through as the result of the Imperial Economic Conference a year ago, under which we undertook to allow three-quarters of the interest during the development period for any public utility schemes in the Dominions or the Crown Colonies where there was a genuine anticipation. That scheme is being administered by a Committee analogous to the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee, and I must admit that so far the response has been somewhat disappointing, because only two applications have been made by the Dominions and both of them have been refused because no anticipation was shown. In giving the advantage of British credit and British contributions towards these public utility schemes elsewhere than in our own country, we are bound under the Act to make sure of a genuine anticipation. If we have experienced disappointment so far, it does not mean that nothing will come of the scheme in the future, because inevitably it takes a long time in the Dominions to understand the facilities we offer. Many of these public utility schemes would be put up by municipalities, and we can hardly expect to avoid considerable delay in the production of the kind of schemes offering the anticipation which we need to justify the grant.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the older form of trade facilities, and he mentioned in particular the position with regard to shipbuilding. The very serious position of the shipbuilding and allied industries is, I am sure, present to every hon. Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) stated two days ago that there are nearly 100,000 ship workers out of employment to-day, and under these conditions the Government have given very careful consideration to the discouragement which has been imposed by the Trade Facilities Committee at the instance of the late Government on giving facilities to the shipbuilding industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) raised this matter on the Trade Facilities Bill early this year, and I think it was largely owing to his criticisms that the policy of going slowly in the case of shipbuilding was adopted. Conditions now have changed. At the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham drew attention to the position of this industry, a very large amount of tonnage was laid up. My hon. Friend quoted figures in the Debate showing that somewhere about 700,000 tons of shipping were lying idle at that time. At the present time, according to the figures which I have just asked for, the amount of idle ton- nage is less than half of what it was a year ago in the ports of the United Kingdom, and, according to the Board of Trade figures, it has fallen from 755,000 net tons to 333,000 net tons.

That was on the 1st October.

That is so. I think the House will appreciate that this is a very important new factor in considering whether this embargo on trade facilities for shipbuilding should be maintained. My right hon. Friend said we had made a new departure, but I think that is hardly true, and it would be fairer to say we had decided to go back to the status quo. After all, the decision at which the late Government quite rightly arrived in the then conditions was an exception to the general practice with regard to trade facilities. Up to that time it had been the unbroken rule to leave full discretion, within the limits laid down by the legislation, to the eminent business men who composed the Committee. I think it is desirable, on general grounds, that as much discretion as possible should be left to them, and that is what we propose to do in this present instance. We wish that they should have full discretion to consider shipbuilding proposals on their merits. There are two cases where we think that they should relax their rule against giving trade facilities to this kind of industry. Firstly, there are applications from abroad. We think that they might be allowed, where, in the opinion of the Trade Facilities Committee, the ships would in any case be built, but where without the Trade Facilities guarantee they would be built in some foreign shipyard instead of employing British labour. It is no new thing to give Trade Facilities guarantees for foreign shipbuilding. There were two cases of ships built under trade facilities guarantees in Italy amounting, I think, to about £600,000 each ship, and there were two cases in Norway, each amounting to about £150,000. And so, if the Trade Facilities Committee in their discretion see fit to give assistance to further proposals from abroad, they would be only going back to a practice for which we have a precedent. The House must remember that, according to the shipbuilding Press, very material benefits are now offered, both by the State and municipalities in competing countries, and it is, I think, quite sound that we should use our State credit to countervail these advantages where other wise we should lose business. The second case in which we think the Trade Facilities Committee would be well advised——

Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to the second case, I would like to put to him a question in order to clear up what I think is a misunderstanding. The impression I have received from what he has said is that the late Government caused some embargo to be placed on the free consideration by the Committee of applications with regard to ship construction. That is scarcely accurate.

There was a Debate, if the right hon. Gentleman remembers, on an Amendment by my hon. Friend the member for Farnham. He proposed the definite limitation that they should not be allowed to consider applications for shipbuilding except in certain cases, such as passenger ships, ice breakers, tankers, river craft, and other special forms of construction. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he could not do that, but he would undertake that there would be no increase in the proportion of guarantees to shipbuilding as compared with the total guarantees. The effect, at the moment anyhow, was to rule out shipbuilding guarantees, but since then there has been a very considerable change, and we think that an indication should be given that there is no longer a condition in the shipbuilding industry that justifies the specially stringent treatment which the Trade Facilities Committee undoubtedly have been giving to shipbuilding under the indications which were given by the late Government. I am not criticising them; in fact, in the then condition of the shipping industry they were perfectly right. The other case in which we think that facilities should be given is where there is a genuine anticipation. We do not think that they should be given broadcast to all applicants. Owing, however, to the need for expanding our reputation as builders of Diesel engines we think that there is justification for giving guarantees in these and other cases in which work is anticipated as a result of the guarantees.

The right hon. Gentleman turned from shipbuilding to trade facilities generally, and he said that there was a suspicion that the Committee were apt to turn down cases where there was only moderate security. I do not believe there is really any foundation for that suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman did not really commit himself to it, and it was not his view when he was in office. On the 27th February last he said he could not entertain requests coming from sources which might fail to put up reasonable security and which were in financial difficulties. I think that is an absolutely necessary line to take. There has been no withholding of trade facilities from firms with good security and good standing, but I think we must see that undue risks are not taken. Up till now, we have in sight losses of about £100,000. There are three cases in which the exact loss has not yet been arrived at, but where very heavy losses have to be faced.

£100,000 already?

The exact figure cannot be arrived at, but it is certainly well over £50,000, and it may be £100,000.

Are those recent figures?

I am afraid I cannot give the exact date when the losses became certain, but I think the House will realise that we must be careful. We must only give these facilities to firms of sound standing, and we must not bolster up uncertain proposals by means of State credit. Another suggestion was made, though here again, I think, the right hon. Gentleman was careful not to associate himself with it. It was that trade facilities had been given only to large and influential businesses. That suggestion is quite without foundation. I have here a list of the schemes which have been approved since 30th September last, and which will shortly be published. I take the eight smallest figures — £35,000, £28,000, two for £15,000, £14,000, £12,000, £20,000 and £1,000. The House will therefore see that there has been no undue preference given to big businesses. I think it would really be very undesirable for the Treasury to exercise much pressure on the Trade Facilities Committee to give facilities in particular cases. It is obvious that it might lead to very grave dangers if, through the party in power, businesses were able to get special consideration on political grounds. Therefore, I think the House will be satisfied that we have gone as far as we can without undue interference with the discretion of the very eminent business men who help us in this way in encouraging the administration of these powers on the soundest lines.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about, the Development Commission, and pointed out that at different places on our coast there is very much unemployment and the conditions are suitable for such assistance. In the present year the provision is £200,000 through the Development Commission, and the new Government will certainly put no obstacle in the way of any sound scheme which may be brought forward. The question of electricity is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a very technical one, and I am sure he would not expect any definite answer from me as to what the new Government propose to do. I can only say that the very far-reaching and helpful schemes before the Electricity Commissioners are being sympathetically examined, and we hope that much may be done towards relieving unemployment by the development of electrical undertakings with State assistance.

The only other point that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was the case of railways, and I have here some figures which, I think, may interest the House. The London and North Eastern Railway Company announce that, in 1925, they will spend about £1,000,000 on capital account and £6,000,000 on renewal of rolling stock, permanent way and bridges. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway announce, as additional to their last year's programme of £14,000,000, a further substantial programme amounting to nearly the same amount. Under this programme nearly £11,500,000 is to be spent on renewal of rolling stock. The work to be placed with outside firms includes 65 locomotives, 700 coaching vehicles, and 5,500 wagons. £1,000,000 is to be spent on permanent way materials. In giving out their contracts for rolling stock, the company are imposing time limits, so as to get stock as far as possible for next summer's traffic, but they are, at the same time, endeavouring to arrange with manufacturers that the execution of their work shall not interfere with the acceptance of foreign orders where these can be secured. The Southern Railway inform the Government that they have added to their previous total programme of expenditure in hand and contemplated, amounting to £10,000,000, a further £1,000,000. The Great Western Railway announce that their programme for capital, maintenance and renewal works for next year will be about the same as for the current year, namely, approximately £12,000,000. Their orders for locomotives and other rolling stock are being increased, and they are carrying out large schemes of dock development.

Have the railways given any information as to the amount of money they are going to spend abroad on their rolling stock?

I am afraid I have not that information. These matters have been before the Ministry of Transport, and I only have the figures that they gave me just before the Debate. I think the House will see from these figures that a very hopeful contribution to our difficulties in connection with unemployment is going to be made in the near future by the railway industry. I apologise for having taken up so much time, but I thought the House might like to know the position. I can assure the House that we shall do everything in our power by administrative means—to which we are restricted in our Debate to-day— to add to employment and bring about acceleration of work.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the next quarterly return will show the nature of the losses to which he has referred in connection with Trade Facilities guarantees?

I do not know whether the cases will be sufficiently advanced for us to be able to give that information, but I will look into it, and, if we can possibly do so, I will see that it is given.

I know that a great many Members are anxious to raise particular matters, and, consequently, I shall endeavour to deal as succinctly as possible with the short point of which I have given notice. It is the case of a great many ex-officers of the Regular Army who were retired upon pensions before the War. These officers served satisfactorily throughout the War. A pension is of the nature of deferred pay. It is a contract between the individual and the State that there shall be so much pay and so much pension for so much service. These officers——

On a point of Order. Do I understand that we are now departing from the discussion on unemployment on to some entirely different topic, and that further Debate on the unemployment issues that have been raised in two Front Bench speeches is now barred out?

It is not barred out, but I have six subjects for which I have been asked to find opportunities. I think it is only fair to let those subjects be dealt with, and then see if we have any time left to go back to a matter which has already been raised. I know that a number of the hon. Member's colleagues desire to raise other subjects. For instance, after this Army question, I propose to take a discussion on a subject connected with India, which so far has not had any discussion.

May I ask if you, Sir, think it is a fair allocation of the time of the House on this very important issue that all the time should be exhausted by one Front Bench speech from the man who was responsible for running these things in the last Parliament, and a reply from the man who is responsible for running them in this Parliament, and that those who have criticisms to offer on the whole treatment of unemployment during the last three years—during which period the unemployment figures have not substantially altered, there being over 1,000,000 people unemployed—that not one of us on the back benches is allowed to offer any criticism of the administration during this period?

I am afraid I cannot interfere between the hon. Member and his leaders, but it will be my duty to share the time as fairly as I can among the subjects which are to be raised.

I put it to you, Sir, that it is in your hands, and not in the hands of my party leaders or any other party leaders, to see that those of us who have not the advantages of Front Bench positions should have at least some chance of taking part in important Debates. It is for you to decide and not for anyone else.

If I were to let one subject run by calling a number of speakers upon it, I should necessarily cut out a number of other important subjects. The day for such a discussion as the hon. Member refers to is not one of these days, but an occasion when a whole day can be devoted to the subject. All that the hon. Member has to do is to ask for one of the Supply days, and then he will get the opportunity of a whole day.

May I point out that here is an ex-Cabinet Minister, there is a Cabinet Minister, and here, again, is another ex-Cabinet Minister? Where the back-bencher comes I do not see at all.

I shall endeavour to be very brief, so that my hon. Friend above the Gangway will have the opportunity of catching your eye. As I was saying, these officers rightly regard their pensions as fixed and permanent. They regard them as inviolate and incapable of being changed except by Act of Parliament. In 1919, as there were ex-gratia increases on account of the cost of living being given to the Civil Service and various other services, the Government thought it advisable, and indeed necessary, to give an ex-gratia grant beyond the permanent pension to these ex-regular officers. I take the case of a Major who had his fixed and permanent pension before the War of £300. In 1919, under this Army Order, that sum was increased to £450, and by the Royal Warrant of 1922 that Army Order was again re-enacted.

The complaint of these officers is as follows: The sum of £450 in the case of a major varied in accordance with the cost of living, and it had to be revised in accordance with the Royal Warrant after the end of the fifth year. That revision has taken place, but the percentage has been taken off the whole amount. A percentage of 5½ has been taken off the £450 instead of the variable amount of £150 which was put as the ex-gratia grant to be varied if need be at the end of five years. Their contention, and I think it is a right contention, is that no Department can alter the sum of £300. If any variation is to be made it should be made upon the supplementary ex-gratia grant, and as far as I understand it no officer objects to the variation being made there. But recently all these men, who were made to accept this option, have received notice that their pension is to be decreased by 5½ per cent, of the whole amount. I have been trying to find out from the War Office, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell me, by what authority any Department claims to itself the right to alter fixed and permanent pensions which are a reward for service and are part of a contract made between the officer and the Government. I may be wrong. There may be some explanation, but I do not think the House will regard the contention of these officers as in any way wrong or unfair. They say: "By all means if it is necessary to reduce the pension because the cost of living has gone down let it be altered, but let it be altered by varying the variable amount and do not let the fixed and permanent pension, which has been won by us on account of service rendered, be varied." I do not know what explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have, but I can assure him that there is a good deal of disquiet in the ranks of these ex-Army and Naval officers. It is driving a hard blow against the credit of not only the Service but the whole nation if they are in some hole-and-corner way, as some officers suggest, tampering with a fixed and permanent reward. I shall be glad to hear that there is an explanation of this action of the War Office under the Royal Warrant.

The right hon. Gentleman takes the case of a major who was in receipt of £300 pre-War pension, and claims that that should be inviolate. That is arranged for under the Warrant. The officer had the option of taking the new terms under the new Warrant. At the same time, it was specially laid down that under no circumstances should the amount of the pre-War pension be reduced. In the case of the major who was previously in receipt of £300 pension, the pension was raised to £450, of which 20 per cent, under the Royal Warrant was liable to adjustment on account of cost of living expenses. That means that of the £450 £90 would be assessable to cost of living reduction. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at that for a moment he will realise that a major who was in receipt of £300 a year pre-War pension under no circumstances can receive less than £360 under the terms of the new Warrant, so that in any case he is now assured, never mind what the cost of living may be, even if it went down to pre-War prices, if the whole of the 20 per cent, cost-of-living bonus were done away with he would still be £60 a year better off on pre-War conditions than under the pre-War pension. He cannot go below £360, whereas his previous pension was £300. I know the point which causes a good deal of difficulty in their mind is the question of taking 5½ per cent, of the whole amount. That is really for ease of calculation and to make it plain to those who are affected. The actual reduction is 27½ per cent, of the 20 per cent. That is 27½ per cent, of £90. If he works that out he will find that 27½ of the 20 per cent, variable pension amounts to the same thing as 5½ per cent, of the whole payment, and it has been put on that basis merely to make things plain. He can rest assured that all the officers under that new scale have very advantageous terms as compared with their pre-War pensions. I really think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the officers. They are not being adversely affected in any way whatever, but are really very much more fortunately placed than before the War.

Am I to understand that the War Office are making it plain that under no circumstances will they touch the full pension which was earned before the War, and further, could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman make it more plain that if there is any decrease to be made in the pension it should not be taken off the full amount, but off the variable amount? They regard that permanent pension as sacrosanct, and I think the War Office is itself to blame if this misundertstanding has arisen. They have no right to take 5½ per cent, off the £300.

Does this apply to regular officers' pensions as well?

This is a question of regular officers' pensions. The case the right hon. Gentleman is mentioning is the case of a regular officer who retired before the War as a major in receipt of £300 a year. He cannot be placed in a worse position than before, because he can never, under any circumstances, go below £360. The £360 cannot be touched in any way whatever. Perhaps I can clear it up by reading from the general provisions under the Warrant?

"Nor shall an officer who was in receipt of retired pay before 13th September, 1919, whose retired pay has been re-assessed under the provisions of the Royal Warrant of that day, have his retired pay reduced by revision under this Article below the original rate."

It can never go below the original rate, and in this particular case it can never be below £60 more than the previous original rate.

May I impress upon my hon. and gallant Friend the desirability of making it plain to these men in the notices which are sent out that the £300, or whatever the permanent pension may be, is left immune, and that the only quantity that varies is the variable quantity of £150?

I will see whether that can be done. It has been a statement, generally, as to 5½ per cent, reduction on the whole, whereas it is 27½ per cent, of the 20 per cent, variable amount of pension.

It is regrettable that owing to the very great burden of work that is put upon this House it is impossible for us to discuss an important question regarding the Government of India except on the Adjournment Motion. I desire to raise the question of the policy which is being pursued at the moment in regard to the enactment of the Bengal Ordinance. It is stated that there exists in Bengal at the present time a very considerable underground conspiracy—a conspiracy of terrorism. It has been admitted by the leader of the Swarajists, Mr. C. R. Das, that there is in existence such a conspiracy, but when he was speaking and writing in his newspaper, last August, with relation to the conspiracy, he said that it could be got rid of, if the Government of India would meet the people of India, as represented by the Swarajya party, in order that they might go into the question of the future government of that country, and bring it more into conformity with the wishes of the people. Unfortunately, as Mr. Das has more recently expressed it, the Government of India, while accepting his diagnosis of the position, will not accept his remedy.

Therefore to-day we have this Ordinance, under which people can be arrested on the direction of the Government, and can be imprisoned practically without a charge. In the case of the chief executive officer of the Calcutta Corporation, Mr. Savash Chandra Bose, he was out in the morning executing his ordinary duties, practically as the Town Clerk of Calcutta, and when he returned to his home he was arrested. No charge was made against him, because he was, arrested under Article III of 1818, and no explanation was asked of him. He was taken to prison and, as the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India has admitted in reply to a Question, there is no limitation of the period for which he can be confined. This gentleman was elected by the Calcutta Corporation as its chief executive officer on 12th April, 1924. That appointment had to be submitted to the Government of Bengal for their approval. They had it before them for over a month, and then they approved it. Now we find that this man has been arrested on a charge of conspiracy.

This kind of. Ordinance and this kind of special legislation does not really gain the objects which the Government desire. None of us in this House would, in any sense of the word, say anything or do anything which would encourage assassination or terrorism, but this action of the Government, in my judgment, is the very thing which leads to the encouragement of terrorism and the encouragement of assassination. You have, first of all, the fact, it is said, that it is necessary to protect witnesses; that if a witness finds that his name is likely to be disclosed, he goes in terror of his life. Because of the fact that there is no public trial, and because in no circumstances can you examine the people who make the charges, the course is always left open to the agent provocateur to work all the time for his personal ends, knowing that there is no investigation of the statements he makes.

I understand that the only charge against Mr. Savash, Chandra Bose, is, that he attended a meeting at (which there was talk regarding criminal conspiracy. I understand that Mr. Das attended that meeting, but Mr. Das has not been arrested. It is a case of the selection of another person for arrest. The fact that he attended the meeting does not prove that the man had anything to do with the conspiracy. In dealing with this question of the Bengal Ordinance, Mrs. Besant—who to a very large extent supports portions of the action of the Government of India in this matter—says, writing in "New India" on 1st November: When a man of such moderate opinions as Sir P. C. Roy comes forward to make a serious declaration of that kind, it is time that we asked the Secretary of State for India to bring his influence to bear upon the Government of India, and ask them to alter their policy and take that wiser course which has been outlined by one of the most distinguished Governors that we have had in India—Lord Willing-don. During the time I was in Bombay, I was struck by the extraordinary love which had been farmed by the Indian-people in Bombay for His Excellency, Lord Willingdon. I think the same thing has applied in regard to his government and his administration in Madras. Speaking, at the Royal Colonial Institute on 9th December of this year, Lord Willingdon said: be taken into the most serious consideration by the Secretary of State and by His Majesty's Government. Such a condition of things would lead to the cessation of all these ideas or territorism or anarchy or anything else that may be said to exist. I want to say a final word. We have had this sort of idea of repression and of special legislation in regard to the neighbouring country of Ireland for years and years, and yet we know the tragedy there has been in that country. In 1886 it was possible to give to Ireland a very minor kind of constitution which would have been accepted by the people. That policy was rejected, and a policy of repression, of special legislation, and of spies was resorted to, and the result has been the tragedy that has taken place there. I do not want this tragedy to arise in India. There are two other Asiatic Powers, one of which has, in the past, been friendly towards us, that have been showing a sign of a change of policy. We do not want an Asiatic revival, in a sense of being in contrast to a European revival or to have a conflict between the Asiatics and Europeans. India at the present time stands at the cross roads. Are we to follow a policy which shall make her our friend right down through the centuries, or, on the other hand, to continue the policy of repression which means that she will go from us and will be our enemy?

I have no complaint to make against the hon. Gentleman for raising this question, which I think is one of immense importance to India and of considerable importance in this country. I should like to make two preliminary observations or comments upon his speech. The first is this. He has shown amazing Parliamentary courage in raising the matter in the form and in the manner in which he has done, having regard to the responsibility of the Government of which he was an enthusiastic supporter. In the second place, I would venture to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think it is clear from what he has said that his judgment of the matter is wholly an unstable one. It is evident from his speech that he does not sufficiently realise the gravity of the situation that confronted the Government in India when the Ordinance was promulgated. I say that, because I have no hesitation in asserting that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person in this House to sympathise with the real motives and methods against which this Ordinance is directed. His kindliness and humanity are in striking contrast to the dark and sinister influences which have existed for some time past in certain quarters in Bengal and against which this exceptional weapon of the Executive in India is directed.

I am glad to have an opportunity of telling the House something about this matter because I think it is well that the House of Commons should realise it. In the first place, what is the history of the case? I will give it very shortly. The policy decided on by the Government of India and the Government of Bengal was fully accepted by the late Secretary of State in the Government supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those who know Lord Olivier, especially the hon. Member's late colleagues, of whom I see three on the Front Bench, are surely not going to accuse him of undue precipitancy in this matter. At any rate, I am not going to do so. The hon. Gentleman used a phrase which I should like to recall to the House and which I rather hope that when he has considered it he will see the propriety of withdrawing. I want to ask him against whom does he use it? Does he accuse the present Secretary of State or the late Secretary of State? He said of this Ordinance that it was

That is a very serious charge to make. Is it a charge which is made against the Secretary of State who authorised this policy, ibut after consultation with the Government of India; or is it made against the present Secretary of State who authrised this polic, but after consultation with the Government of India; or is it made against made against the late Secretary of State, the Secretary of State of the party opposite, which the hon. Gentleman supports. All I can say is it is an utterly baseless charge, and it is a kind of statement which may have far-reaching effects in India, because it may lead some people there of slender intelligence to believe that there is a responsible body of opinion in this country which believes the Government should not take obvious steps to deal with the condition of terrorism and intimidation which, if they do not take steps to deal with, they would be failing most gravely in their duty. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will at some future time consider the propriety of withdrawing it. Speaking both for the present Government and the late Administration, I say that I do not think it is a charge that ought to be made. The decision has been accepted by the present Secretary of State. My Noble Friend gave it the most careful consideration, and he saw no reason to differ from the policy of his predecessor in the case. The hon. Member quoted the words of Lord Willingdon in an entirely different connection. I am sure he did not wish the House to think—he might have given the impression to some hon. gentlemen who are not fully instructed—that Lord Willingdon in using those words was speaking against the Ordinance. I need hardly assure the House that those words had in fact nothing to do with it.

I do not think I conveyed that. I was quoting Lord Willingdon as putting forward a policy in regard to India, and my contention was that that policy would make the Ordinance unnecessary.

I am obliged to the hon Member, and I note that that is really what he meant. I was anxious, as to the effect upon the minds of some Members, as I thought there was a suggestion that Lord Willingdon was in some way opposed to this policy. A word about the Ordinance itself. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything in explanation of its provisions. They are fully set out, and the reasons for them are fully set out in the White Paper which has been published by the Government. I might say that where there is a reasonable certainty that the witnesses will come forward with a sense of security to give evidence, and that convictions will follow, prosecutions can take place under the Order. Where, on the contrary, there is strong presumption that witnesses will be intimidated, molested and even murdered, there can be no recourse for trial to the ordinary courts. I would like to give the House some examples in which witnesses have been treated in this way. There was, for example, the Alipore conspiracy case not many years ago, a case of great importance where an approver vas shot dead in gaol by two revolu-tioneries who were also confined. In November of the same year there was certainly one murder and probably three of persons who had given or were expected to give information in a case. I could quote many other cases, but I will refer to only one. It is the case as recent as that of the bombing which occurred in a street in Calcutta, where Santi Lal Chakrabarti, who had been acquitted by the verdict of a jury and released in September of this year, was found dead and shockingly mutilated. There is no reason to doubt that the reason for this incident was that some of the revolutionaries thought that he was in possession of information which he might give or had given to the authorities.

After all, the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman opposite are very easy to answer. I have made it clear—it cannot be denied—that the late Secretary of State has just as much responsibility as my right hon. Friend for the policy in India. Certainly my right hon. Friend is not prepared to shirk responsibility for that policy, nor, I am sure, if Lord Olivier had been still Secretary of State, would he have done so. I am sorry that Professor Richards is no longer in this House, for I am sure that he would have supported everything I have said with regard to the responsibility of the administration to which he belonged. Let me say a final word on this subject. The statement that the hon. Member has made to-day is the sort of statement that has been made for 20 years by people who share his views, namely, that repression never solves any problem. Let me say that that to me is a meaningless phrase. Ordinary political agitation, even where it takes an extremist form, is, I quite agree, seldom, if ever, allayed by mere repression. As the Viceroy has shown so clearly and lucidly in his Proclamation and in his public utterances, these exceptional weapons with which government in India has armed itself are not being and will not be used against such agitation, that is to say, political agitation, not even against what might well be described as extremist political agitation. I will give an example of what I mean. There have been speeches of an extreme character made in India by Mr. Das and others against the ordinance. No action has been taken or will be taken against them. They are quite entitled to protest against the ordinance if they think fit. But I say most emphatically—and 99 per cent, of the Members of this House will agree—that "where murder, terrorism, the bomb and the revolver are the methods of opponents of government in any part of the world, the members of that Government would, indeed, be failing in their duty to themselves and to the general population if they did not rigorously repress the movement by depriving the instigators of their liberty. That is the only basis on which civilised government can continue.

If this were to be a big Debate I would attempt to drag out into the open those who criticise the Ordinance and I would ask them, "What is it that you object to? Do you say that the Government of India are not making a correct statement when they say that this Ordinance is solely directed to the second class to which I have referred?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman should bring evidence to show that the Government of India have not carried out that policy. I do not believe there is any such evidence. As regards the seriousness of the situation I would draw the attention of the House to page 4 of the White Paper, in which is shown the state of affairs which prevailed in Bengal at the time that the Ordinance was promulgated. With great respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I challenge anyone to deny how awful would be the responsibility of the head of any Government who knew that his loyal and brave subordinates—I would pay a tribute here to the servants of the King-Emperor, whether Indians or Europeans, in Bengal, and especially to the police, who in tremendous difficulties have carried out so splendidly their duty during the past year—were in danger of their lives because of their loyalty, if he failed to take the step which he knew that he ought to take in order to protect them, because he feared uninstructed criticism in Parliament or in some other legislative Chamber. I would pay a tribute to Lord Olivier, in that he did not fear to take that step because of the probability of criticism such as we have heard to-day from the hon. Gentleman apposite. If in the circumstances which I have named the Government failed to take such action, and if anyone of those servants of the Crown fell a victim to bomb or revolver, would not the Executive Head of the Government, rightly be haunted for the rest of his life by the spectre of the man or woman whom his own moral cowardice had betrayed?

I do not propose, on a day which is consecrated to the Private Member, to spend any time in defending the action of the late Secretary of State for India. Indeed, it has been done better than I could do it, by the Noble Lord. But some reply should be made to his sneer at the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), who raised this question. The hon. Member for Mile End could not possibly have known of the action of the late Secretary of State in time to make any sort of protest in this House. It was only on 25th October last, a red letter day, that this policy was put into operation in Bengal and the Crimes Ordinance promulgated.

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Member, but I made no sneer at the hon. Member for Mile End for any attack on the late Secretary of State. I know his sincerity and honesty.

Sometimes the Noble Lord does not know when he is sneering, but I accept his statement. My hon. Friend's position is that at the earliest possible moment he has brought this question of the Coercion Act in Bengal before the House of Commons, and he is perfectly entitled to do so, whether or not that policy was initiated by the late Secretary of State. I hate coercion, and I demur entirely from the statement of the Noble Lord as to coercion. We have had years and years of it in Ireland, and it has resulted in the two peoples falling apart, with the disruption of the Empire so far as Ireland is concerned. We do not want to repeat that in India. Therefore, it is certainly desirable that hon. Members behind me should criticise and scrutinise moat closely the operation of the Crimes Ordinance in Bengal. That is necessary in the interests of the British adminis- tration as much as in the interests of the Indian people themselves. There must be no sort of feeling on the part of the Government that any criticism or scrutiny by Members of this side of the House is a matter which ought to be turned down because the policy was originally initiated by the Labour Government.

Let us realise that coercion is not only no cure, but is the weapon of those who are afraid; let us also realise that it has the extraordinary disadvantage of making the relations between the two races in India worse than they are. It embitters feeling, and every Government in India must see that the coercive method is used only in so far as it is absolutely necessary, and is withdrawn at the earliest possible moment, directly there is a possibility of it being no longer required to prevent assassination. Much as I hate coercion, I hate terrorism more, and my friends in the Home Rule movement in India must realise that the reforms which they and I have at heart are now in parlous jeopardy. If terrorism is shown in Bengal in the shape of assassination, then all we hold dear runs a very grave risk indeed at the present time. The reform scheme itself will be in danger. We who believe in Indian Home Rule, and who are going to work for it without any cessation, know we are a small minority in this House and in this country. The Government are overwhelmingly strong, and the action that Government has taken in Egypt ought to show to my friends in India, as clearly as it has shown to me, the risks we run if anything should give a handle to the present Government for reversing the policy of the last three British Governments.

I know that the Swaraj party in India, whether it be the section associated with Mr. Das in Bengal or the section associated with Moti Lal Nehru or Mr. Gandhi, has, in fact, no connection whatever with the physical force party in Bengal. I believe the idea of that connection springs solely from that solitary-speech of Mr. C. R. Das in which he said he knew the situation was even more dangerous than the Government believed. But if they have any influence upon these physical force fanatics, I hope they will make it clear to them that the cause of India, the cause of democracy, the cause of human freedom depends now, as it has never depended since the years before the War, on the absence of any terrorist crime in Bengal. If we are to get rid of special legislation, if we are to get a step further in the direction of Home Rule, if we are to prevent reaction ruining all we have fought for in the last five years, I trust they will leave no stone unturned to prevent assassination and violence giving any excuse to the Government and the Noble Lord opposite to carry out that policy which, I fear, they have at the backs of their minds and in their hearts.

I should like at the outset to say a word about the Noble Lord's very heavy censure on my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) for saying this act of oppression was calculated to lead to violence and bloodshed. He accused my Hon. Friend of levelling a charge of responsibility for violence and bloodshed against either the late Secretary of State for India or the present Secretary of State for India. My hon. Friend's remark was that the nature of the Ordinance and the regulation was calculated to lead to violence and bloodshed, and no charge was made by him against any individual. I rise mainly to take up the point which the Noble Lord made to the effect that no one was prepared to say that this Ordinance and Regulation 3 were being used for any purposes other than the purposes declared by the Government. I say deliberately that in my opinion Regulation 3 and the Bengal Ordinance are being used for purposes other than those publicly stated. They are in effect being used for a deliberate attack on an important constitutional party in India. Let me remind the House of the powers which the Executive enjoys under these two Orders. Under Regulation 3 they may take any man they like, incarcerate him—they need not bring him to trial— and keep him, if they please, for a lifetime. It is the kind of thing that was possible in the France of pre-Revolution days under the old system of lettres de cachet. A man may be taken, innocent or guilty, put into prison, and kept in an Indian Bastille until such times as it pleases the Government of India to release him, and he has not the ghost of a chance of getting any sort of trial.

It may be asked how can that system be used against a constitutional party? When you have, as in the case of the Swaraj party, a very strong constitutional party gaining numbers at a rapid rate and becoming more and more irksome and inconvenient to the Government of India, you have obviously a motive for the Government of India trying to cripple that party. What easier method is there than to use Regulation 3, under the pretext that it is going to suppress violence and anarchy, take important officials and leaders of the Swaraj party and keep them in confinement for an indefinite period? Here I wish to make a point which tends to give considerable colour to the suggestion that the Government of India is using Regulation 3 in this manner. There are two forms under which persons may be arrested—under Regulation 3, which gives them no trial at all, or under the new Bengal Ordinance, which entitles them to a sort of trial. Under the Ordinance, when they have been arrested for 15 days, or at most a month, it is incumbent on the authorities to get an order from two judges justifying the continuance of the confinement. Thus there has to be some kind of trial, though it is in camera and the accused is not entitled to appear in his own defence or to be represented. What has happened to the chief leaders of the Swaraj party arrested recently? They have been arrested, not under the Odinance which provides some kind of trial, but almost in all cases under Regulation 3, which provides no trial at all. In that very fact there is evidence to support the theory that the Government of India is using Regulation 3 as a means of endeavouring to cripple a perfectly constitutional party.

It is said that the ordinance and the Regulation are being put into force because there is a grave state of unrest and the possibility of serious violence. The Noble Lord quoted one or two cases. We will admit that in a great country like India there are occasionally outbursts of violence. We have them in this country. He says all these outbursts are political, but in the White Paper there is no evidence to show that action so drastic as this is justified by the amount of violence which has taken place hitherto. The White Paper gives as a justification for the Ordinance the fact that the Defence of India Act, 1914, was instrumental in suppressing violence at that period. The Defence of India Act was instituted in 1914, and I want to quote the outrages which took place during the period that that Act was in force. In 1914 there were 20 outrages; in 1915, when this Act was being applied in the most ruthless fashion, the number had increased to 32 outrages; in 1916 there were 20; and in 1917 there was a remarkable drop; there were only nine outrages. The Noble Lord may say that that was due to the Defence of India Act. Not a bit of it. All through 1917 there were expectations and there was hope in India that reforms were going to be granted to India, and, as a matter of fact, in August, 1917, Mr. Montagu made his famous declaration, and I claim that it was the appeasement and the hope induced by the possibility of these reforms and by the announcement of them that brought about that great reduction in 1917.

I want also to draw the Noble Lord's attention to this fact: When that Defence of India Act was promulgated, there was practically no opposition to it in India, there was no great popular feeling against it, but what about this new Ordinance I You find that throughout India there is tremendous agitation against it, and tremendous indignation, and not only are what I might call the extremist political parties, like the Swaraj party, protesting very strongly against this, but all the moderate sections, with the possible exception of Mrs. Besant, are united in protesting against this as a great outrage on Indian constitutional liberty. I do not care; by whom this Ordinance was put in force, whether by a Labour Government or any other Government. I believe strongly in constitutional liberty. Constitutional liberty is the great boast of the British Empire, and I do not think liberty ought to make distinctions of colour. I think the citizens of India are just as entitled to enjoy their constitutional liberty as are the citizens of this country, and unless you have got extraordinary conditions, you are not entitled to put into force powers of this sort which are going to take away from the ordinary citizen his most elementary rights. Suppose these powers applied to this country, and suppose the Labour party became a great menace to the Conservative party, if the Government dared do it they would say there was agitation by the Communists, or threats of violence by the Communists, or acts of violence by the Communists, and they would get an Ordinance issued in this country under which they might take the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), they might take the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), they might take anyone, and put these people in prison, and keep them there for an indefinite period, because in that way they would hope to cripple the perfectly constitutional and legitimate work of the Labour party.

I am merely giving that as a kind of illustration of what this Act means to the people of India. I say it is an attempt to destroy by stealth the legitimate constitutional activity of the Swaraj party, and I entirely endorse the stand take a by the hon. Member for Mile End when he says that, so far from Regulation 3 and the new Ordinance suppressing violence, they will tend to drive the people of India, who have hitherto be lieved in constitutional methods, and who have been working along constitutional lines, to despair of constitutional methods and to proceed along the very paths of violence and bloodshed which we all abhor. Therefore, I think the Noble Lord, instead of taking up this very superior, die-hard position, if he really consults the best interests of the British Empire, will take a long view instead of a short view, will take a broad view instead of a partisan view, and will, as the hon. Member for Mile End said, bring all the influence he can bring to bear upon the Indian Government to induce them to abolish Regulation 3, which they promised to abolish two years ago, and also to abolish the new Ordinance.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down or to speak further on any of the topics that have been discussed to-day. I rise for the purpose of endeavouring to turn the attention of the House generally, and of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education in particular, to a subject which I consider second to none in importance, namely, education. In the Debate on the Address which we concluded this week, little at all was said on the subject of education, and, as far as I know, no Government speaker made any reference to it whatever. There was a reference in the Gracious Speech from the Throne to education, and I should like to quote it. It was: sentences of that speech, the first one in which he said to the teachers:

I want to comment on one or two points, and ask the President of the Board of Education if he will be good enough to give us some answers. If he will do so, I am perfectly sure that not only the Members of this House who are interested in education—and they are a very large body, belonging to all parties —not only will they be grateful, but also the local authorities, and the people of the country generally. The first question is with regard to the size of classes. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor encouraged a determined effort to reduce the size of classes, and I should like to ask whether the Board intends to carry out the proposals of the late Government for the reduction of the size of classes in elementary schools. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor also took steps to replace dilapidated, old, and insanitary schools by modern buildings. I have already quoted the present Prime Minister as being in favour of that, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any arrangements are being made, and, if so, what arrangements, for the provision of new schools, without encroaching on the available supply of labour and material for housing purposes.

We have had a long Debate in the House this week, and have heard a great deal about alternative methods of construction—of steel houses. Is there any proposition in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman riot only for steel houses for the working classes, but for steel schools for the working-class children? Is the Board considering the utilisation of any new methods and materials for school buildings as well as for working-class houses? Have they faced the difficulty they anticipate will arise from the shortage of labour, repeatedly put from their side in the present week, with regard to finding labour in the building trade? The next point is with regard to the proposals for the extension of secondary education. Is it the policy of the Government to continue to increase the number of free places in secondary schools, and to aim ultimately at the entire abolition of secondary school fees? Then, in regard to maintenance allowances, do the Government intend to restrict maintenance allowances given by local authorities and grants for school meals?

I apologise for the numerous questions I am asking, but there are all too few opportunities for discussing the important subject of education, and there has been no opportunity up to now under the new Government to get any statement in this House as to the policy of the Government. The late Government also re-established the system of State scholarships, and I would like to ask whether the present Government will continue to extend that system. I would also ask whether the Board intend to recommend local authorities to raise the school-leaving age to 15. If I have not exhausted the right hon. Gentleman's patience, my final question is this. I hope he will excuse my persistence in raising this matter, which I have continually raised since I have been in the House of Commons, whatever Government has been in power, and that is the question of the special children. There is still a large number of authorities who are making no provision whatever for the education of these special children—deaf, blind, mentally defective, crippled, and other special children.

The right hon. Gentleman, or his predecessor, recently issued a circular to the local authorities drawing their attention to this matter. It is too early yet to ask whether he has any information of any results accruing from that circular, but I would ask him to be not less energetic, but more, if possible, than any previous President with regard to these special children, because I am perfectly convinced there is no phase of education in which better results will be obtained by increased educational facilities for these abnormal children than in the development of the special classes. It means that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of children who, by an extension of these special schools, may get sufficient education for them to earn their living, or it means that they have to be maintained for the whole of their lives either by the Poor Law or charity. I apologise for the many questions I have asked, but these are matters that concern a great many Members of all parties in this House, also the local authorities, and, lastly, and most important, they concern the children of this country, and we should all be very grateful, I am sure, to the Noble Lord if he would oblige the House with a general statement of the policy of the Government in regard to some of the matters I have raised.

I have never heard so brief a speech which required so long an answer, and I cannot hope to answer fully all the questions put to me, because if I did so I should far exceed the time I ought to occupy. I will try to answer some of them. First, let me say I am very grateful to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) for the kind way in which he has referred to me, and I am grateful to him for having given me the opportunity of dealing with some of the points he has raised. When the work achieved by his predecessors over a long period of years is remembered by an Education Minister, he realises how difficult is the task that lies before him. Looking over the progress we have made, I think that any new President must feel impressed with the record that he has to live up to.

Before I pass to the specific questions which have been put to me by the hon. Member for North Tottenham, let me say that deeply as one feels one debt to all one's predecessors, one naturally feels a special debt to one's immediate predecessor. I hope I feel that debt. The hon. Member for North Tottenham, referring to a passage in the King's Speech, said it might mean anything or it might mean nothing. Does that not apply to almost all statements about education—all that I have ever heard? They may mean anything or they may mean nothing. They are inevitably, I think, very largely composed of aspirations, and if the strength is not there, the aspirations will of course come to nothing. The one thing that the particular passage in the King's Speech does mean is this: that when we say "continuous" we mean "continuous." We want to carry on educational advance in continuity with our predecessors and in such a form as will enable our successors to carry on in continuity with us. It certainly means that, and I shall endeavour to act up to it. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition some days ago suggested that the passage in the King's Speech required a large amount of legislation. I think the hon. Member knows, and realises, that there is nothing in the King's Speech or in the Conservative programme to which the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition referred which cannot fully be carried out under the existing Acts that are on the Statute Book, and especially under the Act for which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Universities (Mr. Fisher) was responsible. He said that it was folly for us to be frightened, as we might be, in various directions. One of these was the Press. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be nervous on that point. He spoke of the teaching profession being attacked. But the teaching profession is not the only profession that has been violently attacked by the Press. I spent many years of my life as a member of the Diplomatic Service which has been strenuously attacked, not only by certain organs of the Press, but by hon. Members opposite. I do not think that any attacks that the hon. Member may fear in the future are likely to deter me from doing what I think ought to be done. The hon. Member was also afraid that we might be frightened by the Treasury. All Chancellors of the Exchequer in all Governments erect some barriers for the protection of the taxpayer. I do, however, want to assert this quite plainly: that I have had nothing but consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer since I have been at the Board of Education, and I am quite sure I shall continue to receive every consideration. I want the House to remember this: that I am responsible for anything in education which may be put forward by the Government. I do not want anyone to say: "This is the Treasury; it is not the President." I am just as much responsible as the Treasury for seeing that proper administration is carried out. I am just as responsible as they for seeing that the Board is not extravagant, and does not spend money uselessly; and if I do anything which hon. Members do not like then they should blame me and not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Let me now turn to the questions put to me by my hon. Friend. There is the question of the size of the classes. This matter has hardly yet begun to be dealt with. We cannot really flatter ourselves that we have made any great advance in this matter in the last two or three years, and it will mean very steady work and encouragement if the size of classes is to fall. I shall certainly do all I can to see that the size of classes is reduced. Then as to dilapidated schools. The position is this: My immediate predecessor, now sitting opposite, authorised a survey of the urban areas covering something like 6,000 schools. The result of that survey came before me almost the first day I went to the Board. I have authorised the sending out to the local authorities concerned a list of the schools which are dilapidated, insanitary, or otherwise unfit for their work. The lists are now being checked and sent out to local authorities all over the country, and in this matter we have been working in close co-operation with the authorities, and the authorities are as anxious as we are to see that these schools are put in order.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of these condemned schools are council schools and what proportion are Church of England schools?

I am afraid I have not got those figures in my mind, but I will try to let my right hon. Friend know. As regards rural schools, I propose to start next year a thorough survey of the schools in rural areas. Naturally one cannot carry out a survey of urban areas and rural areas at the same time. The inspectors have enough to do to deal with one class of area. We shall take up the rural areas next year. It will take some time, but we hope to have a thorough survey of the whole of the rural schools.

As regards school architecture, I do not think there is any line in which we have made greater advance than in school architecture, and I rather hope that if we have an educational exhibit at Wembley Exhibition next year we may be able to have an exhibit of school architecture. I cannot say anything about special materials for school buildings. As hon. Members know, the school architects of local authorities are very keen on an improvement in school architecture and are doing a great amount of work on those lines, and I shall do everything I can to encourage it.

In regard to secondary education, an hon. Member asked whether we propose to increase free places. I endorsed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) endorsed, in the Debate on the Estimates this year, the policy stated by my predecessor, which was an increase in the number of free places to 40 per cent. and an increase in secondary school accommodation aiming at 20 per thousand. There is no particular virtue or sanctity about 20 per thousand. It appears to be a figure which was taken by a Committee some years ago, because, I think, it was actually the figure for Bradford. But that is a figure to work to, and I shall certainly do my best to secure that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend making 40 per cent, a minimum or a maximum?

That is the immediate object for which I propose to work, it is at present, as the hon. Member knows, the maximum. I propose to work to 40 per cent., as my predecessor proposed to work, and when we have got that proud position it is time enough to consider how far we ought to go beyond.

2.0 P.M.

I think this is the right place for me to say something which I want to say. I have said a great deal both here and outside about continuity of policy, and I ask the House to believe that I want policy to be absolutely continuous, and, therefore, in honesty, I should like to mention one matter in which I do not quite see eye to eye with my predecessor. It is a matter of method and not of policy. It is the question of the so-called super-grant of £2 this year and £3 next year and in succeeding years on free places in excess of 25 per cent. in secondary schools. That grant was offered by my predecessor in a circular issued last September. A fixed grant of that kind does not, of course, fit in with a general system of percentage grants. It has certain very unexpected results. It has in certain respects, I think, a discriminating effect against progressive authorities who want to provide new secondary school accommodation, and it is open to a variety of objections as a method of securing the end at which we are aiming. One of the objections I feel most keenly is that a good deal over 90 per cent, of the expenditure under that grant at the present moment is on free places existing already more than a year ago. I think next year the expenditure on those old free places will amount to as much as £110,000 a year or more. I am not criticising my predecessor, for I know the problem is a very difficult one, but clearly that money spent on old free places is not providing any new facilities for poor children. I am not entirely convinced that the super-grant is necessary for the purpose.

The House would like to know that there has been a very great, a very encouraging increase in the number of free places. I think, although the circular issued at the beginning of September may have been responsible for producing some hundreds of free places, that clearly it does not account for the very large increase in free places at the beginning of that term. That increase was rather due to my predecessor's removal of the limit on free places earlier in the year. I think local authorities are particularly anxious to increase free places. They always strongly objected to the limitation of free places which was placed on them after the Geddes' Committee Report. I am not convinced that the method I have referred to is necessary or Is the right one. I want to say that in order to be perfectly honest on the subject of continuity. The Regulations covering this grant are now before me. In justice to local authorities, a sudden change in a matter of this kind must be avoided if it is at all possible, and I therefore propose to confirm the Regulations as they stand; but I am considering the whole question of the future of this particular additional grant, and I hope shortly to communicate with local authorities on the subject.

To come to the next point in regard to secondary education. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) asked me whether I was in favour of the total abolition of fees in secondary schools. As a general proposition, and as at present advised, I am not. I do not believe the abolition of fees in secondary schools generally would at the present moment have any effect but this, to delay considerably the extension of secondary schools and the provision of new secondary school accommodation, and I am not in favour of that as a policy at this moment.

On maintenance allowances I have nothing to say. I think the position is now clear. My predecessor raised the limit recognised for grant, and I certainly intend to maintain that provision. I do not think there is anything new to say on that subject. I intend to carry on on the lines already laid down. I think the same thing applies to the provision of meals. I have not had in mind the placing of specific limits upon the provision of meals. The question has not been before me, and I do not think it is a question which really arises.

State scholarships I certainly propose to continue. I had, as a matter of fact, considered whether it would be proper this year to add certain new scholarships to that scheme — whether that should form part of my estimates. I think, however, and I am so advised, that we ought to see how the present scholarships work for another year before considering an increase in the number. As to the raising of the school age, the first thing, actually the first thing, I had before me when I came to the Board were proposals from Carnarvon and East Suffolk to raise the school age. Those were the only proposals which reached final form, and I have confirmed the bye-laws in both these cases. It is my view about the raising of the school age that the intention of the Act of 1918 was that the school age, when raised in any particular area, should be raised generally, and that exemption should not be granted except to certain specified classes of children, and beyond that to children whose continuance in the schools would expose them or their parents to real hardship. I think there is a very considerable case for emergency legislation applying to a special period of unemployment, but I do not believe it can be reconciled with the law as it stands now to raise the school age, and then exempt all or nearly all the children as soon as they obtain employment. I propose to administer the law on these lines.

Finally, in regard to special schools I quite agree. This is a subject in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rip on took a great interest, and he did a great deal to relax the restriction on the provision of new special schools. I have been asked what has been the result of the recent circular on this question. I may say that I have just authorised a new circular making certain suggestions as to the method by which this problem should be tackled. In my view a very large proportion of our special schools for cripples would be un- necessary if there was an early ascertainment of orthopædic cases. We are putting great emphasis on that matter with the local authorities, and I believe that is one of the main lines in connection with special schools along which we should work.

Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he had issued a circular.

I have put my initials upon it.

Am I right in assuming that as at present advised the Noble Lord does not propose to discontinue the percentage grant system?

I am afraid my right hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into regions where a strong Committee lost its way, and has not yet emerged.

Will the Noble Lord give us some idea as to his policy with regard to industrial schools, particularly in the metropolis?

Does the Noble Lord intend to discourage the employment of infant assistants by local authority?

With regard to the question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Cadogan). I am afraid that is primarily a question for the Home Office. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) relating to infant assistants, I suppose he is referring to the London system. I cannot remember what the position on this question is under the London County Council's administration, but I think they are dealing with it.

I believe the late President did send out some instruction on this point.

What my predecessor did was to issue a circular to the effect that no more unqualified assistants than those at present employed should be engaged, and, so far as I can see, I think that is a policy which will have my approval. May I just say one or two general words about the present position in education? I have often wondered how far the action of the Board of Education, in consequence of the Report of the Geddes Committee, really pro- duced any very great effect. I have sometimes thought that, if the Board, after the Report of the Geddes Committee, had simply adopted the policy of sitting back and allowing local authorities to take their own course, the fall in educational expenditure would have been almost as great. The fall in the expenditure of local authorities during the last three or four years has been far greater than anything imposed on them by the Board of Education, and, as a rule, local authorities have very largely underspent in relation to both their and the Board's estimates.

The Board did not take that line, and they got into what I consider was rather a network of irritating and complicated control of educational expenditure. It was a great achievement of my predecessor that he cut away the greater part of that network. I am face to face now with the local authorities without being pledged to enforce any particular limit and with a free hand to consider the proposals of local authorities. The point is what is the next step to take. It seems to me that it should be the systemisation of educational advance. I am in favour of experimenting, and I want to see an advance according to the varying needs of the local authorities, but I see this difficulty in the future, and it is one with which the Board has often been faced in the past, that if we proceed on the basis of telling a great local authority when it presents a general scheme for work: "This is a beautiful scheme but we are not committed to any item of it until it comes up for separate authorisation"—so long as you have a system like that you tend to leave the local authorities in uncertainty, you tend to leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer in uncertainty, and you tend to leave the President of the Board of Education in complete uncertainty. You will have particular, proposals coming in piecemeal and it will be impossible to know what commitments you will have in the future or how this snowball will roll up.

What we have to do in the immediate future is to try, in consultation with the local authorities, to produce programmes containing definite projects of work over a period of three or five years according as the local authorities may be able to look ahead. Then the Board will be in a position to survey those programmes and to say how far and how fast they can move within the limits of the money at their disposal. The money at our disposal will always be limited. There is a country called Scotland which is happy at any rate in this respect, that it operates under a definite limited fund so that everyone knows that for a given period there is only a given amount of money to spend. We are under no such limitation, and we are apt to forget, however generous and however progressive the Government may be, that there is always a limit beyond which the Government cannot commit itself for the next three or five years. We shall be able by this policy, I hope—and I am sure that the local authorities will fall in with it— really to lay down lines of educational advance along which we can continue for many years to come.

I know there are a good many questions which the House wants to discuss, and therefore I am not going to follow my right hon. Friend into the very wide field which he has quite rightly covered. But I think the House might be a little surprised if I were not to take the opportunity of saying something about his general attitude. Most of my hon. Friends behind me will probably feel that we ought to welcome most of what he has said to-day. I think we shall be gratified at the thoroughness with which he is obviously undertaking his duties and getting hold of the business which he has to carry through. He declared, as he has done before, in very specific terms, that he wishes, as far as possible, to carry through a policy of continuity, and, although a policy of continuity does not recommend always itself, when you are the immediate predecessor and it is the policy of the immediate predecessor which is being carried through you must necessarily approve of continuity. He mentioned a departure from the general lines which we were following last year in two particular respects. The first was one on which I must say I thoroughly agree with him. If he can succeed in inducing the local authorities to put their projects for the next two or three years in the form of schemes so that they will know where they are going and be bound to go on whatever changes there may be, I am quite certain that the general advance throughout the country will be faster and more satisfactory. The only subject on which I am inclined to say a word is his relations with the Treasury. I was a little uneasy when I read a speech of his in which the other day he spoke of reality and unreality in politics. He took as an instance of reality in politics appreciating the fact that the resources of the Exchequer were very limited.

Were "limited," not "very limited."

I thought it was a little ominous, but, after his general remarks to-day, I am not sure that he meant quite as much as I thought he did. I feel that he will, perhaps, be inclined to take the same attitude that I felt inclined to take, which was this. The attitude of the Board of Education to the Treasury ought not to be that it should cut its coat according to its cloth, but rather that it should go to its Treasury tailor and say, "This is the suit I want; can you and will you provide it?" If the Minister thinks first and foremost of what he intends to get, and he says, "I must get it," he is much more likely to find the Treasury amenable. Therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman's general attitude, I entirely agree. He said, however, that there was one particular feature in the grants which I obtained in regard to secondary education about which he felt some doubt. I have no desire to insist that the only way of increasing free places in this country is by giving the excess graft which I obtained from the Treasury.

All I would say about it is this. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that that is not the best way of promoting opportunities for the poorer children of the country getting advanced education, do not let him drop that method until he has got something to substitute for it. Do not let him give away money to the Treasury in the expectation that after there has been a gap of a year the Treasury will be willing to give him the money again in some other form. I should like him to make his new bargain with the Treasury before he drops the method which I tried. As I say, I am not certain that the very best method possible for enlarging the opportunities of secondary and advanced education for the children of the poorer workers is this special grant. I considered and discussed and thought of some more general increased grant for secondary education to authorities which showed a disposition to provide exceptional opportunities, and I think there may be many ways of doing it, but I do urge him not to throw away the £100,000 which unquestionably, whether it encourages the local authorities much or little, must do something in that direction, until at any rate he has got some substitute for it.

I should like to say, if I may, that one of the things which I wish to emphasise is the enormous success which the right hon. Gentleman did achieve in this respect by his removal of the limitation on the number of free places, and that it was that, I believe, which did cause this great jump in the numbers last September.

It is extremely difficult, of course, to be certain of what causes movements of that kind, but I do not think it is possible to say that it had not some relation to the increased financial opportunities which that grant afforded to the local authorities. If the local authorities, now that that advance has been made, find the grant, on which they are no doubt counting, disappearing from view, I think their discouragement might be considerable. However, the Noble Lord does not appear to have made up his mind decisively and finally about it, and all I urge is that he should not give away a good thing unless he has something better to put in its place. In general, I can assure him that, as far as I am concerned, if he will press on with the activity which he appears to be showing at the present time in every direction, he will not fail of appreciation on this side of the House.

I should like, if I may with great diffidence, to echo the last sentence of my right hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat, and to say that my hon. Friends here will also support the Minister of Education in any such policy. May I, before I take the liberty of referring to another matter, take the opportunity of congratulating the Noble Lord on the assumption of his high office? I believe he is the youngest Member of the Cabinet, and, as an old political opponent of his, I hope to find myself in a position to support him. Apparently the present Government is not going to shelve the cause of education for the time being, but it is after the next Budget is introduced, and it is found that there is not much off the Income Tax or the Super-tax, that my noble Friend will need all his ardour and determination, and all the support of the two right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on either side of him, in resisting demands to cut down this vital service.

I really rose to put one or two inquiries before the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to a very important matter which I believe will become urgent, namely, the question of the position in North-West Africa, and with regard particularly to Morocco and Tangier and what is known as the Riff Coast. I may preface my remarks by saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was not able to be present to-day, but that I have discussed this matter with him, and, in fact, with the whole of my Parliamentary colleagues—not a very complicated question, unfortunately, because there are so few of them, but I hope we make up in quality for lack of quantity. What I am going to say I say with the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and, in fact, I believe, of the whole of my Friends. I am very happy to find myself on this occasion in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend.

The first point that I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: It is obvious that there will have to be a most important Inter-Allied Conference, owing to the changed situation caused in North Africa by the successful revolt of important tribes in that district and the virtual evacuation of the Hinterland by the Spanish forces. There must be a Conference, obviously, to consider the new situation, and I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not his policy to press for an invitation being given to our good friend Italy to a seat at the council table. In the previous Conferences on Morocco—for instance, the Algeciras Conference, which, as I would remind the House, was, I am afraid, a prelude to the Great War—Italy was left out. Italy is a great Mediterranean Power, and, moreover, is one of our oldest and surest friends in Europe, and I think it would be a very good policy for our Government to press for the extension of an invitation to Italy to co-operate in any such Conference over matters in which she must be seriously involved. It is hardly necessary for me to press that question, because I see from this morning's papers that, apparently, M. Briand has already answered it. In to-day's Paris papers it is stated that M. Briand has referred to a forthcoming Conference between England, Italy ard France on this particular question, and, therefore, I take it that Italy is to be invited. I am very glad to see that, and I hope that, if there is any difficulty about Italy being included in any Commission on the Tangier question, apart from Morocco, the right hon. Gentleman, as representing His Majesty's Government, will use his good offices to have Italy included in any such Conference.

With regard to my second point, I do not want to hurt the feelings of our good friends in Spain, but it is no use our blinking the fact that the Spanish arms have suffered a serious reverse in Morocco, and the Directory has, apparently, decided to withdraw from the whole Hinterland and simply retain control of Ceuta and Melilla. During the War these Riffs were good friends of Great Britain. I speak from intimate knowledge, and perhaps I may be allowed just to refer to one aspect of the case. Spain was not very friendly to us during the War. She was very correct, and the King was diplomatic and helpful in many directions, but the Spanish people were divided. We really only had the support of the Socialists and Anarchists in Spain. The Anarchists, of course, correspond to the trade unionists in this country; it is not a term of abuse to call a man an Anarchist in Spain—he is a man of great political authority. Otherwise, I am afraid, the greater part of the aristocracy, most of the Army, and perhaps part of the Navy were against us; the other part probably supported us However, they were entitled to their opinions, and a movement was started to cut off supplies of foodstuffs from Gibraltar, on the ground that it was a breach of neutrality. The Riffs said, "It is all right; do not you bother; if the farmers and merchants of Southern Spain do not send you your food we will supply you." The idea, of course, of our enemies in Spain—and we had many at that time—was that we should be forced to send foodstuffs to Gibraltar from England and so use up tonnage.

The Riffs were as good as their word, and ran poultry, vegetables and foodstuffs of all kinds in their little boats across from the Riff coast, and kept us supplied with food. The Spanish farmers said: "It is all very well, but apparently we are going to be ruined, while the Riffs are making a fine thing out of it"; and pressure was brought to bear and the blockade was lifted. I referred to this matter some time ago, When an attempt was made to recruit British ex-service men to serve in the Spanish Foreign Legion, which I am glad to see is now being discontinued. I was supported in all parts of the House when I pointed out that the Riffs had always been good friends of ours. There were other services which they rendered to us, and to which I do not now wish to refer, in connection with the submarine campaign. They proved very valuable allies in that respect. They are now involved in a most heroic struggle and I think the name of Abd-el-Krim will go down in history with the names of some of the greatest champions of liberty and national patriotism that we know of. I must say that I admit a personal feeling of some sympathy with all rebels, and I am not going outside a very ancient tradition of my party in saying that we have a lively sympathy for small peoples struggling for freedom.

That is not in the new Liberalism.

My hon. Friend says that that is not in the New Liberalism, but at the present moment I am its exponent and I state that fact, and we claim the right of succession in this matter. If we find allies above the Gangway we shall welcome them. We hope that the British Government will not countenance any attempt at the reconquest of the Riff territories by any other Power. In other words, to put the matter quite clearly, I hope that the demand which has been made in certain quarters in Paris that the French, in their own interests in connection with strategy or for some other purpose, should occupy this evacuated territory, will receive no countenance from the British Government.

My third and last point is with regard to the question of Tangier. We are one of the parties responsible for the neutrality and internationalisation of Tangier. A difficult situation has arisen there owing to the fact that the Anjera tribe, whose territory reaches right up to the boundaries of the Tangier zone, has risen in revolt. It is in the highest British interests that Tangier should remain an international port, and whatever the pressure put upon us, I hope the Foreign Secretary will be very firm in insisting on the international character of Tangier being maintained. We fought over this matter for soma hundreds of years, going back to the time of Charles II, when, to make doubly sure that it was not in hostile hands, we tried to hold it ourselves, and some of the most gallant feats of British arms were performed in those days in Tangier and its neighbourhood. We have a responsibility for Tangier, and may find ourselves involved in hostilities there, and it is due to the House of Commons that before we separate for the Recess the right hon. Gentleman should make some statement of policy on this very vital question and assure us that no alteration in the status of Tangier, or, in fact, no alteration in the international situation in Morocco, as far as we are concerned, shall take place without Parliament being informed and its approval invited.

I have often found myself in rather sharp conflict with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but in this House we all belong, as it were, to a common body of opinion and we take pleasure in one another's successes, and I hope therefore I may be permitted to congratulate him on having united the Liberal party on one subject. Perhaps I could have wished that it had not been a rather delicate question of foreign affairs, where the Liberal party treads amidst many eggs with a decision, I might almost say with a rashness, which perhaps it would be unbecoming of a Foreign Secretary to display. The hon. and gallant Gentleman carried the situation a great deal further than I am prepared to carry it. He made some observations about the friendly nation and Government of Spain, for which I think he has hardly the full sanction of the whole Liberal party. At any rate, I regret that any Member of this House should revive memories of the past which are not wholly satisfactory, and I regret that in reviving them he should do less than justice to a nation which was neutral during the War and with which we are and desire to remain in good relations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks as if the recent retirement of Spanish forces in the Riff country had been forced upon the Spanish Government by military reverses. He is completely mistaken. The decision to withdraw was a deliberate decision of the Director, who thought a new orientation should be given to Spanish policy in that country and different methods adopted for asserting the authority which was theirs. I am not prepared to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in all the speculations which he entertained as to possible developments in that country.

I am not prepared to state or to foreshadow what might be the attitude of His Majesty's Government in a whole series of contingencies which have not yet arisen, but I think if I say what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government at this moment I shall carry not only the support of my friends, but the approval of gentlemen sitting on all the benches opposite. Such disturbances as have arisen in the Spanish sphere cannot pass unperceived, or leave unpreoccupied, other nations of Europe. Of course, the country which is the most immediately interested is France, because her Protectorate is limited with the Riff country, and the repercussion of whatever happens in the Riff country may easily affect her interests and her responsibility and the safety of the population under her charge. Movements of opinion of this kind, resulting, in this case, in military operations, have a repercussion far beyond the boundary of the district in which they take place. No Power with North African interests can consider as alien to itself what is passing in any part of North Africa. If one of us have trouble our trouble may be the cause of trouble for the others. That is not to say that on that account we claim or have any right to interfere, but I say these matters interest us, and I do say that at bottom and in the long run the interests of us all are common interests, whatever possible minor divergencies of opinion may at any moment arise among us. What then under these circumstances is the attitude which His Majesty's Government adopt? It is to do all in their power to prevent domestic trouble from becoming an international question. I think, having said that, and believing, as I do, that in our efforts to localise trouble here as elsewhere, and to prevent local trouble from raising international difficulties, I shall have the support of the whole House, I may be content to make that my answer.

No one on these benches, and no one, I imagine, in the whole House, will complain of the Foreign Secretary for adopting a cautious attitude with respect to what is admittedly a very delicate situation. I think we are much indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) for having taken this opportunity to raise the question of Morocco, because we ire well aware that Morocco is one of the most sensitive spots in the whole surface of international relations; and, having regard to what happened in 1904, when France and Great Britain and Spain endeavoured to make an arrangement with Morocco without consulting the greatest military force in Europe, we cannot be too cautious as to the manner in which we proceed on this question. I, of course, do not wish to put any question to the right hon. Gentleman the answer to which would cause him any embarrassment in the conduct of public affairs; but we should like to know whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how the situation stands at the moment. I understand, for instance, that conversations are going on between France and Spain, but not between France and Great Britain. I do not know whether that is so. So far as matters have proceeded, I gather that the conference, such as it is, is at present taking place between France and Spain, but that the time may come when we shall be brought into the discussion. I do not know whether I am correct in that assumption. The Foreign Secretary has pointed out that the French are, naturally, made very anxious by the reverse which has happened to the Spanish Army. If Spain takes the course which, apparently, is adumbrated, of altogether retiring from the Riff, it may create an embarrassing situation for France. There are, I understand, some 60,000 French on the frontier, awaiting eventualities.

I cannot help thinking that the influence of Great Britain at this juncture might be influential on the side of peace, by reason of the fact that we have had an experience of similar difficulties on the N.W. Frontier of India. There, we have been for the last century confronted by a situation very similar to the situation which confronts Spain in Morocco, and we have taken what I believe to be a wise course. We have abandoned the mountain massif. We have from time to time had to chastise little rebellions and little revolts, but we have not attempted to hold the mountain massif. It would be better for Spain, and better ultimately for the inhabitants of the Biff region, if Spain took, if she will, a leaf out of our book. It is a course she could adopt without any dishonour. It is the course of reason, and a course which I believe would tend to the peace of that part of Africa.

We have an interest in peace in Morocco. I notice that the Indian extremists are now looking to Morocco rather than to Angora for the Chief of Islam. We, as a great Moslem power, have no interest in the continuance of the struggle between Islamic forces and Christian forces in Northern Africa. We should like to see the dispute healed. I suggest that it will be greatly to the interest of Great Britain, as a Moslem power, to throw her weight into the balance of peace in Morocco.

The right hon. Gentleman must not interpret my few observations as meaning that I am doing nothing. My whole object is to limit the area of disturbance as much as possible, and to prevent it becoming of a more serious character.

I am very glad to have drawn that assurance from my right hon. Friend. While we have an interest in peace in Morocco, we have also a very strong interest in the preservation of the neutrality of the neutral zone in Tangier. I should like to know whether the financial difficulties which have beset the Government of Tangier, and which have hitherto rendered it impossible to carry out all the provisions of the Convention of 1923, have quite disappeared.

The right hon. Gentleman must remember that I have exhausted my right to speak. I waited for somebody else to rise. If he wanted to put all these questions to me, he ought to have put the questions before I rose. I gave him every opportunity. Nobody else rose, and I thought that nobody else wanted to speak. Therefore I spoke.

The Under-Secretary is now sitting next to my right hon. Friend, and it will be quite satisfactory to me if he can reply. Further, there is the question which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Com-mander Ken worthy) has raised—the question of Italy. Am I right in assuming—I think I am right in assuming—that the Secretary of State would be desirous of seeing Italy called into any general conference with regard to Morocco. I think I am right in assuming that that was the drift of his answer to the query put by my hon. and gallant Friend. It seems to me, in view of the experience of 1904, that we should make it part of our object to carry with us the principal Mediterranean Power in any settlement which may be adopted in regard to the Morocco question. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I am anxious to obtain an answer to these questions.

The Minister of Health in his speech the other day referred at some length to a new method of construction, and perhaps at too great a length, having regard to the fact that there are other methods of construction which are now the subject of experiment. He said that it was the intention of the Government to make some allocation of public money for experimental purposes in the building of houses. I am sure that the impression which has been created by his speech, is mistaken. Nevertheless, before the House rises, I think it would be to the advantage of the House and of the public to know, not the outlines of the scheme, but whether there is any intention—I am sure there is not—to limit the application of any grant of this kind to a particular type of house. The impression has gone abroad, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Weir houses, and there being no statement regarding the Beardmore and other kinds of houses, that it is the intention to give some particular subvention from the public purse to the Weir houses. I understand that the Government are pursuing the policy which we had intended to carry out had we remained in office of having some kind of exhibition of all types of new houses. Our view was that there should be an exhibition of these houses. As I understand it, the intention of the Government is to localise this exhibition. If that be so, there will be a fair field for all types of new houses.

I do not wish to pronounce on the merits of any of these types of houses—I would like to see them built first—but it would be unfortunate, from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of a solution of the housing question, if the impression which is now in the public mind were to continue and grow until the House meets again, that the Government proposes to give some public assistance to the Weir houses only. I should like to have a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government intend to give a fair field and no favour to all types of new materials, and all types of new construction in houses, and that any grant will be made available to all people who are entering into competition for the building of houses by new methods and new kinds of material.

I gladly reply to the points which my hon. Friend has raised. I may say that I thought it perfectly clear from the statement which my hon. Friend made the other day exactly where we stood in this matter. The only reason why the Minister of Health paid particular attention in his speech to what is known as the Weir House is simply this, that Lord Weir's experiment—and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me in this—in connection with housing is probably more advanced at the present moment than that of any other person who is engaged in this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, a Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Sir Ernest Moir whose duty it was to examine these new methods of construction. So far as I am aware Lord Weir's house is the only house at the moment which has received the recommendation of that Committee. That Committee, I may inform the House includes representatives of various interests in the building trade and it very carefully examined the method of construction put forward by Lord Weir, and made a general recommendation that local authorities should be encouraged to try the principles of construction in connection with houses that had been put forward by Lord Weir. My hon. Friend probably knows that there are several other public-spirited people who at the present moment are endeavouring to devise a new method of housing construction, some of whom have already approached the Committee and whose schemes are at present under consideration. I have no doubt that in a short time the Committee may be able to issue further interim reports on the other methods of construction which are being put forward by other people. If this be done and the Committee make a recommendation as favourable as has been made in conection with Lord Weir's scheme, of course my right hon. Friend would not seek for a moment to put one scheme before another.

3.0 P.M.

There is no intention whatever of using public funds for one scheme only and not for any others that might receive approval by the expert Committee. It would be obviously impossible for all and sundry to come along with any suggestions of new construction and expect the method to be adopted without being tested by the expert Committee. It is well to let it be known that all suggestions must be subjected to expert consideration. But when that is done, obviously my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health would be pleased to consider whether there would be advantage in arranging for demonstration houses on similar lines. The Minister announced the other day his intention, as soon as is practicable, to make it possible for the public, we hope, in different parts of the country, to judge for themselves on these new methods of construction. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention to afford any favouritism to any particular type. When we made our visit to Glasgow the other day we visited and inspected several methods of construction. I hope my hon. Friend will feel confident that every opportunity will be given to all those who put forward some reasonable alternative to the present method of building, as we believe that to be vital to a solution of the housing problem.

Without interfering, Mr. Speaker, with any other item that you may have on your programme for to-day, I would like to revert to the question of unemployment, with which the Adjournment to-day opens, and seemed to me to come to an untimely end, after only two somewhat academic, philosophic disquisitions had been delivered on this subject, which is to over a million of the population a very real, live human question. I seem to see in the statement made on behalf of the Government to-day with reference to unemployment the same rather happy-go-lucky attitude that has characterised the attitude of this House towards unemployment during the short period that I have been here. In two years, although a short period, the Government has had four heads. Under the Prime Ministership of Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley, the unemployment figures have remained to all intents and purposes stationary. When the figures went up the Members on the opposite side blamed the Government of the day for the increase; when the figures went down, those on the Government side of the House patted themselves on the back, but to all intents and purposes during the whole period the figures have remained practically stationary. Over a million women and young persons in this land are unable to get employment. The bewildering variety of legislation—Trade Facilities Act, export credit schemes, emigration schemes, etc.—all standing there on the Statute Book, all seem to me to be administered in a very half-hearted way. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to so operate the legislation we have got just now, without further legislation being necessary, as to remove by far the big proportion of these people from the unemployed register.

During the last Session I could see-quite easily that one of the great troubles in tackling this problem effectively was that no single individual on the Government Front Bench has responsibility. Every Department has something to say and something to do on the question of unemployment, but no one man has responsibility for co-ordinating and directing the efforts of each separate Department. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been here, I would have appealed to him very strongly to give this matter his immediate and personal attention, so that his various Departments may be working in a coordinated way towards the complete removal of the unemployed people from the unemployment register. I think that he has, perhaps, a better mandate for dealing with the problem—on this occasion he has certainly a better majority for dealing with it—than any previous Prime Minister has had. As I interpret his mandate, he is not debarred from making the fullest use of private enterprise, nor is he debarred from corning in where private enterprise is obviously failing to meet the necessities of the case, as undoubtedly private enterprise has failed to meet the necessities of the case; he is not debarred from saying, "Very well, if you private enterprisers cannot usefully employ the services of one million people who are anxious and willing to work, then I, as the head of the State, am going to bring in the nation to carry out the duty and responsibility that private enterprise has failed to carry out." That is well inside the mandate that the Prime Minister has from the electors.

I hope that no doctrinaire antagonism to State activities, such as "the thin end of the wedge of Socialism," will prevent him using the full powers of the State in every direction where those powers can be used profitably. There is probably no more injurious metaphor used in the speeches in this House, and none is used more frequently, than "the thin end of the wedge" metaphor. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches apply it with reference to the propositions of the Government with reference to safeguarding the nation's trade, and every scheme that is produoed by one party or the other is always the thin end of the wedge of something desperate which is to be produced when the wedge is driven in to its full extent. I hope that the Prime Minister will not be deflected by the people on his own side of the House from recognising that he is the responsible head here of a nation, and not the representative of a particular business firm, and that the power he has behind him is not the power of private enterprise, but the whole organised and co-ordinated power of Great Britain, which ought to be used to its fullest extent.

I want to apply that very directly to a matter that was raised in the discussion this morning with reference to the application of the Trade Facilities Act to shipbuilding. I know that the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act were rather discouraged from giving guarantees for shipbuilding purposes. The argument, mainly brought forward by the shipowners, was that there was already a surplus of efficient tonnage lying unused in the docks and harbours of the country. That I believe was perfectly true and I am glad to know from the figures that the amount of surplus efficient tonnage that was lying unused has diminished very considerably during the last six or seven months. While during all that time there has been a surplus of efficient tonnage lying unused, at the same time there has been plying the seas in everyday use a huge quantity of inefficient tonnage—ships which ought to have been taken off the sea and which are a disgrace to the British Merchant Service. I put it to the Prime Minister that it ought to be a matter of great pride to the Government of the country to have its Mercantile Marine the finest and best equipped in the world, just as it is a matter of pride with hon. Gentlemen opposite to have the finest Navy in the world. There are ships plying around our coasts and across the seas which are badly engined, slow in progress and dangerous to the men who have to work on them. The living accommodation for the men is of the poorest and most unhealthy character.

I suggest to the Board of Trade that when there is a surplus of tonnage it is not a time to say that shipbuilding should cease. The Board of Trade should distinctly say, "We are laying down a new, a higher, a better standard of shipping; we are going to abolish, the slum ships, just as we would abolish the slum houses if there was a surplus of housing." The slum ship should be chased off the seas and the Board of Trade has the power right within its own hands to lay down new regulations as to the placing of the Plimsoll line, the amount of accommodation for each sailor, the amount of cargo space, the type of engines and the arrangements for safeguarding life. I urge upon the Board of Trade to take this opportunity, when any amount of shipyard labour is available, when there in space on all the slips in the shipbuilding centres around, our coast, of saying to the nation that the time has come when the standard of the mercantile marine must be raised and when ships which fly the British flag, but are a disgrace to the British flag, must be removed from the seas. I hope the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will convey that suggestion to the responsible Minister.

I wish to get right up against a suggestion put forward this morning by the President of the Board of Trade and the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the effect that the Advisory Committees under the Trade Facilities Act and also, I think, under the Export Credits Scheme, should be left absolutely uncontrolled and undirected' by the Members of this House. I understand that the objection raised to the political chiefs giving directions in policy to the Advsory Committee is that it would result in the Lobbies of this House being filled by people pushing the particular interests of particular firms. Does not that happen now? Are we not all perfectly conscious that whenever any business firm has any interest which they believe can be advanced by political influence, then political influence is used in every way and with every party. We rely on the strength of mind of the political chief, after hearing the representations regarding the business interest for and against, to make his decision not because a particular business interest is concerned, but because he considers that decision to be in the best interests of the nation as a whole. If tihese Committees are not to be directed and speeded up by the Government of the day, I do not see that very much is to be expected from the operation of the Act.

It is not enough to have the Act on the Statute Book and to have business men who happen to see an opportunity of making a profit in a particular direction taking advantage of the Trade Facilities Act. It seems to me that the Government of the day have a duty to stimulate industrial and commercial directions where there is present day apathy and slackness, and there must be many fields of commercial and industrial activity known to the Board of Trade, with the immense amount of information which they have at their disposal, that could be usefully taken up by private individuals in this nation, but for which no applications are being made to the Government under the Trade Facilities Act. In cases of that sort, I think the Government of the day should definitely attempt to stimulate people in particular industries that are allied to the things that they think should be properly developed and to suggest to them that in this particular direction they might make a move.

One other thing I want to say is this, that each Government in turn has assumed that for the tackling of this problem of unemployment there was any amount of time to spare. We have, they have said, two or three years in office, and before we have finished we shall have an opportunity of dealing with all these things, but we can afford to go gently and easily at the beginning of our term of office. Frankly, I feel that that was the mood expressed by the Government Front Bench this morning. It seemed to be the idea that they were looking at all this problem, but that there was no need for any particular hurry, that they had perhaps four or five years of office in front of them, and that they would have a good story to tell the electors before that had expired, either for success or failure. I do not think that is a proper frame of mind, and I recollect that the last three Governments that took that attitude were disappointed. They did not have the four or five years' period of office that they had anticipated, and this solid phalanx below the Gangway on my left, that looked as if it were well established at one time is now all that is left. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is your party?"] As one of my colleagues said, they will come, like the swallows, in spring. They will all be here, but there is no division to-day. As for the party opposite, we all recognise that their strength is only their numerical value. They are useful in the scrum, as it were, but even that solid majority might, for some reason or other, in a very few months vanish also.

They might quarrel.

They certainly will quarrel, and then another Government will have gone, but the unemployment problem will still remain. I want to call attention to an Act passed in 1922, the Empire Settlement Act, by which 3,000 British families were to be definitely settled on farms in Canada. That was surely a manageable proposition. The Canadian Government had the land there, and they had steadings on the various holdings. I understand it was land that was so unfertile that it had been deserted by Canadian ex-soldier settlers, but it was there, and yet, as far as I am aware, under that Empire Settlement Act of 1922—and we are now in 1924, and going into 1925—not one solitary family has been shipped from Britain to the farms waiting for them in Canada. I shall be glad if the representative of the Government will correct me if I am wrong in that statement. That was passed by a Conservative Government. Conservative Governments have had opportunities of carrying it through. They are, as they are never tired of reminding this House and the world, enthusiastic about the Empire. Is there not something terribly slack in a Government which passes a scheme like that, which does not depend on any outside force for its successful completion? Surely, it is a very simple, manageable, rather limited proposition, and here, after two years, absolutely nothing has been done in the matter.

I am closely in touch with unemployed men; they are my personal friends, many of them men of upstanding ability both in their own trades and crafts, and in other directions. Tens of thousands of them are in the city of Glasgow, thousands of them right in my own constituency, which is only one-fifteenth part of the city of Glasgow, each one of them with womenfolk and children dependent on him, and each one of them capable of producing something of use to this nation and all the world. I have limited my criticism to the last two years, the time which I have been in this House, but it could really be extended right back to 1918. During all those six years never yet has a Prime Minister or Government been found that can get right down to this in a businesslike, energetic way. Each one of us, and every party in the House, has a share of blame in this respect. They have fallen back on their own political doctrine, and made that the excuse. The Conservatives said, "Give Protection, and it will solve itself." Labour men said, "Have Socialism, and it will solve itself." Liberals said, "It is a visitation of God—it cannot be solved." That is, I am sure, merely an excuse for not tackling the job that lies right to our hand in the most energetic way.

I have great hopes of the hon. Gentleman, the one representative of the Government who is left in the House, and a very junior one, although not the least capable of the gentlemen who form the Government, and I know of his own vast personal interest in the trade facilities and the export credit scheme particularly. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will make himself an absolute nuisance to his Ministerial colleagues. They will not probably love him as he would like to be loved, but certainly—I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member left his seat for a moment to ask for your protection, but I can assure him that I have no intention of saying anything that might injure his standing with his colleagues. I merely desire to suggest that if he made this matter his special interest he might not endear himself to his fellow Ministerialists, but he would earn the respect and regard of a great many people sitting on these benches, and he would earn the gratitude, the real gratitude, of the unemployed men and women throughout the whole length and breadth of our country.

I do not propose to detain the House more than a few minutes, but following the line of the last speaker during the recent Election, I made the subject of unemployment the first and foremost plank in my platform, and I made this plain on every platform whenever I spoke—because I happen to have the honour of representing one of the largest, if not the most important, industrial areas in England. I refer to Cleveland. It is one of those parts of the country which have been hardest hit, through no fault of the people there. The Cleveland ironstone miners work together with the employers, and they have accepted every reduction they were asked to accept, up to 6s. per day. The shipbuilding and engineering industry employés accepted reductions of 6s. a week in two cuts, plus 12½ and 1½ per cent, war bonus, making in all 16s. a week.

In Cleveland there is only one staple industry. There is no other. Some men have been out of work there for nearly four years, that is to say, since 12th February, 1921. I think on one occasion the total of the unemployment figures was just over 22,000. It is a very exceptional case, which I think deserves exceptional treatment, especially as regards the patience and fortitude which all the men and women have displayed. The workers there are only too ready to help those who offer to help them. What they do want is not so much the relieving of unemployment, but the provision of employment. They do not want the dole at all. They want work. As far as remedies are concerned in my particular constituency, I venture to suggest at least one remedy which is feasible, and one which I have always advocated, and that is an increase of dock accommodation. We have a site there at our very doors. There is a great natural basin of 604 acres at the very mouth of the Tees. Work has already begun there, and this, of course, means expenditure. That is where I venture to suggest to the Government that they will be doing a very useful act for themselves and for the country if they assist in this direction. Vast sums of public money, as we all know, have already been spent, and are likely to continue to be spent, without any return at all. I humbly suggest to the Government that it would be far more useful and far better if some of that money could be applied to the part cost of the docks. They would give employment to hundreds or even thousands of men over many years. Every trader and the whole of the commercial firms and interests there are profoundly convinced of the necessity of better and larger dock accommodation. Only last week several large vessels could not find accommodation, and had either to lie off or seek another port, in spite of the fact that half the blast furnaces on Tees-side were idle. What would the congestion be when they were all in full blast? It means that the Tees will cease to be a port of call for large vessels, which are accommodated there in very small numbers.

The requisite facilities for developing the trade of the port have not been provided. The railway company has got a monopoly, and five of the largest river frontagers are not represented on the Tees Commission. In these days of serious unemployment it is no use to listen to the dog-in-the-manger policy of being too proud to accept Government aid. We must be progressive, if we are going to succeed, or in fact to live at all. The Government has here a great opportunity, a great chance, and one not to be missed, of acting in the best interests of the whole district and also of our overseas trade. The benefit would not be only local benefit, it would be national and international benefit, and provide the finest port on the North-East Coast. All the leaders of industry in that district are naturally concerned about the state of affairs at the present time, and have done everything in their power to assist in dealing with the present distress. The Lord Lieutenant has, I believe, the largest and most varied industrial interests of all, and has always taken an active part and interest in the development, the prosperity and the future of the Tees, and he has also expressed himself with deep sympathy towards the poor and the unemployed and the ex-service men. We are in common with him in all these respects, and I venture to suggest that he, in conjunction with representatives of the railway company, the Tees Commissioners, the Shipping Institute and the two local authorities of Redcar and Eston, should hold conference together and tabulate a scheme to try to remedy this poverty and unemployment, should come to some definite idea and come to the Government here with some reasonable policy. If they do that—and I hope they will—I most sincerely and earnestly appeal to the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport to assist, by every means possible, to stem the tide of this ever-increasing distress.

I am impelled into this Debate by some observations which have been made on the Trade Facilities Act by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton). He made a forcible plea on behalf of the exercise of every possible vigilance and energy in regard to the im- provement of the class of shipping in which our merchant seamen earn their living, and I think every hon. Member of this House will be in hearty sympathy with that object. Of course, this is a matter that can be furthered more by active and watchful administration on the part of the Board of Trade than by any exercise of the Trade Facilities Act. There is another part of the hon. Member's observations with which I am in profound disagreement. I hope neither the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade nor any other member of the Government will turn anything but deaf ears to the hon. Member when he pleads for a more active official participation for schemes under the Trade Facilities Act. I believe it to be the very essence of that scheme for its efficiency and purity that the decision as to who is to benefit should be arrived at by a tribunal which is absolutely impartial, and subject as little as possible to interference, either from the Government or from Members of this House. The hon. Member says that interference takes place at the present time. Yes, but it does not succeed. We all know that pressure is brought to bear upon Members of Parliament who advocate help for this or that scheme, but we have got this impartial tribunal which stands between improper influences in the distribution of public money.

I was not speaking of influences brought to bear with reference to the Advisory Committee. I was referring to pressure brought to bear on Ministers of the various Departments.

That certainly puts me much better in possession of the hon. Member's mind on the subject, but I feel the protest ought to be made that even from Ministers there should be no interference with the decisions taken by the Committee. I think if any hon. Member will examine this matter in the light of the work which is actually taking place, he will be able to satisfy himself that the work of the Committee really depends for its utility and efficiency upon being free from Ministerial influence, just as much as it should be free from the influence of private Members of this House. We have on the Treasury Bench the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade who is so admirably qualified to answer these questions. In the first place let me say a single word as to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh as regards the inclusion in the benefits of the trade facilities schemes of what I will call small businesses as against big businesses. I heard what the Financial Secretary had to say on this question, but it should be recognised that the impression has gone widely abroad that it is not much good for the small businesses to apply to the Committee. I do not think there is any very great justification for that, although I believe that something might be done by taking a rather more generous view of the claims of the small businesses.

I know it can be said with great force that the schemes which are of the most use and are the cheapest from the point of view of the Treasury are in connection with big businesses "because the small businesses are troublesome, expensive, and they mean a great deal of work for the Departments. Of course, I do not suggest for a moment that the Advisory Committee, which has been as strenuous as the Treasury in these matters, is affected by any thought of the amount of their own work. I will make a practical suggestion and it is that one must not make an undue claim upon the time of busy men such as the members of the Advisory Committee. If it were thought that more useful extension could be given to the scheme by including small applications, it might be most reasonable to consider a duplication of the Committee or even the appointment of a sub-Committee to deal with that special class of business.

I wanted to ask a question. I do not expect that it is one to which the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department will know the answer, but it is one which might be considered because it raises a point of principle. What progress is really being made with the new extension of the scheme under which interest can be guaranteed on Colonial Loans? As far as the man in the street can tell, very little progress has been made with it at all, and, indeed, applications are not coming in. If that be so, one cannot help thinking that there must be some hitch somewhere in the administration. The hon. Member will remember that this extension was recommended to the House, and I believe quite rightly, as the thing to be done, because it was so much wanted by the Colonies and because it would so exactly fit in with the Colonies' need. If, after the power has been given, we find that the applications do not come along, it does seem to show that there is a hitch somewhere in the administration.

That leads me to the final observation which I want to make on this subject he scheme has done splendid work, if I may say so with something of a quasi-parental pride. It has given excellent work, it has given work in the direction which all hon. Members know to be the right direction, the direction of employing people in honourable work about their own industry. But it has undoubtedly hung fire in one or two directions. It has hung fire in the direction of assisting and promoting schemes in our great Dominions overseas. There has been disappointment there. Something has been done, but not nearly as much as we hoped. It has hung fire in the direction of promoting useful schemes of reconstruction in foreign countries. It was part of the original design that the machinery should be used for promoting reconstruction in foreign countries, and at the same time bringing orders to works and giving employment here. That has hung fire too. I believe, if I may venture to make the suggestion to one with so much experience as the hon. Member, that the reason, if there be one apart from the essential nature of things, why the scheme has hung fire is this. For these Colonial and foreign schemes knowledge is necessary of a nature that is really not at the disposal of any private person such as the members of the Advisory Committee, most experienced and capable as they are in their own particular region of financial and commercial advice. In a word, I do not believe that the Dominion and foreign schemes will ever be got rapidly initiated until you put behind their initiation the force and the power of the Government Departments which are acquainted with the conditions involved. Supposing that some scheme comes along, say for a railway in some foreign country, it is really only the Foreign Office who have knowledge of the political relations, questions of stability, and so on, necessary to judge the scheme; and similarly for a big proposal in the Dominions. My suggestion, therefore, is that, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned to find the weak point why the scheme does not get on faster as regards the Dominions and abroad, it is a lack of putting behind the work of the Committee the initiating power of the Department itself—the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office. I should be disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton if he confined what he said, as to the relations between the administration and the scheme, to the question of initiation—to putting schemes before the Advisory Committee. If he would agree with me that at that point all interference should stop, and that as regards the decision on the scheme it should be left to the unfettered discretion of the Advisory Committee, I believe that then we should find that there is really not so much difference between us. This is the substantial point that I wanted to lay before the hon. Gentleman—that there should be a closer connection between the Department and the Advisory Committee as regards initiation.

I should like to say at the outset that my sympathies are certainly with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but, perhaps, he will allow me to qualify my acquiescence in all that he said by the caution which was expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young). We are out to find employment for our people, and we wish to find it in the most economic and the safest way possible, without, if we can, putting the public purse at too great a hazard. I shall have something to say about that presently, because, from something which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich earlier in the Debate, when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was speaking about losses, the right hon. Gentleman seemed quite shocked that we had lost £100,000.

Curious, but not shocked.

With regard to the question of shipping, as to which representations have been made by the hon. Member he is really pushing at an open door. If schemes come forward which will warrant help from the Government, we can depend upon it that the Committee—over whom I have personally no control, and upon whom, I agree, no control or pressure should be exercised by any Government Department—I am sure that the Committee will look very favourably on any proposal with regard to shipping. When I was sitting, a few months ago, in the Very seat that is now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, I urged, with all the power at my command, that no great help should be given to shipbuilding under the Trade Facilities Act at that juncture, and why? Not because I was hostile to it by any means. On the contrary, I wished to help the 100,000 shipbuilders who, as we were told the other day, were out of work; but we had to be cruel to be kind, because freights were bad, and if we fostered shipbuilding, and threw more ships on to the water while there was a large number already—including many, as I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that would be better out of the way—we should probably keep down freights, injure the shipping trade, and render it less attractive to the private man. But, as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has told us to-day, the times have changed considerably since I then spoke, and, although I should have said the same thing, after reflection, as I said six months ago, had conditions been the same as they then were, they have changed, and, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton says, we should do what we can to lend sympathetic aid to shipbuilding.

I agree very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich that we should exercise no pressure whatever upon the Committees which deal with these matters. I have nothing personally to do with the Trade Facilities Act, but, so far as concerns the Export Credits' Committee, with which the Department with which I have the privilege of being associated is in close contact, and of which, as is well known to the House, I was at one time a member, I think it would very rightly resent any interference by the Minister in its decisions. May I give the House an instance of what goes on in that Committee. Projects are put before them, the Comittee is composed of a number of very highly-trained bankers, business men, and men of affairs in the City, who are much more competent than any Minister or any Department to know what is the right thing to do. Any interference with them must result in harm. The extraordinary thing about the Export Credits Committee is this. This is the point to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) drew attention quite correctly, that there was a sum available of £26,000,000. As a matter of fact, we have only lent £5,500,000. I sympathise with his views.

The fact of the matter is this. There is no business to be done. The bankers have done very well for trade. They have taken very great risks indeed They have done their duty full measure and running over. The risks we get offered us sometimes are of a kind which no banker in his senses would look at. They require credit for a very long period, and no banker dares lend the money of his depositors to schemes of this kind. The banker does not lend his money, but the public's money and he is not justified in putting this money into schemes of a certain kind that are coming to us. But the trouble is this. There are not, even of these almost unreasonably risky schemes, sufficient to absorb the money which would be implied by the guarantee of the £26,000,000. It is a very curious paradox that this Committee finds itself in. When a man says, "I want to borrow on your credit £50," what is the first thing that passes through the man's mind to whom that question is put. "Let me find a reason why I should not lend the money." When people come with projects the first thing that goes through the mind of the Committee is to find reasons why we should lend the credit. But there is not the business, doing, and we find great difficulty in getting offers of a suitable nature. But this Debate will have served a very good purpose. It will advertise among those who should know about the schemes that this Export Credits Scheme and the Trade Facilities Scheme are both in operation. So much do I agree with what has been said that the Department has assisted me in the last two or three days to draw up some sort of statement which we can send in to the papers in the industrial North to bring it home to the people of the North that we are waiting for them to come. If they will bring proper schemes we are only too delighted to use the help of the Government.

Is that only for export credits or trade facilities as well?

I can only deal with my own Department, but I have no doubt the Trade Facilities people will take similar steps if they think proper. The question of 'Overseas Settlement was referred to. I am in hearty agreement with the views laid down by my hon. Friend. Let him come with me to the Committee, which has been very admirably presided over by his colleague the hon. Member for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn). I was there only a few days ago and listened with great interest to a report which has been brought back from Canada by Miss Margaret Bondfield. The hon. Member for Rothwell was there, and the Colonial Secretary and a large number of my own officials. I wish the hon. Member would come down. He would see that we are not remiss in doing what we can to stimulate the emigration authorities. He will see that there is no urging forward necessary. We are doing all we can.

If I come down, will the hon. Member show me the actual numbers of persons who have been emigrated under the scheme?

I will give the hon. Member all the information in my power, and I shall be very glad to enlist his sympathy and help in this House. I offer the invitation without any hesitation and without reserve. If he will come to the Committee, I will show him all in reason that he would like to know. With regard to the Colonial loans, to which the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) referred, the right hon. Member is quite right in saying that not as much has come before the Government as we would wish. But the scheme has only-been in operation 20 weeks. That is a very short period of time. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that they are not small schemes that will come from the Dominion and Colonial Governments, but large schemes. Nevertheless, I attach great importance to his views, and I will see that the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office have put before them the suggestions which he was good enough to make this afternoon.

For the information of those who are connected with the North, I wish to refer to the point raised by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the extension of export credits operations to India. I am glad to say that his own Chamber of Commerce m Edinburgh made representations to me a few days ago. I took counsel with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, as well as the banks, and I have come to this decision, that we will extend upon engineering long-term contracts the benefits of the export credits scheme to India, Ceylon, the Straits and Hong Kong. For short-term contracts, we think that the banking facilities are enough The reason why we some months ago refused to give these facilities to India and the East generally was that, after the slump, large numbers of orders for textile goods were repudiated. I received representations from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce asking me to urge the House not to allow credit facilities to be given in respect of India until the channel which was choked by these goods which were left unsold, owing to the repudiated contracts, had become open again. That channel, which was choked by the textile goods which were unsold owing to repudiated contracts, is now open, and for that reason we have extended our export credit facilities to India. With regard to these export credit facilities, the little men need have no fear that their wants will be overlooked. I find that there have been a large number of guarantees under the Exports Credits Act for sums of no more than £10. If people like to come to the Export Credits Scheme with their small business, I say here and now, as representing my Department, that we shall be only too glad to give them every assistance in our power.

I wish to call attention to the question of unemployment and the position of the waiters employed in the House of Commons. I understand that last Recess, arrangements were made that half pay should be given to them during the Recess. On this occasion, I understand that, although the festive season is with us, and despite the fact that these people, being on the domestic side of unemployment, are debarred from making application for any grants from the unemployment fund, they are now to be put off for a period of two months without any pay at all. I do not know what Minister is responsible, or whether it is the Kitchen Committee, but the fact is that these waiters are our employees, and we ought in this House, when we talk continuously about unemployment in the country, to make our contribution to solving that problem, by doing justice to those who serve as so well.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Four o'clock until Tuesday, 10th February, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.