I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

"while assenting to the creation of a Secretaryship of State for Scotland, this House declines to increase the number of Secretaries of State, and would favour a reduction by making the political heads of the Army and Air Force parallel in status with the First Lord of the Admiralty."

On a point of Order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend is not in order. I think my hon. and gallant Friend has omitted to observe the form of the Bill. The Bill does not purport to create a Secretary of State for Scotland, which is a matter of the prerogative of the Crown. All that this Bill purports to do is to make certain consequential changes following upon the creation of a Secretary of State for Scotland, if it should please His Majesty to appoint him.

On the point of Order. I submit that the number of Secretaries of State who can sit in this House is limited by Order of this House, and that, therefore, my Amendment is in order.

On the point of Order. That is one of the consequential Amendments which I have just mentioned, but you will observe, Sir, the terms of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. It reads:

"while assenting to the creation of a Secretaryship of State for Scotland,"

but this House has nothing to do with the creation of a Secretary of State for Scotland.

On the point of Order. Surely, it would be in order on this Bill to argue that, rather than increase the number of Secretaries of State owing to the creation of this office, it would be better to limit other Secretaries of State, as in fact the hon. and gallant Member has suggested. That, surely, would be in order on the Second Reading? I submit to you, Sir, that the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would apply on the Third Reading, but not on the Second Reading, when the principle of the Bill can be discussed.

I think the point of the objection that has been taken is sound so far as this, that the Amendment can be altered in its wording by leaving out the words,

"while assenting to the creation of a Secretaryship of State for Scotland,"

and making it read:

"This House declines to increase the number of Secretaries of State capable of sitting in this House."

I accept your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

"this House declines to increase the number of Secretaries of State capable of sitting in this House, but would favour a reduction by making the political heads of the Army and Air Force parallel in status with the First Lord of the Admiralty."

In any case it is immaterial, because my object is really to get some declaration from the Government and not to force the House to a division. In fact, at a crisis like this, a Bill of this character rather suggests a resemblance to the gibe that was made at Percival when he was Prime Minister, that the first thing he did in the midst of a crisis in the French Revolutionary war was to introduce a Bill for an increase of the pay of curates. It is not of very great importance and, as my Amendment suggests, I have no possible objection to a Secretary of State for Scotland. The proposal of the Government is only to revive what was done at the Act of Union, but the House has always been rightly jealous, and so has the country, of any increase in the number of Secretaries of State. One has only to examine the history of the subject. We had one Secretary of State in the reign of Henry VIII. In 1539, towards the end of his reign, we increased to two, and we had that strange provision of a Secretary for Northern Affairs and a Secretary for Southern Affairs, mapping out the work. Then there was no further increase of any kind until 1708, when we got a Secretary of State for Scotland with the Act of Union. Then there was a rebellion in Scotland during 1745 and 1746 and we did away with the Secretaryship of State for Scotland. The result was that we had two Secretaries of State again. Then in 1768 the growing importance of the Colonies led to the creation of the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies. Then came the war of American Independence, and we lost the American Colonies, and the first Act of the Rockingham Ministry, in 1782, was to do away with the Secretaryship of State for the Colonies. The Motion was made by Mr. Burke, and it illustrates that after every war there has been a member of this House who has moved a reduction in the number of Secretaries of State. Mr. Burke's Motion was carried and the number was cut down.

Then in 1794, with the war, we had a Secretary of State for War created, and in 1801, when there was a probability of peace, in order to increase the importance of the position, they made the Secretary of State for War Secretary of State for the Colonies as well. But still there were only three Secretaries of State. In 1816 Mr. Tierney brought forward a Motion to do away with the position of Secretary of State for War and it was resisted by the Government on the ground that the Colonies that were tacked on were so important that the position could not be done away with, and there was no further creation beyond the three Secretaries of State till war broke out again. In 1855 the Colonies were separated from the War Ministry and a Secretary of State for the Colonies created in addition to the Secretary of State for War. That made four Secretaries of State, but the power of the Cabinet had grown so great by that time that there was no attempt to make a reduction after the Crimean War, and in 1858, the India Council having been created and the Indian Mutiny having occurred, a Secre- tary of State for India was created, but he has since been shorn of his power. Side by side with the creation of the Secretary of State for Scotland we can surely take away the Secretary of State for India, because all the power rests now with the Viceroy and his Council in India.

From 1858, no further Secretary of State was created until again war broke out, and in 1917 we created the Secretary of State for Air. When that position was created in war the matter was hardly discussed in the House. Sir John Baird introduced the Air Force Bill, and he used two arguments, one wrong and the other fallacious, in favour of it. He said it was to make the Secretary of State for Air equal in position to the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty is not a Secretary of State, and if he were, and the Secretary of State for Air had been made equal in position to the First Lord of the Admiralty, he would not have been a Secretary of State. The second and the only other argument advanced was that every officer has a right of access to the Sovereign, and he can only have access to the Sovereign through a Secretary of State. The Navy, which is the senior Force and the only permanent force by law established, has existed under that system of not having a Secretary of State, and we have never discovered that we have ever suffered from that fact. It is quite possible, I contend, to reduce the number of Secretaries of State by three by making the Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State for War equal with the First Lord of the Admiralty and reducing the Secretary of State for India to Secretary for India. In that way we shall reduce the number of demands of men who think they are entitled to Cabinet rank. They need not even be in the Cabinet. There is no necessity for the war services to be represented in the Cabinet. There is no necessity for the Secretary for Scotland to be in the Cabinet, because the Crown has the prerogative of summoning any Privy Councillor to a Cabinet Council. Therefore all the gentlemen outside the Cabinet would not suffer in any degree, and when we differ so much in the Services, it is far better that the differing political heads should be outside than inside the Cabinet, because then the Cabinet will have unity. Indeed, Lord Rosebery in January, 1903, proposed that the Secretary of State for War should be outside the Cabinet. He proposed that Lord Kitchener should be made Secretary of State for War, and to use his own words, that he should be

"deliberately cut off from the collective responsibility by remaining outside the Cabinet."

I think I have shown that an additional Secretary of State is not necessary. Whenever we create a Secretary of State, we create a demand for a man in a privileged position to be a Member of the Cabinet, and that has led to the growth of the Cabinet, which is very much complained of. It has increased from seven in former days to 23. If you increase the number of people who have claims, you necessarily increase the size of the Cabinet—not that all claims are satisfied. Lord Derby complained that if he had satisfied all the men who really had a claim to Cabinet rank he would have had a Cabinet of 32. But it has become traditional in British policy that every Secretary of State should be a member of the Cabinet. The only time that we have broken with it was during the War period when we found it quite unmanageable to conduct the War with a large Cabinet, and we had a war Cabinet of five gentlemen. I could quote many great men of experience in the past who have complained of the growth of the Cabinet, and they were complaining of Cabinets of over 10:—Greville, the Marquess Wellesley, Peel, Palmerston, Disraeli and Lord Derby. It is very significant in connection with this question of the number of Secretaries of State that the first Act of the first Cabinet which we ever had in this country, which was established because the Privy Council had grown too large—the Rockingham Cabinet in 1782—was to reduce the number of Secretaries of State from three to two.

I do not want to deal with the history of recent negotiations which have been carried on in connection with the mining controversy; but I do feel that had these matters been in the hands of fewer men, we should not have had this deplorable state of affairs to-day. Three men conducted negotiations with three men, but in both cases they had to have reference to much larger bodies. There was the Cabinet of 21 on one side, and the miners' executive of 24 on the other side. Then there was the great body of the Trades Congress Council, the numbers of which I do not know. I think things might have reached a happier stage if fewer men had conducted the negotiations on both sides.

This House cannot arrogate to itself any executive functions. It has a similar defect similar to that of a large Cabinet—it is much too large; but it is the bounden duty of this House to criticise the Executive and to see that things work smoothly, economically and efficiently. I do submit that I have shown that with the growth of the numbers of Secretaries of State, there has been a growth in the size of the Cabinet, that it is impossible for such Cabinets to work with celerity, unity and secrecy, and that a large Cabinet and the growth of Secretaries of State is alien to our history and makes for inefficiency.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Park-stone (Commander Bellairs) in the erudite speech which he has addressed to the House. At any other moment such a speech would have been acclaimed not only as erudite, but as interesting. I cannot think that any speech on this question will interest the House to-day, and I certainly do not intend to inflict a long speech upon the House. I am in a dilemma. On the one hand, we must all feel the unreality of this Debate; but the unreality of the Debate is not due to the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend but to those who arrange public business and who have put down this not unimportant Bill for consideration to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend, therefore, is clearly acquitted of any desire, as I hope I may be acquitted of any desire, to fiddle while Rome is burning.

On the other hand, I feel that in ordinary circumstances it would have been the bounden duty of this House to submit this Bill to the closest scrutiny, because this is not an unimportant Bill although it is a short and simple Bill. I am sure the whole House will feel that this is not the moment for lengthened debate, or for nice argument on constitutional points at this time. This is not a Bill, as was quite properly pointed out by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for the creation by this House of a seventh Secretary of State. That is not the business of this House; that is a part of the prerogative of the Crown. There is, however, one portion of the Bill in which the House is vitally interested, and that is the question as to the increase of the number of Secretaries of State who are permitted by law, not by prerogative to sit in this House. This Bill, in the third Clause, will enact when it becomes law, that

The number of Principal Secretaries of State and of Under Secretaries of State capable of sitting and voting in the Commons House of Parliament shall be increased to six,….

There will be, under the implication of this Bill, seven Secretaries of State, of whom six will be permitted by law to sit in this House.

I approach this matter from a slightly different angle from that taken by my hon. and gallant Friend. He is largely concerned as he showed by his speech, for the dignity of the great Service to which he belongs, and for the position of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I never thought that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty occupied a position of less dignity that his colleagues at the War Office or the Air Ministry. It never occurred to me that anyone would suggest that such indignity was placed upon him. Although the position of Secretary of State is one of great honour, and relatively an ancient office, so also is the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, and I cannot see any distinction of real dignity between them. But my hon. and gallant Friend is right in pointing out that there is a difference in constitutional status between them.

The very last thing that this House would desire would be to deny a higher constitutional status, if they had the power of doing it, to the Secretary of Scotland, least of all to the present Secretary of State for Scotland. I submit that we have been of recent years somewhat lightheartedly, or I would rather say, airily, multiplying individuals among whom the ancient and honourable office is now distributed, with perhaps some little dissipation of its ancient dignity. I would remind the House of a constitutional point of importance that although we have many Secretaries of State we have only one Secretaryship of State. It is true that the office is distributed among a certain number of individuals, but the office remains one, though the individuals have been multiplied. If it would gratfy Scotland, I should not mind the Secretary of State for Scotland being designated by a more exalted title, perhaps the title of Secretary of State is not the most appropriate title that could be conferred upon him. This is not a moment for debating these nice constitutional points and I shall content myself with formally seconding the Amendment in order to elicit from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some explanation of the course they have taken to-day.

I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I express no opinion on its merits. I do not agree with those who say that it is of no importance, but at the same time I think the occasion is not one on which to raise constitutional points. The debate on this Bill, and on the three following Orders, if it extends to any length, will be quite unreal and unrepresentative of the opinions of this House. It is quite impossible under existing conditions for the House to give reasoned consideration to this or any other measure, and I rise simply to suggest on behalf of Scottish Members who are interested in this measure that the House might very well give it a Second Reading —and this also extends to the three following Orders—without a prolonged debate on the understanding that the Government will not hurry this or the other measures through the Committee stage, but that in Committee we shall, I hope under happier cirmumstances, be able to discuss the Bills on their merits and present reasoned Amendments and arguments so far as we think necessary. That is all I need say, and I am expressing the feeling of the Members of this side of the House and I hope of the majority of Members opposite.

The hon. Member for York (Sir C. Marriott) in his speech made it a matter of complaint that in existing circumstances this Bill should have appeared on the Order Paper to-day. He did not give us any explanation why he made that complaint, and I must say that it strikes me, as far as I understand his argument, a strange suggestion to come from so high a constitutional authority as the hon. Member that, because there are serious matters engaging the attention of the country, therefore the House of Commons is apparently to do nothing whatever. I do not know what functions the hon. Member would assign to the House of Commons at a time of national crisis, if it is not to be allowed, even on a Friday, to discuss a Bill like this, which certainly raises no highly controversial matter because all sides of the House have already intimated their acceptance of the principle of the Bill. I am informed that the Scottish Members who are chiefly concerned are almost unanimous in favour of the proposed change; therefore, what reason there is for complaining that it is put down for discussion to-day entirely passes my comprehension.

The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) who moved the Amendment had originally put it down in a slightly different form from that which has been put from the Chair. It was declared by Mr. Speaker to be out of Order as it stands on the Notice Paper, and the hon. and gallant Member has been allowed to put it in a rather different form. At the same time my hon. and gallant Friend was unable to resist the temptation to deliver the rhetorical disquisition which he had prepared on the Amendment as he had first put it down. I do not complain of that. However irrelevant it was, it was certainly interesting. I do not propose to follow him into the various historical matters to which he referred, as the whole of that part of his speech was entirely irrelevant to this particular Bill. His speech was directed to show that there are too many or quite a sufficient number of Secretaries of State and that it would be a mistake to multiply them. Tins Bill does not propose to add to the number of Secretaries of State, nor as a matter of constitutional practice and law, is the assent of this House necessary to the proposed change. But undoubtedly a Resolution passed by this House on a matter of this sort would carry great weight with the adviser of the Crown, whoever he may be for the time being, in what advice he would tender to His Majesty in regard to a matter of this sort. But that is a very different thing from the Bill now before the House, and I invite the attention of hon. Members to the actual provisions of the measure, which really do not raise any great constitutional point such as that to which the hon. Member for York referred or which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. T. Kennedy) suggested would require such careful consideration later on.

There is no question here of the size of the Cabinet. That is an interesting point, and it has been raised before. I have no doubt there are many Members who will agree with the hon. Member opposite in thinking that, if it were possible to restrict the Cabinet to a small number of Members, it may be an advantage. But this Bill is not concerned with that. Supposing the House were to reject this Bill to-day or the Government withdrew it, it does not make the smallest difference to the size of the Cabinet, consequently, what is the use in taking up the time of the House in discussing a question which is really not raised in the Bill? All the Bill does is this. It assumes that His Majesty is likely to create a Secretary of State for Scotland, and that, if it is done, will be in pursuance of a declaration made by the Prime Minister on the 17th of December last when in reply to a question put in this House he said:

"Yes, Sir. The King has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that the status of the Secretary for Scotland should be raised to that of a Secretary of State. The necessary legislation to bring this into effect will be introduced at the earliest date convenient next Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1925; col. 1613, Vol. 189.]

This Bill simply carries out the promise made by the Prime Minister in December and merely makes some consequential changes which will be necessary and desirable if and when His Majesty is pleased to create a Secretary of State for Scotland. The purpose of the Bill is to make that change. The only Clause that can by any stretch of the imagination be thought to raise a constitutional point is Clause 3, which raises by one the number of Secretaries of State and of Under-Secretaries who by statute law can sit in this House. Assuming that it is agreed that there should be a Secretary of State for Scotland, does any hon. Member hold the view that because my right hon. Friend is made a Secretary of State, as I hope he may be, it will be necessary for him to be raised to the Peerage and go to the House of Lords? That is the whole question that is raised. In these days in this House we feel that as many of the executive Ministers of the Crown as possible should be allowed to sit in the Commons rather than in the House of Lords. The sole effect of Clause 3 is to allow the number of Secretaries of State who can sit in this House to be six instead of the five which has been the limitation up to the present time, and to make a corresponding provision for the Under-Secretary.

The other Clauses of the Bill merely make the necessary changes in other Acts of Parliament in which reference is already made to "the Secretary for Scotland," and in addition they make the necessary formal transfer of powers now exercised by the Secretary for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is all that the Bill does. I hope that the House will not be led away by the suggestion that all sorts of important constitutional issues are raised when such issues are not involved in the slightest degree, or by the suggestion that any effect will be produced on the size of the Cabinet and the efficiency of the executive Government. The Bill is a very simple straightforward and businesslike measure for making the changes necessary when the addition to the number of Secretaries of State is made, and as far as I know the proposals of the Bill have the approval of all parties.

I did not intend to intervene in the Debate, although it is gratifying to me to give my complete and cordial assent to the Bill. I have been prompted to speak by the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). He spoke of making a very short speech. It was an interesting speech. I am certain that I shall make but a short speech, and I am sure that the House is secure against any chance of my making an interesting one. I wish distinctly to point out the position in which we are. The point raised by the Bill is one that has been discussed for years, and the Bill's proposals have been strongly urged in Scotland not by one party only, but by every party unanimously. As has been stated, a pledge was given by the Prime Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government. To postpone the Bill, which is universally desired in Scotland, on the ground that some erudite persons like my hon. Friend the Member for York find that it incidentally raises certain curious points about the number of Secretaries of State that may be in the Cabinet—apparently the very same people can sit in the Cabinet when they are not Secretaries of State—and on the further ground that if we add the two mysterious words "of State" the holder of that title must be turned out of this House and go to the House of Lords, would be foolish. I hope that the Government will not be withheld from going on and making a practical use of this time of emergency, when the House is able to give time to the Bill, seeing that this is a subject which will raise no passion and no dissent except in those prolific-of-dispute brains which are concerned with minute and erudite constitutional points.

I would like to add one word to express the gratification which is felt by all Scottish Members at the Step which it is proposed to take under this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment made a very interesting speech, but part of it would have been more appropriate to a later debate on the Ministry of Defence proposals. This Bill does not increase the salary of the Secretary for Scotland when he becomes a Secretary of State. He is already a Member of the Cabinet, so that no change is contemplated in that direction. Every Unionist Member for Scotland is wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill passing without Amendment, and I think I may say the same for Scottish Members in other parties. The Bill has caused the greatest gratification amongst the people of Scotland and I hope that nothing will interfere with its passing without Amendment

I wish to say how. much pleasure it gives to myself and to my colleagues from Scotland to support the Bill. The advance of the Secretary for Scotland to the position of a Secretary of State is long overdue. No one who has had the pleasure of seeing the right hon. Gentleman who so adorns the office of Secretary for Scotland would wish to see him moved to another place. We cordially accept the Bill, and hope that it will become law as soon as possible.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

While I am in favour of the Bill, there are one or two points about which we ought to be informed. Clause 1, subsection (1), says:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act an auctioneer shall not offer for sale in any market, fair, or mart, in or near which a weighing machine is provided for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the principal Acts, any cattle…"

I am very doubtful about the words "in or near." It is definitely laid down that no market without a weighing machine may be held if "in or near" another market which has a weighing machine. Those who live in country districts far away from markets where there are weighing machines will find it a. great hardship both to buyers and sellers if certain markets are to be done away with because of the distance from another market which has a weighing machine.

The second point to which I would direct the attention of the Minister is the fact that the Bill provides that the Minister may by order declare that these provisions shall not apply to any market, fair or mart. The present Act—that of 1887—applies to markets in which tolls are at present authorised to be taken in respect of the weighing of cattle, by any corporation or market authority, and apparently this Measure will give the Minister a power which the local authorities have at present. The result might be that while the Minister makes an order the local authority will have to pay, which would be most unsatisfactory for all concerned. My third point relates to Clause 3 of the Bill and the Schedule. This Clause repeals the Act of 1887, as regards the amount of the tolls prescribed. The tolls under that Act were fixed at 2d. and 1d., and under this Bill they are increased to 6d. and 3d. I suggest that this will add to the burdens on agriculture, and seems to impose an unnecessary hardship if the increase is to fall on the producer. I should like to hear an explanation from the Minister on those points.

I apologise to the House for the fact that I was detained elsewhere and that it was not possible for me to be here at the outset of this discussion. The object of this little Bill is to carry out a recommendation of the Linlithgow Committee that an Act should be passed rendering it compulsory to weigh all fat stock before sale, the weights to be exhibited automatically or otherwise in the saleroom, or, where the market is dependent on a weighing machine in another part of the town, announced by the auctioneer from a certificate furnished by the weighbridge operator. That statement really disposes of many of the doubts which my hon. and gallant Friend has expressed.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates my point. I am not referring to markets in towns, but to little local markets and fairs, which may be a considerable distance from any place where there is a, weighbridge. Will such markets or fairs be allowed to go on, as they have been going on for 100 years, or will they have to be supplied with weighbridges?

The law at present is that weighbridges and weighing opportunities are to be furnished except under special exemption by the Minister. That power of exemption is extended under this Bill, and clearly it would not be reasonable to insist upon the provision of expensive facilities in the case of any but regular markets. As to the point about the distance from a market of an existing weighbridge, we must leave that to commonsense administration. In the Act of 1887 it was laid down that the market authority should provide and maintain sufficient places for weighing cattle and should keep therein, or near thereto, weighing machines and weights for the purpose of weighing cattle. I do not think that any practical difficulty will arise from the lack of any definition as to the distance from the market of a weighing machine.

The object of the Bill is to see that there is a fair deal between the two parties to the bargain. At the present time the farmer can only get a proper price on the assumption that all the bidders are equally good and accurate judges of the weight of stock. Therefore, the present system is in the nature of a gamble where the odds are very much against the farmer. I do not think any complaint can be made about the tolls. They are based on our information, and we have sought to bring them into conformity with the general expenses of the markets, and as this Bill has been asked for by the farmers and has been supported not only by the National Farmers' Union but by the Council of Agriculture for England, I have no reason to think that they will object to paying their share of the cost which will be thrown upon the market authorities.

I should like to raise the question of whether this is a suitable time at which to debate this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) has indicated that there are debatable points in connection with it, and I find that a number of my hon. Friends who are interested in this matter are not here to-day. In the circumstances it is not a fitting moment to deal with this Measure. This proposal is based largely on the views of the Linlithgow Committee but that Committee expressed doubt as to when the time would arise for proceeding with legislation of this kind.

That, I think, was only because it was felt that the farmers' organisations should express their views on the matter and those views have now been expressed.

The Linlithgow Committee said they felt that there were several bodies which ought to express their views before the time would have come for legislation. Having regard to the condition in which we on this side find ourselves, I would suggest, as has been suggested already in regard to Bills, in general, that we might have assurances of latitude at a later stage in regard to reasoned Amendments.

I think it was made clear by the Prime Minister yesterday that we do not propose to press any of these non-contentious Bills through the Standing Committees upstairs until it is possible for all parties to attend and be represented there.

I do not want to make a long speech on this Bill, but it seems to me to be especially a Bill which might be considered by a Committee upstairs. There are a number of points which obviously suggest themselves for consideration and adjustment, but they are Committee points and matters of detail. On the general principle of the Bill I would only say that it is easy to expect too much from a Measure of this kind. Cattle and other stock are not, in fact, sold entirely by weight. Weight is only one of the factors that enter into the question of value when a beast is bid for at auction. There are other considerations, such as the quality of the hide, the proportion of bone and waste, and the quality of the meat which may be expected to result from the slaughter of the animal. Those factors will always come into consideration, and no one practically acquainted with the conditions would expect that animals will be sold in consequence of this Bill by their weight and nothing else. But undoubtedly it is useful to a number of farmers, who have not great experience in judging the weight of animals, which is nominally the factor with which bidding starts, to have the assistance of the weighing machine. So far as that is concerned, it will be a useful Measure, and it is one that might well be sent upstairs to be examined by a Committee when such can be assembled.

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

There is no subject which has received more attention from agriculturists in recent years than the waste which is due to badly drained land. We have recently conducted a census throughout the country, and we find that there are 1,200,000 acres of land in urgent need of drainage and 500,000 acres which would be capable of great improvement if more efficient drainage operations could be undertaken. Every agriculturist realises how much is lost with crops and grass land by the shallow rooting and loss of fertility which come from waterlogged ground, and how livestock suffers from such diseases as foot rot and liver fluke under the same conditions. We are considering these problems very carefully. The House will have read the Report of the Commission on the Ouse drainage problem, and we hope next year to bring forward proposals to deal with the major issues in a larger Bill. This little Measure to which we ask the House to give a Second Reading to-day is quite distinct from the problems which we have to consider in connection with large areas which are controlled by statutory drainage authorities.

The object of this Bill, which has passed through all its stages in another place, and has been considerably amended and, I think, improved in certain details, is to deal, not with the statutory drainage authorities at all—I have explained, we are leaving that over till next year—but to make more efficient and to extend the powers of the county councils. The first Clause would transfer to the county and county borough councils the powers now possessed by the Ministry of Agriculture under Part II of the Land Drainage Act, 1918. There is at present the power to delegate those functions, but for various reasons, chiefly financial, that power has so far been of very little application. The first of these duties which we would transfer to the county and borough councils is to enforce the liability to repair drainage works where that responsibility for repair already exists. The second function would be to exercise the powers of the local drainage authority where their failure has caused injury or where inadequate drainage could be remedied by the county council. The third power, and perhaps the most important, is to carry out and maintain small drainage schemes, up to a maximum expenditure of £5,000, in areas where statutory drainage authorities cannot conveniently be set up. All those powers are now entrusted to the Ministry of Agriculture and will be transferred under the provisions of the Bill to the county and county borough councils, which are far better qualified to exercise them than we are, and which have recently, in carrying out drainage works, for the relief of unemployment, obtained a great deal of valuable experience in working out these voluntary drainage schemes.

Clause 2 would enlarge the drainage powers of the county and county borough councils where no drainage authority exists, and it would enable the local bodies to serve notices requiring owners and occupiers to put drains in order where their acts or defaults are injuring other land. This is a new power, but we believe that there is a strong case for this enactment. The remaining six Clauses make incidental provisions, such as power of recovering expenses, power of entry, service of notices, etc., which are really more suitable for discussion in Committee upstairs than on the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that this Bill will do a good deal to make more efficient the administration of our existing drainage system, and, pending the larger amendment of the law, which we hope to pass at an early date, I trust that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading to-day.

Perhaps I might reinforce the argument I ventured to use just now against the taking of these Agricultural Bills. What I said as to the difficulty of dealing adequately with them, applies surely more to the Drainage Bill than to the Weighing of Cattle Bill, because some of my hon. Friends have a special knowledge of the peculiar circumstances and drainage conditions in the north of England and elsewhere, and I would like to urge that it would be far more appropriate if we had an adequate opportunity. This is not a small subject. It is a very large subject, and one of the greatest and weightiest matters affecting the resources of the country. Is it not most desirable that Members who are informed and concerned should have been present before we debated the Bill? In another place questions were raised such as, whether the powers of compulsion and compulsorily ordering expenditure by an owner might not act unfairly? Those are points which would appeal to Members on the other side perhaps even more than on this, but those points, which were raised by representatives of the Opposition in another place, are lengthy and debateable. We must take what we can get, but we do rely on the Minister's assurance that the fullest possible opportunity for discussion will be given elsewhere.

This Bill has been very carefully considered by the organisation which represents owners of land, large and small—the Central Landowners' Association. There were certain objections which we felt to the Bill as it was originally introduced in the House of Lords, but Amendments were put forward, and have been substantially embodied in the Bill in another place. As the Chairman of that organisation which represents the owners large and small, I welcome the Bill and hope the House will give it a Second Reading. It is true that orders may be made upon owners of land to execute improvements, or to pay for improvements carried out in their default by local authorities, but the present situation is that in many parts of the country drainage works carried out by owners and occupiers—and very necessarily carried out for the fertility of the soil—are rendered abortive by the failure of an adjoining owner or occupier to carry out similar works. It is no use draining your own land properly if the man immediately below you does not drain his, and the water gets held up. This is for the maintenance of the drainage of our agricultural land, which got sadly into arrears during the War period and the period which immediately followed, and it is now particularly urgent that general drainage work, not only on a large scale, but on a small scale, should be resumed and maintained. This Bill I believe, will be a very valuable help to that work, and will lead by degrees towards a greater fertility of the soil of the country.

It is remarkable that not until 1926 have we discovered the need for proper drainage of the land. This Bill comes from the Lords. The Bill which dealt with mining subsidence also came from the Lords. In neither of these Bills is adequate provision made. Sub-section 4 (b) of Clause 2 says

"that the condition of the drain is not due to any act or default."

Take an area where mining operations are going on, and there is deflection in the level of the drain, which brings about a stoppage. There is nothing in this Bill or in the Mining Subsidence Bill which deals with a point like that. What was dealt with in the Subsidence Bill was simply the question of the interests of the railway companies, the landowners and the coalowners, but the common interest of the public, the common interest of the preservation of our land by keeping it properly dry, has been altogether lost sight of. I want to know from the Minister exactly what steps he can promise now, in order that every point urged so far as responsibility is concerned is going to be dealt with adequately in this Bill. I warn the House, against putting in a Clause that may be applied or may not be applied, and I warn it, again, against putting in very loose language, so that the lawyers can drive a horse and cart through the Measure. If we are to get certain areas lying half of the year in water, and good land being thereby destroyed, because there are not powers to compel the owners to drain the land, then we shall have to have some other Measure in order to enforce it.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of an act of default injuring other land. What is to be done in relation to the overflowing of a river in the area of an owner who claims the land through which the river flows? I know of areas where it would only require continuous attention to the embankments, but these things are left alone. Banks of rivers are allowed to get into decay, and when there is a heavy shower of rain on the hills, down the water comes, and the man who has been to the expense, of draining his meadowland, says, "What is the use of draining my land w hen I get a surplus from the river?" I am not an agriculturist, but if it were left to me I would give a guarantee that in five years from now there would be no land under water. I do not care whether the land is 10, 30, or 100 feet below the sea level, I will give you a guarantee that I will make that land dry.

Surely if there is anything worth doing in this country in this matter nothing is more important than getting the condition of our land such that we are able to make use of it to the fullest extent ! I hope that when this Bill comes from the other place we shall find that there has been some more recognition of the needs of the case, and that some of the wording has been put right. I have discovered that in this Bill there are types of sentences from men who have no practical knowledge of the subject until we get down to the practical man and the knowledge of the practical man is embedded in legislation. You will not go anywhere, but have disputes between one man who says "I have drained my land," without any thought or knowledge for the general situation, and others, Where is the sanity in a nation that claims to be civilised doing things in this way? Why not in this Bill once and for all say—what is required—shall compulsorily be done? There is one other point. I should like the Minister to remember that you have got to make provision for who says that he owns the land. I hope that the things I have brought forward will get some attention on the part of the Minister. I have given great attention to this matter, and I know that if we get a proper system of drainage in this country you will get a condition of crops of which at present you little dream.

This Bill depends upon the co-operation of the County Councils, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been in consultation with them, whether there has been any reply, and whether in their belief the methods that have been put into Clause 2 are likely to work satisfactory? The second point is in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's plans for further legislation. Can he give us any idea when we are likely to have it? At present you are leaving practically untouched a County like my own—Wiltshire. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the form the permanent measures are likely to take, and whether they will bring in a county like my own, where the drainage is of the highest importance?

The county councils have been consulted, and this Bill has been approved by the County Councils' Association. The more important Bill has involved a large amount of consideration and consultation and it has been found necessary to make big changes in the drainage law. It is quite impossible to state at what date it will be possible to present the results of our consultation to Parliament, but I think there is certainly not the slightest chance of passing this larger Measure during the current Session of Parliament, and the earliest date I can hope to deal with the matter will be next Session.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted those who are practically working drainage schemes in the country, such as county drainage officers? Have men like that had an opportunity of putting before the Ministry their views and their experience?

We have endeavoured to consult all authorities and persons in a position to give us the benefit of their knowledge and experience.

I welcome this Bill, not because it goes into the bigger drainage schemes but because it is a matter of immediate practical importance to the farmer. One cannot, in a railway train or a motor car, go up and down the country without seeing rushes growing in the fields, and those fields are not looked after because the drains have become ineffective, and the places need redraining. The practical difficulty with which those concerned are faced is that the draining of an acre of land costs now about £25, and that makes the matter very difficult. I am referring, of course, to heavy land and not to light land. For heavy land there is a scheme of drainage which ought to be available. I refer to the Mole drainage scheme, which ought to be not only cheaper but ought to be quite effective. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look into this matter with a view of getting the county councils to take up this Mole drainage and provide ploughs in the various districts which can be hired out, especially by the small farmer, so that the cost of draining an acre of land by this method would run to about 25s., the farmer, of course, being helped by his two or three horses, or by a tractor.

I welcome this Bill because it applies to these small drainage schemes which are more necessary than anything else at the present time to help the small farmer on poor land. In reference to the bigger drainage schemes referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) as to liaison between the County Councils themselves and the big statutory Boards I may say this: I happen to be a Member of the River Mole Drainage Board, set up under an old Statute of Queen Elizabeth, having been put on by my county agricultural committee to represent them. That arrangement is working perfectly well, and is the sort of system which, I hope, will continue to be worked, because a county, like any other ratepayer, gets proper representation in that way. I think if that system were to be extended in any future plan it would be a sound way of dealing with our land drainage scheme.

I, like other speakers, welcome this Bill so far as it deals with purely agricultural districts. I think it is an entirely right principle to entrust county councils with the formation of schemes and with the enforcement of the cleaning of private drains; but in those districts which comprise a number of urban councils or county boroughs—even though the county boroughs may be some way off—there is likely to be great injustice to the rural districts through lack of proper financial provisions. May I give one illustration, it is a concrete case, to show the House what I mean? The county borough of Sheffield comprises a population of 500,000 people. It has a water supply scheme which brings into the town of Sheffield something like 500,000,000 gallons a week or a day—I am not sure which—from a watershed in the county of Derbyshire.

In the ordinary course of things that water, after use, is discharged down the sewers of Sheffield. The enormous rainfall that ordinarily descends on the borough of Sheffield is also carried off down those same sewers. All that water finds its way down natural watercourses, over a distance of 20 or 30 miles, to the River Ouse, and the whole expense of cleansing those watercourses and keeping the drainage system open falls on the local authorities between Sheffield and the River Ouse, and, after the water has been discharged into the Ouse, falls on to the county councils and local authorities of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire. Everybody who is acquainted with the West Riding knows that throughout the semi-rural parts of it there are large urban authorities and large county boroughs, and the same ob- servation applies to Lancashire. Under the finance of this Bill, the whole cost of any proceedings taken under this Bill is to fall on the local authorities taking those proceedings, and not on the urban authorities or the county boroughs who are really the culprits. Therefore, if this Bill is carried out as it stands, great hardship and expense will be imposed on the owners and occupiers of agricultural land which they ought not to bear.

On another aspect of this matter I would like to know what is the policy of the Government. The whole expense of the administration of this Act is to fall on the county councils. Hitherto, the expense of drainage Acts has been paid, as I understand it, by the State by contributions to the county councils. I understood, according to the announced policy of the Government, that something like £1,000,000 was to be handed over to the drainage authorities, but I see no provision in this Bill for any of that money being given to carry out the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I believe it is a fact that hitherto something like 80 per cent. of the cost of agricultural education has been paid by the State, and that the cost of the administration of small holdings has been paid by contributions of the State, and I do not understand why the Government have suddenly changed their policy, and propose that the whole cost is now to be thrown on the county councils. It will be a very heavy charge upon the smaller councils, and will not induce them to put the Act into operation.

It must be borne in mind that the improvement of the drainage, system does not solely benefit the occupier or the owner of the particular land drained. The better the drainage system, the better the health of the people who live in the district. The more effectually one can get the water away, and the drier one makes the land, the better it is for everybody concerned. Further, the more of these schemes we carry out the more employment do we provide. So far the State has made a considerable contribution to drainage schemes as a means of providing employment for the people who would otherwise be unemployed and I wish to know why there has been this sudden change in policy. I say again that I welcome the powers which the Bill gives to county councils in purely agri- cultural districts, but there are great possibilities and probabilities that those who live in semi-rural districts will be heavily mulcted for advantages which they do not themselves derive.

I wish to say a word or two with respect to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). Although I agree with him that the drainage of our fields fell into great disrepair during the War, I think the House ought to know what is the great cause of urgency about this Bill. In my opinion it lies in the breakup of great estates. On those estates, before the War, the drainage as between one farm and another was looked after under a comprehensive policy. There is no need for any interference with the local authority if the owner of the lower land keeps his drains open, and does not interfere with the drainage of his neighbour. On the property of any well-managed estate all that is looked after without any expense to the local rates, and in considering the urgency of this Measure we should recognise that it is almost entirely due to the breaking up of large estates which has taken place since the War. The Minister of Agriculture did not mention this aspect of the question, and I thought it it was only right on the Second Reading that I should put this view forward in order to justify the action which the Minister is taking.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill. The Drainage Boards sometimes deal with two or three county areas. Is it possible under this Bill that the county council will issue different instructions to those issued by the Drainage Boards? I want to know if the Minister of Agriculture has power to deal with this problem of co-ordinating the action of the Drainage Boards and County Councils. Another point I wish to mention is in reference to what the hon. Baronet the Member for Rye said with regard to the question whether the county council are going to spend a considerable amount of money on behalf of the county boroughs, and thus throw the extra expense on the agricultural community. If that is done by the county council, I presume the Minister of Agriculture may hold an inquiry, and then apportion the cost between the respective county councils and the county boroughs interested in the undertaking. I think that will remove a considerable amount of apprehension amongst the agricultural community, because while welcoming this Bill they feel that they may be forced to carry out expenditure which is not their business, but which is really the business of the county borough lower down their own watershed. I call attention to these two points because they are points of substance to the agricultural community.

Although undoubtedly in a great part of the country there is a need for more efficient draining, yet in some parts, and particularly in the Eastern counties, the drainage is being very efficiently carried on at the present time by the Drainage Board. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether there will be any undue interference by the county council with the action of the existing drainage authority?

While I support this Bill, I would like to ask one question. I understand that the county council will get no grant whatever from the £1,000,000 which has been allotted to land drainage. I should like to know whether a county council like that of Wiltshire will get any grant from this particular fund. I would like the Minister to reconsider this matter, and grant a fair proportion of that money towards the administrative expenses of the county council. This has been done already in the case of small holdings and agricultural education. I know the Minister of Agriculture has been pressed not to put any fresh claims on agriculture, and I hope he will be able to carry out that policy.

The hon. Member who has just spoken does not appear to have fully realised that this Bill, as I explained before, only deals with one aspect of the question. I have been asked whether under this Bill the County Council of Wiltshire will get any share of the £1,000,000. I wish to point out that this Bill does not deal with the£1,000,000 which has been voted for drainage schemes of a capital nature, and it deals with an entirely different question which is how you are to administer these quite different small drainage operations. The hon. and gallant Member for Lindsey (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) appeared to think that this Bill was going to interfere with the operation of the statutory drainage authority, but that, is not the object of this Measure. I know that powers are entrusted to the Minister of Agriculture in regard to this question but under this Measure those powers would be transferred to the county council. It is a small change to transfer definitely to these local authorities those powers which can now only be given in specific cases by delegation from the Minister of Agriculture, but neither under the present or the future system could there be any question of interfering with the duties of the statutory drainage authority which is doing its work well.

The hon. Baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Gautley) made various criticisms of this Bill which are also based on the fact that it is limited in its scope, and he pointed out the hardship in regard to the Ouse Drainage area. But this Measure does not profess to touch that large problem, which has been specifically committed to the inquiry on the drainage of the Ouse area.

I mean the other Ouse.

We are trying to apportion the cost of drainage operations between the various interests concerned, and as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the recommendation of the Ouse Drainage Committee may equally be found suitable to any other areas of the same kind in order that there may be a certain charge on the whole watershed. We are not touching the difficult question of contribution by other means from local authorities in this Bill at all, and that is one of the large and difficult questions which we shall have to tackle next year. The hon. Member asked why we were not going on with the unemployed scheme. I think he has not realised that the £1,000,000, which does not come under this Bill and which has been granted for schemes of a capital nature, will probably prove of greater advantage in these matters than these unemployment grants which we have had in the past, because these unemployment works were done, not mainly from the point of view of necessary drainage, but more from the point of view of finding people work. We hope we shall get better value by having the work carried out, not spasmodically, not for other than drainage purposes, but after careful consideration at the best season of the year, and as part of a comprehensive and well-considered local programme.

In a limited area. You are excluding Wiltshire?

Certainly not. Wiltshire is not excluded from the opportunity of obtaining money. This £1,000,000 does not arise under this Bill in any way and many of these criticisms are based upon other matters than those with which this Bill is concerned.

In view of the fact that Wiltshire has practically no drainage authority it will get practically nothing under the Bill.

Did the Minister say he was introducing a Bill to deal with the £1,000,000 grant?

I do not think it will be necessary to have a Bill. We are dealing with this matter in the Agriculture Estimates, and any matter in connection with administration should be raised there and not upon this occasion. There was one point raised which does clearly arise and that is the fear that there may be greater expenses thrown upon local authorities in connection with administration. I do not think that that fear is well-founded because it is provided in the original Act that all expenses, including those of administration, are to be recovered from those persons who are benefited, so that there really ought to be no fresh expense thrown upon the local authorities.

The right hon. Gentleman said he was not now dealing with the question of the main arteries. My point is that in draining an upland you must make provision somewhere for taking away the increased flow of water. It seems to me to be a silly thing to give £1,000,000 to deal with the upper part without making provision for taking the water away.

The water, in the case which the hon. Member mentions, now passes through the lower areas and this Bill is quite consistent, because it lays responsibility on the man who is not keeping his water-course clear to allow a freer flow from the uplands. This Bill is to deal with a small local drainage problem while the larger problem which affects several drainage authorities, the problems which affect the statutory drain- age authorities in general, are not dealt with. They are to be dealt with in a larger measure which will also probably deal with other points.

I have a drainage question in my constituency which I have been trying to get remedied for a very considerable time. What power will Clause 2 confer on such an authority as the Newcastle City Council? There is an obstruction in the upper part of a stream that is continually causing an overflow on land owned by the Newcastle Council which is let out as allotments. The consequence is that these lands are being absolutely soured. I have made representations to the Council, and they have made representations to the other authorities, but we cannot get anything done. I have tried the unemployment grant scheme and still we cannot get anything done. Will this Clause confer power upon bodies such as the Newcastle City Council to make the people responsible for the obstruction in the uplands clear away that obstruction?

It will give them no powers outside their own area.

What good will it do if it enables this obstruction to be continued? We are charging for these allotments although they are soured land.

I understood the Minister to say that there was a possibility of a larger and wider Measure next year?

indicated ossent.

I think the Minister said there will be no further expense. What, then, is the meaning of Clause 3?

At the present time, when these schemes are carried out, current expenditure has naturally to be met from some source. The county council have to advance it, but they are fully empowered to recover the money from the persons who benefit.

Yet you make provision for defraying this expenditure and you make provision later on that that expenditure shall not be beyond the rate of 1d. per pound. You also give the county councils power to borrow.

The Council have these powers, but it does not mean that they need spend their own money. The penny rate, as a matter of fact, was put in in another place; it was not in the Bill as originally drafted; and that is a matter which I shall certainly discuss in the Standing Committee. My own feeling is, if I may say so, that any such figure is undesirable, because there is no thought on the part of the Government that any such sums will be involved, and there is the danger, of course, if such a figure is left in the Bill, that what was put in as a maximum may tend to become the standard. It is certainly not the intention of this Bill to add to the cost of local administration, and I think that that is quite consistent with giving powers to local authorities to spend money and to advance money where in their own discretion they consider it would be useful to do so.

We have not dealt with the question of upland obstruction, of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Connolly) spoke. What is the use of doing something underneath when you leave something above that ought first to be removed? I would like to know where the intelligence or it comes in. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but, unless things are relieved in the uplands which cause these overflows when, say, there is a cloud-bust or anything of that kind, all the money that is being spent is of no use. Why cannot an assurance be given now?

The hon. Member does not seem to realise that this matter is urgent. We cannot, in a small Bill, provide for one local authority going outside its area and dealing with the whole watershed; but the fact that We have not yet been able to reach agreement with all the authorities whom we have to consult on this large problem is surely no reason for withholding from the areas that want to carry out these small schemes the opportunity of doing so.

I do not want to withhold anything.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

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

In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I shall have regard to what was said from the front Opposition bench by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. T. Kennedy), and be very brief. The purposes of the Bill are to facilitate, and to lessen the cost of, diligence in Scotland. It follows upon a Report of a Departmental Committee, and the Bill gives effect to the unanimous recommendation of that Report. I do not think there is any question with regard to the principle of the Bill. I do not think it is controversial. There may be some points of detail, in fact, I know that there are some small points of detail, as stated by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, which, of course, will receive consideration in Committee.

There are three main points in connection with the Bill. The first is in regard to Clause 1, where there is a provision to the effect that, if there is no messenger-at-arms, the sheriff officer may carry out the duties of that officer. The messenger-at-arms is an official of the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary, corresponding to the sheriff officer in the sheriff court, and, accordingly, when there is no messenger-at-arms to fulfil an Order of the Supreme Court or the Justiciary Court, this duty is placed upon the sheriff officer. Clause 2 is equally simple. It provides that, as regards an arrestment or the charge upon a decree in the Sheriff Small Debt Court, that may be done, as provided in the Bill, by a registered letter instead of personally as at the present time.

The remaining point, which I think is probably the most important point in the Bill, is that wherever the Sheriff is satisfied that there is not a messenger-at-arm or sheriff officer reasonably available, the Sheriff may in that case appoint an officer. That may well occur, because, as those who are familiar with the position of messengers-at-arms and sheriff officers in Scotland will know, within the last 30 or 40 years the number of messengers-at- arms and sheriff officers has greatly diminished, owing to the introduction of service by post. We are bound to recognise that there are very few messengers-at-arms. The fact is that, if you draw a line from Aberdeen through Perth to Greenock, to the north of that line, as Scottish Members will probably know, there is not a messenger-at-arms at all, and that area comprises two-thirds of Scotland. Accordingly, the necessity for this Bill is obvious. I think I have sufficiently explained it, but I will give any further details that may be necessary. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there will, I suppose, be no opposition to this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that the objects of the Bill are desirable, but there are one or two points which I think will require clearing up. I may say that in my Colonial experience we made use of registered letters very largely for serving processes of court, but there we had a facility in the Post Office which I do not think we have in this country. That was a system called the "A.R. Receipt," under which a registered letter must be handed to the addressee, and the signature of the addressee was then returned. Under that system is was perfectly clear that the service had been effected upon the right person. Under the provisions of this Bill, it is not very clear that the letter containing the writ will necessarily be served upon the right person, and I see from paragraph (c) of Clause 2 that if the delivery of the letter cannot be made it is to be returned. Does that mean, if delivery cannot be made to the addressee? I believe that under our system in this country a registered letter may be handed to anybody, not necessarily the addressee, as long as the Post Office get a receipt saying that the letter has been delivered. It is moat important, of course, that in the case of all processes of court, when they are served by methods such as this, it should be perfectly clear and above all doubt that they have been handed to the right person. I think that that is a point of very great importance which will have to be considered in Committee.

There are one or two points upon which I should like to ask the Solicitor-General for a brief explanation before this Bill passes to the Scottish Grand Committee. For example, in paragraph (c) of Clause 2, we find that in the case of arrestment, when service is to be made by registered letter upon an alleged debtor, a notice is to be written or printed on the back of the registered letter to something like this effect:

"This letter contains"—

and then it specifies the writ, going on to say:

"If delivery of the letter cannot be made it is to be returned immediately to"—

giving the name and address of the law agent, messenger-at-arms or sheriff officer. I can imagine that a method such as this might quite well be used to ruin a man's credit. As the Solicitor-General will be perfectly well aware, in many of the country districts, in the Islands particularly, a number of these people deal on long-term credit. There are all sorts of men going about selling sewing machines, and so on, Scottish drapers selling suits of clothes, boots, and so on, on long-term credit, and it may be that from one cause or another—perhaps a failure of the steamer service, or a bad harvest or what not—one of these poor men in these outlandish parts may be unable properly to pay up to date, or to pay the usually exorbitant interest charged upon these long-term credits. If he is sued in a Sheriff Court, let us say 150 or 200 miles away, with no opportunity for defending himself, perhaps for a very small debt, he then gets a registered envelope with this printed notice stuck on the back, for everyone in the Post Office, and everyone else, to see. One can imagine how the news of a notice of that kind would spread and do immense harm to a man's business without any adequate justification whatever. The Solicitor-General might perhaps explain precisely why this is put in at all and what purpose is served by it, and whether the purpose, even if a good one, is not destroyed by the extraordinary harm which may result in destroying the credit or reputation of any number of poor men whose only offence may have been that they, or more particularly their wives, may have got into the hands of a firm of sharks who go about selling goods at extraordinary profits.

Then the Solicitor-General told us there is now a considerable diminution in the number of messengers-at-arms and sheriff court officers. I should like the Solicitor-General to tell us why it is that proper arrangements cannot be made whereby these legal processes can be served very much cheaper. Why cannot we extend the number of persons who are capable of serving these notices? Messengers-at-arms and sheriff court officers are a close corporation. How are they appointed? Can anyone get into the job, because there are any number of unemployed persons, for example, who would be glad to take service in any kind of remunerative employment? How is it these messengers-at-arms have been for so long in a kind of privileged occupation which outsiders apparently cannot enter?

The amount of business available for these officers is not sufficient to warrant any more being appointed. The whole point of the Bill is to recognise that fact and to try to cheapen the process of execution of diligence, and accordingly Clause 3 allows the sheriffs, wherever there is not a Messenger-at-arms, to appoint any person to that office. I appreciate the hon. Member's point that in the case of service by post the nature of the letter may become known to other people, and I will pass it on to the Lord Advocate for his consideration. The other point, as to the difficulty of showing whether the particular person did in fact receive the registered letter, is always a difficulty to a certain extent, and there is a provision in Sub-section (2) dealing with a case in which the writ is not received by the person himself or by someone on his behalf. It would not do to give it to any person. It would not be sufficient to give it to any Tom, Dick or Harry. You require to give it to some person who is entitled to receive it as representing the addresses.

Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put, perhaps not very clearly, as to how this association or company of messengers-at-arms are enrolled and what are their privileges and remuneration, and could there not be an opening made for persons who would be willing to undertake the function by breaking up a close monopoly, if it is a close monopoly, which I understand has existed for a very considerable time. Further, while it is true that the purpose of the Bill is to cheapen legal process—and to that extent, we are in entire agreement—the very fact that the Bill provides for postal citation by registered envelope seems to show that there is still a considerable amount of business in the country. The purpose of the Bill Seems rather to destroy the hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument.

There is not a close corporation of messengers-at-arms and sheriff officers. The difficulty in getting more into the business is that there is not business for more. Every messenger-at-arms and sheriff officer has to find "caution." In that sense only is it a close corporation. They have to be men who can find caution for the due performance of their office, and as they are entrusted with money and property it is right that they should find caution for their good behaviour. There is no objection to anyone properly qualified entering the profession.

There is a point on Clause 3 on which I am anxious for information. It says:

"The sheriff may, if he shall think fit, grant authority to any person whom he may deem suitable (including the law agent of the party presenting the extract, decree or warrant, or any police constable) to execute such decree or warrant, and the person so authorised shall as regards any diligence or execution competent on such decree or warrant have all the powers of a messenger-at-arms or sheriff officer."

Do I gather that the Clause in brackets means that the law agent who appears in the Court against a particular person may be also the person executing the decree against him? If that is so, it seems to be rather objectionable and, I should think, quite unusual.

In this Clause we are giving effect to a recommendation. I admit there may be difference of opinion with regard to the desirability of a law agent of the party, or even a police constable, executing a diligence, but that is a question for the Committee. As regards the law agent, if there is no other suitable person, I, myself, do not see any objection to execution by a lawyer. If the arrest is done illegally, an action for damages will lie. I do not think there will be any practical danger in executing the diligence. Again, that is a point of detail which may quite properly be dealt with in Committee.

It seems to me this is something more than a point of detail. This is the exact point where the Bill begins seriously to affect the rights of the individual proceeded against. I have not any personal experience of the operation of the Civil Law of Scotland, but it seems to me that this Clause confers a tremendous power. Am I to understand that the man who has actually conducted the case in Court, and got a decree for, say, £10 against a particular citizen, is empowered under this Clause to walk into that person's house and say, "You have not paid the £10 and I am going—

I thought the hon. Member had only risen to put a further question. He is not entitled to make a second speech.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to describe the original question which I put to the Solicitor-General as a speech.

There was argument in it as well as question. The hon. Member, of course, can press his question.

I will put the point as a question, and as briefly as possible. Am I to understand that a lawyer can walk into that person's house, failing payment of the £10, for which he has obtained a decree, and say, "I am going to take your piano or your sideboard," or any of the appurtenances of a highland home—I suppose it is only in the remote reasons that this will operate—and that he is to be the judge of the things that it is necessary for him to poind? Is he going to get the £10 that the Court has awarded to his client in that way?

Under the Clause, the result would be that the law agent would be in exactly the same position as a messenger-at-arms. With regard to arrestment, it rests with the arrestee; there cannot be much objection to that. The only question will be in poinding, in which the debtor is charged to pay. If he does not pay within so many days, the law agent would go, just as a messenger-at-arms would go, and select certain articles of furniture. In doing that, I do not see how the law agent could really do any harm other than the messenger-at-arms would do, because the articles are sold, and if, say, they were sold for £15, either the messenger-at-arms or the lawyer would require to account for the balance. It is not a practical difficulty. The point can be, dealt with in Committee, and I will mention it to the Lord Advocate.

I will take the opportunity of raising the matter in Committee. The law agent is different from the messenger-at-arms in this connection, because the messenger-at-arms is a detached unprejudiced official of the State, while the lawyer is a prejudiced party in the case. Supposing he also happens to be the local auctioneer. Let us remember the type of community with which we are dealing. It seems to me that this appears to be a tremendously vicious circle, and that we should be very wise in Committee if we did not allow it.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether arrangements will be made to enable the House of Commons to continue in active Session, notwithstand- ing the absence of the regular staff responsible for essential services of the House?

I regret to say that it is a fact that the men engaged in several of the principal services of the House have been withdrawn. I can assure the House that I will not allow it to be disabled from proceeding with its work by the action of any body of persons whatsoever. If it became necessary, I would conduct the business of the House without any printing, or without any electric light. Nothing shall be allowed to prevent us from doing the duties with which we are charged.

I beg leave to call attention to an urgent necessity which has arisen upon the indefinite suspension of the publication of the OFFICIAL REPORT. A speech was delivered last night by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) of far-reaching importance, and I feel certain that if that speech could get into the hands of those who are parties to what is called the General Strike, that the present state of affairs would begin to see its end within 24 hours. It is very difficult for any authority to decide what speeches are of such great importance that they should be published, in view of the enormous difficulties under which any publication takes place; but there are speeches of such great importance that Members in all parts of the House would desire that extraordinary efforts be taken to accelerate their publication. In France, it is well known, that important speeches are by the Government printed and placarded all over the country. That is done often for political purposes. In the present instance it is not a case of political consideration. The speech to which I refer was delivered by a Member of the Opposition; it was delivered in a most friendly spirit, and it is uncontentious, and received no adverse comment from any quarter of the House. Nevertheless, its great importance and technical character made difficult of recollection even for the trained lawyers in this House. There is a general concensus of opinion as to the very great weight of what I say deliberately was an historical speech. In these circumstances, there is a desire that that speech, or a summary thereof, should be published and distributed, notwithstading any extraordinary efforts that may be involved. I think if that could be done, it would be of great assistance in the critical condition in which the country finds itself.

I regret that, owing to a misunderstanding in thinking that the business last night was over, I did not have the opportunity of listening to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). His speeches are always listened to with the greatest attention in all parts of the House, and personally, I appreciate very much, although I differ from the right hon. and learned Member on many things, the culture he brings to bear to our Debates. But I must say that it would be most obnoxious to Members on this side of the House if we were to single out one particular speech on the ground that it is said to have been historic. There have been a good many historic speeches made from all parts of the House at this time, and I do not think we can discriminate as to what speeches are worthy of being specially printed in this way. The very fact that the hon. Member is so eager to have this speech published and broadcasted at this particular time leads me to the conclusion that he thinks it would be very serviceable to the Government, and therefore on that ground I personally should oppose the singling out of a single speech, which I fear would not be exactly impartial or balanced.

May I make a personal explanation. I have not raised this question in any partisan spirit. I am impressed with it as a member of the Bar, and as one who has worked side by side with Labour Ministers in Executive Council for many years. I do it also because I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley gave an opinion to this country, to individual members of all benefit societies and to all trade unionists, an opinion of an eminent counsel, of one learned in trade union law, of inestimable value—the legal points raised are a matter of doubt amongst the most careful and active lawyers—and they should be at once brought to the attention of those who are concerned.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether we have any power to say that we will publish a speech made by any hon. Member in this House?

Any question can be discussed on the Motion for Adjournment, but I imagine that the matter of printing is in the hands of the Stationery Office and the Minister responsible. It is not out of order to suggest it, or to argue that it is desirable.

In view of the serious announcement made by Mr. Speaker a few minutes ago, and as the House will be rising until Monday, may I ask that the House and the country should be informed more specifically as to what servants of the House of Commons have failed in their duty. I rather gathered from what Mr. Speaker said that there was a threat or a suggestion that the electric light of the House might possibly be cut off, and I should like to ask whether you can inform us if proper notices have been given by the servants of the House as to their intention to leave the duties which they have undertaken to fulfil. There are, I understand, certain servants of the State who are responsible for the State printing. I should be glad to be informed whether those servants of the State have also failed in their duty, and whether there is anything in the conditions of their employment by which they must give notice before they cease to carry on the duty which has been entrusted to them?

I have no information on these points.

There is no one on the Front Opposition Bench able to deal with these points at the moment, and personally I have had no notice that these questions were to be raised. With regard to the last question it is not for me or anyone in the House to decide as to the equity between the workmen on the one hand and their employers on the other. It is within the recollection of the House that when this dispute arose the trade unions voluntarily, and without any compulsion, said that the strike should not apply to any essential services, such as light, and the conveyance of food, and other things which are absolutely necessary to the State, and anything unfortunate that may happen is due to the contemptuous refusal of that perfectly genuine offer. It was rejected in terms from the Front Ministerial Bench the other night as if it had been made in a dictatorial or a permissive sense. It may be that certain things are happening at the moment. I am not going to discuss them, not because I am unwilling to do so, but because I do not want to take upon myself the responsibility of speaking for the whole of our party until we have had an opportunity of considering the matter.

Whatever inconvenience arises is due entirely to the fact that the Government, in a most contemptuous manner, spurned the conciliatory offer of the unions that the strike should not apply to essential services. With regard to the printing of speeches, we have not the least objection to the printing of all speeches, but we have a great objection to the printing of a speech by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who, I am told, dealt with the matter from the purely legal point of view. There are always in the history of individuals and nations occasions when mere legality has to give way to things much stronger—equity and humanity In this case we are perfectly prepared to be judged at the Bar of public opinion as to where the equity lies. It is as certain as I am standing here, indeed, it was stated by the Prime Minister, that the negotiations were broken off, not because of any overt act on the part of the Trade Union Congress, not because of the threat to call a general strike but because a mere handful of men, whose action was totally unknown to the Trade Union Council, did something which the Prime Minister and his colleagues interpreted as indefensible, namely, to stop a newspaper.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Press the other day is not present. I believe there is not one Member of the 50 now in the House who is aware of the fact that it was not anything unusual that took place on that occasion. While I was a member of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association the "Evening Standard," the "Daily Sketch," and other newspapers, I believe, were stopped, not on political but on other grounds. The men for some time have been in the habit of taking that sort of direct action. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, without giving anybody a chance of inquiry or even of repudiating the action—it was repudiated afterwards—simply issued an ultimatum. It may very well be that a Government with the most tremendous majority of modern times may be able to exercise tremendous coercive powers, and it may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley has put into the Government's hands legal arguments and weapons which their own Attorney-General did not think of or did not discover.

Speaking as one who believes in the right of the workers to defend one another and to withhold their labour when they think it right to do so; speaking as one who has seen this House under the stress and turmoil of even more difficult circumstances than those which prevail to-day, only on a more limited scale, in Ireland; remembering the years of coercion through which that country passed, remembering that again and again the 80 Members from Ireland were insulted and contemptuously thrown out of this House, and remembering that with all the weight of armaments and all the wealth of Britain in the end three and a half million people compelled this great nation to concede a demand which would not be conceded to reason, I am as confident as I am that I stand here that those whom you treated in the most highhanded and contemptuous manner at the last moment, and the British working people who have responded to their call in a manner unparalleled in our working-class history, whatever the result of this dispute, the Labour movement, whether beaten down or whether triumphant, as the clays pass this House will have to recognise that they are are not going to he permitted to call upon the working-classes to pay the price of the disorganised condition of an industry whose trouble has been brought about by the greed and the avarice of the handful of men who own it.

Issues may be clouded by your propaganda. I am astonished that an hon. Gentleman should stand up to-day and ask for this speech, and only this one speech, to be broadcast, when he knows perfectly well that not only is broadcasting at the disposal of the Government, but an official newspaper is at the disposal of the Government, and every post office and public building is at the disposal of the Government. Yet in face of that it is asked that we shall have printed one particular statement only. I repeat that we have no objection to the facts of this case being known. We have no ob- jection to the truth about the dispute being known. But we have the greatest possible objection to one-sided statements going out. If you like, let the whole of the proceedings of last Monday be broadcast or printed verbatim; also the proceedings on Tuesday night and on Wednesday. We have no objection to that at all. But if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government are going to frighten the leaders of the Labour movement or the rank and file of the movement by the fact that perhaps the Government can sell all their goods and chattels or put these people into prison, I repeat what was said to me by a prison warder, that in this country nothing has ever been gained until someone went to prison. Speaking for myself, old as I am, and not wanting to he any martyr or any of that humbug at all—[Laughter]—it is quite easy for two hon. Members opposite to grin. I doubt whether one of them made any sacrifice for his convictions in his life.

I have come this morning from a tremendous mass meeting of very poor people. I represent in this House one of the poorest constituencies in the Metropolis, and I would be unworthy of those people and unworthy to be their representative if in these days when rich men and the rich man's Government is trying to crush and break and destroy the Labour movement, I did not say that all of us, whether in this House or out of it, will stand four-square whatever the consequences and whatever may be ordered to he done. So far as I am concerned, the only people responsible in this business are the Prime Minister and his colleagues, who first on a mere subterfuge broke off negotiations and then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense !"] The Prime Minister himself said that he broke off negotiations because half-a-dozen men refused to print that miserable rag called the "Daily Mail." That is all. We are perfectly willing that the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the right hon. Members for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) shall be printed side by side. We will not object to that being done, but we will object to the printing of legal fictions. Another lawyer, for a fee, would say exactly the opposite of what has been said. The idea that what a learned counsel says must be true is nonsense. We are not willing that the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley should be printed alone, but we are willing that the whole of the facts shall be printed.

When I am challenged on the statement that this trouble was not started by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, as I have stated, I appeal to the OFFICIAL REPORT for the record of the Prime Minister's statement. Hon. Members may imagine that they are going to browbeat us with these legal opinions. They may think that they are going to browbeat us by saying that we are fighting the community. We are doing no such thing. Who is the community? I represent as much of the community as any hon. Member opposite. Hon. Members opposite represent only a minority of the community. Their latest election victory is only a minority victory, for inure votes were cast against the Conservative candidate than for him. At the last General Election, in spite of the lying propaganda which was circulated, hon. Members opposite secured fewer votes than the other two parties opposed to them. You claim that you are the community, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a dispute between certain employers and certain workmen in a basic industry. The Government interfere and say that the workers must accept lower wages because the employers have made a mess of that industry. We are not going to stand for that, and we are not going to stand for any lopsided publication of the proceedings of this House. I repeat that no matter what you may do to any of us, no matter what threats you may make, we are going to carry on right to the bitter end.

I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the very violent statements made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. He asserts that this is not a fight against the community. Let me give some instances of what has happened during the past two or three days. The Gas Light and Coke Company are sending out coke to various institutions, including hospitals. Their depots are surrounded by mobs of people acting under instructions from the so-called leaders of the Labour party. These mobs do not interfere with the trucks outside the depots when the police are present, but when the trucks get beyond the purview of the police they are attacked by crowds of 50 or 60 men each and the goods thrown over the road. I have a letter from a man who is carrying on the manufacture of jam in my constituency. Jam is a food, and we were told that every means would be taken to protect food supplies.

You refused the offer.

This man has 50 tons of sugar at the docks, and has sent his lorry again and again to try to get it, but he is prevented by pickets of the Labour party. Surely that is fighting against the interests of the community. You are holding up food in every direction. My son, who distinguished himself in the War, is driving a meat lorry, and he his told me of what is taking place. Every day meat lorries are overturned by crowds of young men sent out by the Labour party.

That is not so. The hon. Member should withdraw.

You would not allow us to say that. He says these men are sent out by the Labour party.

It is a lie.

Do you think he is going to get away with that statement? He will have to withdraw it.

The hon. and gallant Member is in possession of the House. No doubt there will be an opportunity for replying.

That will not do.

He has no right to lie.

You would not allow me to say that these men were instructed by the Conservative party, and supposing you are the Chairman, and supposing you have the power to suspend me, I do not give a damn either for you or for the House. He has to withdraw the words "instructed by the Labour party." There is nobody instructed by the Labour party.

If I have said anything to offend the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) who interrupts other people but does not like to be interrupted himself, then I withdraw. I want to say, however, that only last night the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), a Labour. Member of Parliament, and some others were going through Battersea when they were dragged out of their car by a mob and were held up until the mob found out who they were. That shows what results when hon. Members opposite talk to these people in the violent way in which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs talked just now. They get out of hand. From what I have seen, things in this great city are getting into a condition the consequences of which will in the end recoil upon hon. Members opposite. It is all very well to talk to the mob and to try to persuade them to be quiet, but if you do not show a proper example, if you talk violently they will get out of hand and do mischief. Should bloodshed result, the consequences will recoil on the leaders of the Labour organisation who have taken this very strong action. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) referred to the opinion given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I listened to every word of that speech; it was very quietly delivered and hon. Members opposite sat quietly and listened to him and they learned a great deal. They learned that it is not in the power of any organisation to give an illegal order to any individual. They will learn it later on, very likely in the law courts. We boast of our freedom, but what freedom is there in this matter for the poor working man?

What freedom is there for the miner on 30s. a week. What is the freedom in starving?

I can introduce you to hundreds of working men who are sick and tired of these strikes. I myself heard a working man saying, "I will give them two days, and if they do not send me back in two days, I will go back. I am not going to starve to oblige them."

The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) referred to a disturbance which, he stated, took place at Battersea. I wish to say that this disturbance was not at Battersea, but at the Elephant and Castle, just outside the borders of my constituency, and it was not last night. I only want to put some facts before the hon. and gallant Member and before the House, because I think it imperative at a moment like this, to have a calm objective view and not an exaggerated view of the situation. I do not know if the hon. and gallant Member regards me as a firebrand, but that is a place where my influence is very extensive. At the present moment, if the hon. and gallant Member will go round there he will find that area calm and quiet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish !"] Perhaps hon. Members will give me their attention, because this matter is of some importance. In that district I have a clinic for the care and treatment of school children. It is the largest in London. I am the chairman of it and my nurses go backwards and forwards every day unmolested and perfectly safe. The disorder of which the hon. and gallant Member spoke was a spasmodic outbreak, not lay trade unionists, not by Communists, not by organised unemployed—I have taken early and particular care to inquire into this incident and the hon. and gallant Member can be assured of what I say—but by sheer hooligans, the products of the appalling slums in that particular district.

These people, if they came to my meetings, would hear sentiments about the Empire which are probably more welcome on the other side of the House than among some of my friends here. They are not at all likely, at my meetings, to hear inflammatory statements because, according to my own friends, I am very much indeed on the right. I have been interrupted at my meetings and asked, "Do you not think that the Prime Minister is this or that or the other?" I have given the same opinion of the Prime Minister there as I have given in this House, namely, that he is an honourable man and that I believe every word he says—and that is not always a popular opinion on platforms. That is the kind of influence I have been exerting in this district and it is not right of the hon. and gallant Member or any Member, to attempt to exaggerate a situation of that kind. Round about the "Elephant and Castle" is a great haunt of street bookmakers—the gentlemen whose industry hon. Members opposite are interested in taxing. These bookmakers have touts and runners and hangers-on and that is the element which causes disturbance. It is not the politically conscious people at all; it is the misery of the slums, which throws up this spawn of the underworld, these un-fortunate people. I know them very often myself personally. When I come along they are quite pleasant to me and happy with me. They know me. I have very often attended to them physically, as a doctor.

Does the hon. Member suggest that bookmakers are not well off? They are not starving.

I am not referring in these remarks to the bookmakers. I am referring to the touts and the runners and the miscellaneous collection of people who are employed in and about this curious industry of book-making, and that is the kind of element of which we have to be careful. I know those people very well; I understand them, and I sympathise with them. They are poor people, and many of them have been in schools for the mentally defective. They have been under-nourished, they come from homes so poor, so dark, so miserable, that they have not got the advantages that the hon. and gallant Member opposite and myself have had, and how can they be expected to be as well balanced? At times like this, when there is a great deal of excitement, we should remember it is a lark to them. They are not the people who come to our meetings, nor do they go to the hon. and gallant Member's meetings, nor has their excitement anything to do with the political situation at all. We had the same kind of excitement in connection with the war spirit, and again at the time of the Armistice, and I beg the hon. and gallant Member and all persons in this House not to take an exaggerated and inflammatory view of cases of this kind. These unfortunate people who live in our midst, products of our civilisation, are bound at the present moment to find a great deal for their unfortunate activities, and I would say: Do let us be as kind as possible to them, and use as little force as possible with them. I want peace earnestly. I am going this afternoon round the whole of my constituency, saying to them: "Keep quiet; keep calm; fold your arms, but do nothing else; keep steady; do not let there be a single act of aggression of any kind." That is what I am going to do, and may I beg hon. Members in this House, Do let us, in this emergency, help to maintain that spirit and not, if I may say so, give vent to provocative speeches such as that of the hon. and gallant Member opposite.

I understand that this discussion started by an hon. Member suggesting that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) should be published. I do not know if he meant only in the "British Gazette," because there is not a word about it in that print. I heard the speech last night, and I should certainly wish to read it, and I think it ought to be printed, but I also think that the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Haden Guest), to which we have just listened, ought to be printed too. My complaint is that this "British Gazette," which is printed and published at our expense, at the taxpayers' expense, is not impartial. It ought to publish all the speeches made in this House. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite who laugh surely see that it is much better for hon. Members to come down to this House and fight out their differences than to have the present state of affairs outside.

The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was delivered between 11 and 12 o'clock last night, and the "British Gazette," as the hon. and gallant Member knows, is published under great difficulties, and has not the same advantages as those with which the Labour party are producing their paper, with union workers doing it. Therefore, I do not doubt that the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, which was a most valuable one, will appear in due course. I myself have asked for it this morning.

I am sure that that point of view is a very just one, but there is plenty of room in the "British Gazette." I daresay the speech in question will come out tomorrow, but as the OFFICIAL REPORT is not being printed, there ought to be a fair summary in this official organ of what goes on in this honourable House. It is surely right and proper that we should not have the sort of thing that has been appearing in the paper. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the virtual editor of the "British Gazette," and it is not easy to avoid seeing his special style of writing in it. Those of us who know it recognise his literary skill, and know that it has very mischievous results in some cases. We have in the last issue of the "British Gazette" a long article by a Cabinet Minister, which, I think, it is fairly obvious was written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, I daresay, could be defended, but I do not know why this paper should go out of its way to produce the views of obscure newspaper correspondents in Italy, saying what the Fascists would do in a case of this sort. I do not want to labour this point, but this official paper should attempt to give news, proclamations, if you like, by the Government, and a fair summary of the proceedings of this House, and it should avoid making inflammatory statements and being used as a means of inciting people. I would remind the House—and the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) will know what I am talking about—that we had an official paper started, during the troubles in Ireland, of a most inflammatory description. It improved afterwards, largely as a result of the representations and ventilation of the matter in this House.

When you have an official paper, you have to be extraordinarily careful really to speak the truth, in the first place, and, secondly, not to give isolated bits of information and put them forward in an attempt to influence public opinion. You should confine yourself to news, and above all you should not put in anything of a nature to inflame passions at this time. There are hooligans in the East End of London. [HON. MEMBERS: "And in the West End !"] Yes, and in Hull, and in Hull the trade union leaders and the people are keeping the hooligans quiet, and I understand that that is being done also in the East End of London to-day, but anyone who knows what is going on knows that it is essential, from the Labour point of view and from the Liberal point of view also, that there should be no disorder at all. It only plays the game of the reactionaries. There are hooligans on the other side, believe me. There are people at whom we laugh on boat race nights, but who, on occasions like this, when passions are roused, do things which hon. Members opposite would condemn in calmer moments, and of which they would be ashamed. It would be a crime if this official paper were used in any such way. They are sending it out by aeroplane, and if anything of an inflammatory nature were put in to incite the hooligans or to urge the would be Fascists to act, things would be done which we would all regret and of which, in a few years' time, we would all be ashamed.

Therefore, I support the suggestion to print the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley and all other speeches of importance in this House. I do not include my own; this is not a plea for my own speeches, because I am too modest to wish that, but speeches of importance like that which has just been given by the hon. Member for North Southwark should be printed in this paper, and it should be a paper to which we shall be able to look back proudly in a year's time, or a, few years' time, or even give to our children in the future and say: "This was the Government's effort, and we are not ashamed of it." But if it is going to degenerate into vulgar, sensational journalism—and I notice they pick out any little account of some disorder, and print it prominently—I think the Government and their supporters will be very ashamed of their actions in the years to come.

It is because of the emphasising of a phase of the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that I have intervened at this stage. I have been particularly interested in this innovation of a national Press as produced by the Government. Apart from the circumstances in which it has been introduced, I submit that the project itself is of immense importance to the country at large. Some of the constituencies, including my own, and all of them to some degree, have had the great disadvantage of the partisan Press, which has only one particular object in view, and that is to stamp indelibly upon the public mind its own particular view of a passing question at a given moment, while those who put up different views are, in proportion, practically obliterated. While we can all agree with the position that there ought not to be this biased attitude on the part of the Press, which professes to be an organ, not of sectional opinion, not of partisan opinion, but of public opinion, we are confronted with the fact that, undoubtedly, the difficulty becomes more intensified as a crisis of this kind arises. Indeed, if we had not the deplorable facts which have arisen, this question of the national Press would not have appeared.

I believe that, in the main, the idea of suppressing entirely what are called the organs of public opinion at this time would be far more advantageous in the formation of genuine public opinion than the publication of biased opinion, and that the people should be allowed to grip the facts, so as to be able to adjudicate upon those facts without any specialised pressure being brought to bear upon them. We know, however, when such a crisis arises, and particularly when it comes to a war, it is a deplorable fact that the flat contradiction of all our professions of Christian principle becomes transparent to all appearances. As a matter of fact, it was recognised after the War that the Government had to suppress, so they declared, the truth, and had to give an entirely different conception of what had taken place from what really happened. In similar fashion, we see in the organ now being published by the Government that there is an effort to give a one-sided view. That, I submit, is wrong, from whatever quarter it comes. There are, of course, two sides to every question, and, if we are acting in the national interest, whether we belong to one party or the other, the whole of us ought to be fully agreed in practice that a fair, honest presentation of facts should be given. I honestly hope, when this struggle is over, that what we have often heard about the OFFICIAL REPORT being reduced in price will be accomplished. Here we have a practical demonstration of what could be done, and which, I maintain, would be of immense advantage to the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull suggested that the Government organ could give a summarised description of what transpires in this House in proportion to the importance of the question. No one who heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) would dispute its import place, and I am perfectly confident that every man and woman in the trade union movement will agree as to its importance as a legal statement. There is no getting past that. And who will doubt the value of this organ as an advertising medium? There could then be no argument against the price; you could supply it at the very cheapest rate. Undoubtedly, you would be up against powerful trusts, but if we are all out for the national interest, then it matters not what is the particular Press trust to be fought. If we put the public interest before private interests, we will stand by the national presentation of the facts concerning our country, and see that these are provided. I speak particularly as the public representative of a constituency, having suffered from the most unscrupulous and absolutely unreliable concerns against which one could possibly have to fight. Hence the question I put to the Home Secretary, as to whether he could not get in this country a law such as that in France, where, if a public paper attacks a public representative, the same proportion of space must be given in the columns of that paper for the public representative to reply. I am here to say, on the Floor of the House, that I have been denied that right by the unscrupulous concerns which I have had to fight, and in those years when even corruption was present in our public life, they utilised all means to sell their papers and to endeavour to batten me down

I am speaking now for the national interests. Whoever may come to represent Dundee or anywhere else in the House, I believe the House of Commons is a constitutional institution through which, with the support of the public, I believe we can do substantial service in the interests of the people. But we are, first and foremost, hampered by an unscrupulous Press, which seeks at times to batten down any man, and the more determined he is to serve the public interest as against private interests the more unscrupulous they are. Therefore, I do commend this provision which the Government have made, apart altogether from the way they are handling it, and apart from the present editor. I am not surprised that he shows a very biased opinion for his own side— [An HON. MEMBER: "Himself."] I do not want to emphasise individual weaknesses, because we all have our weaknesses. I am speaking of the principle. I consider the Government have made a most important national innovation, and if they stand, as they claim to do, for the national interests all the time, then I say this House should he absolutely united that this shall not he a temporary concern, but shall continue hereafter, and he a safeguard against all sectional or partisan attitude, which would seek to batten down the truth. Let us stand by the truth, and, God knows, the truth will make us free.

I come from a district about which, it is supposed, some of the allegations made this afternoon are true. They are absolutely untrue. As far as the big docks of London are concerned, the men have been out since last Monday night, and there has been no disorder, in spite of the fact that there has been a good deal of provocation from certain elements against the men. The suggestion made that the publication of speeches delivered by hon. Members of this House is very interesting. It is part and parcel of the policy of continental Parliaments. I believe when great speeches are made on any great question in foreign parliaments, it is a common custom—I have seen it sometimes myself—to have those speeches placarded in various parts of the country. We, of course, have not been in the habit of doing that kind of thing, but have depended upon our Parliamentary OFFICIAL REPORTS. The Government have not had Press news up till now, and now they are going to publish a special Press. Who is paying for it? This particular document which I have had the opportunity of reading is published by the "Morning Post." That, to begin with, is a recommendation to the workmen! The owner of the "Morning Post" is one of the men who has been in the very forefront of the movement which has given rise to the trouble now existing. I refer to the Duke of North umberland, the Grand Panjandrum of all the opposition, a man who has travelled all over Great Britain to denounce the miners—the miners who are getting about £4 a week maximum for going down the pit and risking their lives, whilst he admits he draws £62,000 a year, and does not put a shovelful of coal on his own fire.

Yet the Government want to give the people the impression of impartiality, putting forward the truth so that the people might have an opportunity of understanding the truth! They go to this particular paper and to this particular proprietor to get them out of their difficulty. The whole thing is too obvious to anybody who cares to think about it. You cannot imagine workmen taking such a paper as evidence of the Government's impartiality in the dispute. The public interest is not the issue. If the Government want to be fair, why cannot they say, "We will have an official Government statement, and we will provide space to allow the General Council of the Trade Union Congress to state their case in another part of the paper." That is all we ask. [An HON. MEMBER: "Out of the nation's money"] We are paying out our own funds, you are paying out the nation's money. That is the difference. You are paying out the nation's money, the money of the taxpayers of this country, some of whom are Socialists, some Communists, some Labour men, large numbers of them trade unionists, you are using their money to libel them! We are fighting the battle upon our own.

At the cost of the nation!

No, at the cost of ourselves. You have got power on your side, but there is one thing you cannot do: You cannot get men who conscientiously believe that they are fighting this struggle to surrender. So far as we are concerned, we say, "Give us a fair deal." We are those—I am one of those—who has always been at the bottom. You are the people who represent the people at the top. Hon. Members opposite are the men who have had education. I have not. You are using your education to cripple the people and to prevent them getting education. Your education is being used to use your power, the power of the State, to cripple the workmen who are trying to live decent lives. If you are going to publish national newspapers, let them be national. Let all sides be known, all sides of public opinion have a fair show. But no, this is a series of libels from beginning to end. Seventy-five per cent. of the men engaged in the dispute represent half the productive powers of the nation. They are the community, not you. When you go down the pit and get the coal, you can call yourself the community. [Interruption.] Yes, and when you go and work the railways effectively, then you can call yourselves the community. What are you now? You are parasites. That is all you can do.

Why are you passing your special legislation? Why are you publishing your newspapers? Because you know that if you can only blind the great mass of the people of this country to believe what you tell them, you may be able to smash the strike. But you will not smash the strike. Whatever may happen you are educating the workers of this country as it has never been done before. What are you doing now? You are using all the power of the State, horse, foot, and artillery to try and cripple the most important body of workmen in the country. [HON.MEMBERS: "No !"] It is absolutely true. What did the Prime Minister say? "That every workman in the country must be prepared to accept lower wages." I have called that upon the public platform outside, and there, "Baldwin's Balsam." The Prime Minister said that the workmen would have to work harder and longer, produce more, and take less. That is your solution of the problem. We have to cut down. But you can do what you like, in spite of your special legislation; in spite of your propaganda. If you want to be fair to the nation, tell them the truth.

The Government ought not to take sides in the dispute. We are giving the workers outside the necessary information. We are telling them and in every Quarter of Great Britain what is the real history of this matter. As a matter of fact, you know you are as a party telling lies. You know, as a matter of fact, that the work of the country is gradually becoming more paralysed day by day. You want to make the miners go down the pits, and you are publishing this piece of nonsense for the workmen of the country. But every work- man knows what paper is up against him. The very authors and the very place where this publication is printed and the circumstances attached to it have given the workers of the country the impression of where the Government stand. So far as we are concerned, you may publish what you like. We shall publish a reply to it. You will not get behind the Duke of Northumberland. We are going out into our constituencies whenever we get the opportunity, and we will take whatever risk attaches to it, and which you like to put upon the Statute Paper. What you are going to do with us does not matter. For every one of us who goes down, 10 will spring up and take our places. If you are going to try by your machinery to shut our mouths, you make a mistake, as some of us have gone through this before, though perhaps not to the same extent; but we are willing to go through it again. Therefore we say, after all, that of these attempts to cripple the situation, this attempt to twist public opinion is not good enough. We do not mind what publicity you give to so long as our side is given along with your own, as it ought to be a national paper paid for with our money. If you will say that we shall have a fair opportunity of having an equal chance with you, of publishing our statement in its national newspaper, well and good. Each of the sections of the general public are called upon to pay for it.

So far, therefore, as we are concerned, we ask only for a fair deal. If there is going to be published a speech like that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), well, I know, of course, that he is a great lawyer, and I am glad that I am not. If you got the Attorney-General, the Lord Chief Justice, and all the chief lawyers together on a certain subject, you would have them quibbling about the meaning of it, and the size of their disagreement would be in proportion to the amount of fees. I am not going to accept that. If I am not going to shut my eyes and open my mouth, and accept the opinion of any lawyer, I say: "There is nothing doing." I have had so much experience of that sort of thing in other directions. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, publish the speech of what right hon. Gentlemen you like. Whatever the opinion is as to our present position, we are prepared to face it.

What we say for the public responsible for finding the money to run a great newspaper of this character during a crisis of this sort that all the opinions involved in the dispute ought to have an equal share of publicity. That is what we are asking for. We shall not get it. This poison gas factory will go on till the workers are able to stop it, and they will stop it. They have stopped some of it already, and we will stop more of it as days go by. I hope we will not have to go through the full experience.

What is the full experience?

Wait and see.

I must ask hon. Members that there should be no interruptions.

I am used to them, Sir. I get interruptions myself, and I take advantage of the opportunity to interrupt others. So far as the hon. Gentleman opposite is concerned, he must understand that we do not know where we may land ourselves, nobody knows, but we do know this, that we have got plenty of reserves to call up yet if we are compelled to. We do not want to, but if we are compelled to we will, not because we want to. But I think there are sufficient brains in this House—in the Government and in the Opposition—to find a solution of these problems immediately, to find a way out of the difficulty without compelling us to have this warfare. But if you start off on these lines, if you are going to misrepresent our movement, if you are going to tell the people of this country, we are out to fight them—why have they responded to our call as they have if we are out to fight them? Why have men with salaries of £800 a year handed in their keys in the London Docks if we are out to fight the community? Why are men, the big majority of whom belong to the administrative staffs in some of our industrial undertakings, saying, "Our men are out in a just cause, and in goes our number with them"? Men with pensions to look forward to, men with decent salaries compared to the workmen's wages—these men have also "handed in their checks," as we call it. They have not done it because they are Communists, they have not done it because they are even Socialists or members of the Labour party, but they believe they are taking part in a great human struggle, a struggle which, after all, is an issue which means life or death for a great proportion of the workers of this country.

We know it will not stop with the miners' wages. If they get the miners further down than they have already, they will not be satisfied till they have got the other workers down as an inevitable consequence, and therefore we say this attempt to inflame public opinion against men engaged in the dispute is not fair, is not playing the game. You can publish any paper you like privately, you can subscribe amongst yourselves privately and publish any lie you like about us, but you have no right to use public money to lie against us. Therefore we say we demand fair play in this dispute and whatever may happen we appeal to the individuals concerned that if the nation is going to publish a newspaper it shall give equality of treatment to all sections involved.

I rise with sonic trepidation to say a few words in this Debate. It is well that we should remember the origin of this dispute. I have read the Government's publication to-day, and as far as I can see they are doing their best to incite inflammatory feelings in a body of men who up to now have kept the peace well. There is a statement in that paper that the minimum wage in any district, in the lower paid districts, is something like 45s. I would to God that that were true. Every man sitting on the other side knows that that is not true. Let them carry their memories back to last July, when the dispute in the coal trade was again engaging the attention of this House. Members opposite said it would be a shame if the miner was to be paid lower than he is now, that he could not afford to work for less than he was doing and the Government, as a Government, said, "We are coming to your aid." What has happened since July? Is it the case that the money the Government gave has been spent in such a way that it has done nothing whatever to mend matters inside the mining world? Let it be remembered that the miners are in no way to blame for this dispute. It is not of their seeking. It has been forced upon them—they are fighting against what you yourselves have said should not be.

I and my colleagues know only too well that many men who have wives and children cannot meet their obligations, cannot feed and clothe their children with the money at their disposal, and we say that if they have to suffer immense reductions that, indeed, will drive them to desperation. The workers of this country have as much regard for their wives and children as any other class in the community. There is not a man here who can prove that the miner has done anything to injure the industry in which he gets his livelihood. Other people have done it, and why should the miner be asked to pay for what has happened? In the columns of your paper you say that the miners have the wage that I have mentioned. May I repeat that I wish it were true, for we know that it is quite the contrary, and we say to this Government, "It is your business to get rid of this trouble. You can do it if you will, and we ask you to reconsider the decision you have already come to." I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, that I was not called on on Wednesday night, for I am afraid I would have said something then for which I would have been sorry, but when I am living among these people day in and day out, knowing their conditions, knowing that even when they have been working every clay that it was possible to work they have had to appeal to the guardians to assist them, I say the inflammatory things which are published in your paper are likely to cause trouble where we do not want it.

The miners have been the worst paid people all through, and yet theirs is an occupation which takes more out of them than any other occupation I know of. Reorganise your industry before you ask the miners to suffer; you could do it quickly and get all out of it you require to make it pay for itself. The country cannot live without the coal trade. If you kill it, and that is quite possible, then you know the results that are coming to this country. If this country cannot export coal you know what results will follow. We are not up against the community. Let that be distinctly understood. This dispute was of other people's seeking, and the miners are defending themselves by the only weapon in their hands, that of refusing to work. We have been told that because our colleagues have come to our aid we are organising against the State. Nothing at all of the sort. What we are doing is this: organised capital has sought a fight with organised labour, and we ate fighting organised capital and not attempting to put down the Constitution of this country. I would be afraid of saying a word which would cause any trouble, but I want to say in this House, in this historic place, that I believe the strength of the workers lies in remaining quiet and refusing to do the work that is necessary for this country. Far better starve in God's broad daylight than starve in the caverns I have seen underground that were not fit even for any animal to go to, and in which the miner has been producing coal for the benefit of this country. That is the sort of condition under which mining is carried on, and it is leading to the deliberate destruction of the industry. With proper organisation all this could be avoided. The whole of this question of the reorganisation of industry requires further consideration, and I trust this will be done. Now the Government after full inquiry into this question seem to have come down on the side of the capitalist. Of course we cannot help that, but that is not the position the Government ought to have taken up. The Government should have kept in the centre of the see-saw, but they have gone over to one side and that is against the workers.

That is the way in which we have been treated all along. We have asked to accept a rate of wages far less than ought to be paid to us in order to keep other people working in other industries, but coal cannot be worked at less wages than will enable the men working the coal to obtain a decent living. I often see children in my constituency without boots and others with inefficient boots, not because of any fault of the parents but because they cannot help it. It is impossible for the miners to work for any less than the wages which have been paid for getting coal in the past. With regard to the Government newspaper I do not think public money ought to be spent in this way, but if you do publish a newspaper then you are bound to act fairly to all parties. I hope that the peace will be kept until a solution has been found to this great problem. I have always been an advocate of peace as against force. I have always tried to prevent any strike in my own area, and I have done more to prevent strikes than ever I did to cause them. I am aware that a strike is not the best weapon to use, but it is the only one left to us when capitalists seem to have determined to starve us into submission. The workers now realise what is at stake. The Government are making an attack all round on Labour, and I wish to tell them frankly that an increase of one hour in the hours of working is no solution of the question before us. You want to organise the mining industry so that it will give to every worker in it a fair wage, and once you do that you will be able to promote peace between all the citizens of this country.

Some questions have been asked in this House with regard to the publication of a speech delivered here last night. We have been reminded that it was a speech dealing with the legal position, and we have been told that it would be a good thing for that speech to be placed before the people of this country. I am opposed to the publication of that speech in the way which has been suggested. Personally I wish that lawyers had kept out of this wages question, and I wish lawyers would keep out of all industrial questions, because their whole training unsuits them for arriving at a solution of such problems. I have had much experience of this sort in regard to many industries, and I have seen the type of evidence put forward when dealing with the wages question by bodies which are largely composed of lawyers.

When lawyers come to deal with the wages question you immediately get the atmosphere of criminal courts and other legal tribunals, and lawyers do not understand how to deal with wages questions. If you want the speech published which was delivered here last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) it should be published alongside the other speeches delivered in this House. The Government wish this speech to be published because they believe it will help them in the struggle in which they are fighting at the present time. The other question showed the type of mind of some Members of this House. I am sorry that at the moment the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is not in the House. I would rather have said in his presence what I am compelled to put forward at this moment. He asked that he should be given the names of the men who have gone out on strike. That could have been for one purpose, and one purpose only. It was very plain from the tone in which he made his request that it was that he, along with others, might be able to take part in a victimisation of those people who have seen fit to join in this particular strike. He is determined, no matter what the result of this trouble may be, to carry it on afterwards, because there could be no other intent in his question than a determination to victimise those men who have taken part in the strike.

We have had references made to the negotiations which have been taking place. I have never known negotiations conducted so badly. I have met, in recent times as well as in times that are not so recent, most of the Federation of Employers in this country, and I have met those who are described by my own members in terms that are not very polite, because of the methods adopted by them in fighting, but I have never known negotiations to be broken off in the way that these negotiations were broken off last Sunday evening. I have never, even where there was the greatest bitterness, and the strongest feeling, known the most vicious of employers to break off negotiations in the way that these negotiations were broken off last Sunday evening. Imagine the sending of a letter to people who are dealing with a question and not waiting for a reply but clearing away out of the building and leaving the room in darkness. Employers to whom I have spoken since are amazed and cannot understand such a condition of affairs operating.

The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) referred to the action which is being taken with regard to the products of the Gas Light and Coke Company. I did not want to interrupt him at the time, but I want to deny his statement, because it is very curious that only yesterday we had communications with regard to that company and with regard to this work being carried on, and not one word was whispered of such incidents as were related by the hon. and gallant Member. We have never been informed of them, and it is not fair for hon. Members to come to this House, and make statements of that kind without giving us proof of the incidents which they say have taken place. The hon. and gallant Member said if bloodshed took place in this country the responsibility would be upon the Unions. It will not be upon the Unions. The Unions, from the very first, have advised, and at this moment are advising, their people to conduct themselves in a quiet way, and to follow no lead where violence is suggested to them. That is the instruction which is being carried by my colleagues who would be sitting upon these benches only they are travelling in the country in order to give those instructions to the people.

3.0 P.M.

If there be bloodshed—I hope it will not come; it will not help in a solution, and it will not help in settling down after the dispute is over—the responsibility will be upon the shoulders of a Government which is not able to find a solution for the problem with which we are faced. I see on the other side of the House hon. Members whom I met many times in negotiation during the war period, the most difficult period for dealing with industrial questions, and I say without hesitation that if those hon. Members and those of us on this side of the House who were dealing with those problems at that time had had even the faintest chance of dealing with this question, we could have found a solution which those so-called big minds have failed to find. I would suggest that even now, if the Government cannot by its own Cabinet, on account of its want of knowledge of industrial conditions, find a solution, they might call upon those people which have dealt with industrial problems on both sides of the conference table, and who probably would find a way out.

I would like to join in this Debate, because, like the rest of the speakers on this side of the House, I realise, as everyone on the other side of the House must realise, the tragic circumstances in which the country is placed at the present time. I want to put one consideration to the representatives of the Government. The mining industry has got to be kept in being whilst it is being reorganised. The Government accepted the Report of the Royal Commission and were prepared under definite conditions to carry it into effect with the object of restoring and stabilising the industry. The miners are asked by the employers to accept lower wages and longer hours, and, apart from the question of hours, lower wages mean depressing the miners' conditions below subsistence level. While the industry was being organised, it would surely be desirable to keep that industry in being, and not to allow those pits to close which are not now on an economic basis. In order to carry the Report into effect, it would have been necessary for the Government, not to take money from the taxpayers of the country, but to raise a loan for the purpose of financing the reorganisation. Surely, the most practical and commonsense way out of the position would have been to make the grant to the industry for the purpose of reorganisation large enough to keep the industry in being in the meantime under decent conditions for the miners.

We, as a nation, have spent at present a very large sum of money in meeting the emergency of a general strike. It would have been possible for the Government to raise a loan, which might have been a mortgage on the industry itself, of £100,000,000 at 6 per cent., arranging for sinking fund and interest to be paid over a period of 10 years, amounting to £13,500,000 a year. The sum is a simple one, and I do not think I am incorrect in my figures; I am approximately correct, anyhow. It is a fairly simple sum as to what such a loan at 6 per cent. would amount to, with a redemption fund to make it repayable in 10 years. It would have meant a payment by this nation of £13,500,000 a year. I suggest that not only are the miners interested in the stabilisation of the industry, but the whole nation is interested, and those people who are now able to obtain royalties and wayleaves from the industry, apart from the rights or wrongs of royalties and wayleaves, are as much interested in the stabilisation of the industry as anyone else. I was in South Wales this last week-end, and, after leaving the miners, not exuberant, but very solid and very dour, determined to fight for the maintenance of decent conditions for themselves, when I came past Caerphilly Castle on the Great Western Railway, I came through what is known as the Golden Mile. As most hon. Members of this House probably know, every ton of coal that goes over that Golden Mile has to pay a special wayleave, amounting to an enormous sum every year, which goes into the pocket of, I believe, Lord Tredegar.

The royalty owners take out of the industry £6,000,000 a year. I am not at the moment—although, of course, what I think about it is quite well known—I am not suggesting that they are not entitled to their property in royalties and way-leaves levied upon the coal industry; but surely, if it is of national importance, as it is, that the industry should be stabilised, if that stabilisation involves such questions as are now in dispute with regard to wages and conditions, and if it involves, as it has involved, a general strike, surely it would not be too much to ask that those royalty owners and way-leave proprietors should pay that £6,000,000 over a number of years, so long as it may be necessary in order to reduce what the nation would have to pay to a really small amount compared with the terrible conditions and the enormous financial responsibilities that will devolve upon the nation as a result of the present circumstances. That is one practical consideration. Surely, the matter could have been settled upon those lines if it had been looked at from the standpoint of the stabilisation of the industry. I do not want to take up much of the time of the House, but I would like just to say how much I feel, and how much those with whom I come in contact in my constituency—who are very largely railwaymen — feel about the negotiations and the way in which those negotiations were conducted. It was admitted by the Prime Minister two days ago that the doors were closed to negotiations right in the middle of circumstances that were certainly very favourable at the moment, simply because the Cabinet heard that the "Daily Mail" was not coming out on Monday morning. That is the sheer, naked truth about the position. That was admitted by the Prime Minister. If the "Daily Mail" had come out on Monday last there would probably have been no general strike. At any rate negotiations would have continued until the general strike had started. But the Cabinet came to the conclusion that because a number of unauthorised printers refused to produce the "Daily Mail" on Monday morning, that was the first blow of the workers in the general hold-up of the country.

That is not true. It is not believed by the hundreds of thousands of men out on strike in my consitueney. Surely the Government have something to answer for breaking off negotiations on such a pretext as that, because the general strike had not commenced at 11 o'clock on Sunday night. It could not have commenced until the order was put into execution that was given by the Trade Union General Council. That was the beginning of the strike on Tuesday. The rest was unauthorised. It was the kind of thing that might have happened under normal conditions. I have often wondered how compositors have allowed some of the slanders to be printed and circulated by their labour in the past against the working classes. We all know the sinister history of the "Daily Mail," from the day when it manufactured public opinion at the time of the Boer War by the slanders and lies it told at that time. The "Daily Mail" has always been a sinister influence in the politics of the country. Here the "Daily Mail" is responsible, not for the present position as it stands perhaps, but certainly for the regrettable breaking off of negotiations at the moment when the circumstances were seemingly favourable.

May I say one word with regard to the general strike? The Government say the action of the Trade Union Council is simply a challenge to the Government and the nation and that the Trade Union General Council are in the position of putting themselves forward as an alternative Government. I want to ask this question of hon. Members opposite. Suppose a question of wages and conditions had arisen by an attack upon wages from the employers, and the Federation of British Industries had decided that their members should be invited to close down their factories pending the solution of the dispute, for the purpose of forcing the workers to agree to the terms of their employers. Does anyone imagine that the Federation of British Industries would have been regarded by the Government as an alternative Government? They would have been within their rights, because they are property owners and capitalists, and the rights of money and capital are much greater, in the opinion of Members opposite, than the rights of the workers. After all, the workers produce the wealth of the world. I know some industries are very much depressed owing to foreign competition, but you are regarding this as a national concern now. We are surely entitled to regard the condition of the people generally as a matter of national concern and national emergency. If you take the country as a whole it is not poor. The Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows that the country is getting richer every day. The War did not impoverish the country. What it did was to acid to the productive resources of the country by at least 10 per cent., on the statement of one of our most famous professors. The effect of the research that was put in, the effect of organisation and the development of capital created for the purpose of dealing with the national emergency of the War added at least 10 per cent. to the productive resources of the country. That does not mean the impoverishment of the country. This country is not impoverished; it is in pawn.

What about the loss of our best lives?

Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not imagine that I am referring to that side of the question?

That was an impoverishment.

That certainly was an impoverishment. I, like the hon. and gallant Member who interrupts me, saw some of those lives lost. I went through it, as he did, and I left a good number of my pals under the soil of Flanders. I do not want to say anything to suggest that there was no impoverishment of this country in that way, but from the point of view of money, of national financial resources, there was no impoverishment. The fact that there is impoverishment is because the nation is in pawn. It is in pawn, with the exception of what we owe to America, for the greater part to people of this country. That does not mean national impoverishment. If this nation is growing richer; if there is no real poverty in this nation, and there is not, taking the nation as a whole, then we have no right to say that in the mining industry, upon which the other big industries depend, men must work in two or three feet of running water, lying upon their backs and sides, with their arms outstretched, for seven or 6½ hours at the coal face to hew coal, and that these men have to be paid wages which mean literal starvation for them. Surely, they are justified in saying, "If you must make us starve, we will starve in God's air and sunlight, than under those conditions."

There is something to be said for the way in which the workers of the country have come to the help of the miners, whatever hon. Members may think of the strike from the national standpoint. The workers who have come out have nothing to gain by it. They are losing wages, and they are going to suffer starvation. They have come out loyally. Surely, there is a tribute due to them for that, and the best way of expressing that tribute is to look at the thing with all the reason of humanity, and to do all we possibly can, even at this stage, to try to find some way out, without allowing any question of dignity to come in between us and a national settlement. That would be possible if you were prepared to do it. I hope the Government will do it. If the Government does not, I do not know what is going to happen, any more than other hon. Members know, but I am sure that whatever happens, there will be a solidarity amongst the workers of this country which will mean both industrially and politically something very different in the future from the domination of capital from which the workers have suffered in the past.

I should not have intervened had it not been for the fact that I desire to offer my protest against the manner in which the Government publication is being used, not for the purpose of issuing or broadcasting news, which we were led to understand was the reason for launching the paper, but putting forward exceedingly biased news. The Prime Minister is using this publication for the purpose of distorting the purpose for which the general strike was embarked upon. The general strike was embarked upon for no other reason than to endeavour to maintain the standard of living, even so low as the wage which the miners are obtaining to-day. The Prime Minister in this paper yesterday and the day before said that the general strike is a strike against the nation. How are you going to separate the men and women who are concerned in this strike from the nation? They are part of the nation. A large number of those who are engaged in the strike are undoubtedly making exceptional sacrifices, as a result. They are perfectly aware of that, and of the risks they are running, and these very people who are engaged in this strike are the people who were misled by the Red letter of the last election, when they were entreated by the party opposite to vote against the Labour party if they desired to preserve the Constitution of this country.

They voted for the party opposite, quite a large number of those engaged in this dispute. On that occasion, if the arguments of the Government are correct, they voted to save the Constitution of the country, and is it likely, if they took the view that is suggested on that occasion, they would be likely to embark upon a general strike for the purpose of destroying the Constitution? It is unreasonable, absurd, and ridiculous. In to-day's issue of this paper there is a gross attack made upon the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). This paper was to be published for the purpose of disseminating news, and here is an article dealing with the negotiations headed, "Mr. J. H. Thomas's responsibility." Further down there is another heading, "Mr. Thomas's pistol," leaving the general public to believe that the right hon. Member for Derby, above all men, is likely at any time to point a pistol at the head of the Government. It is simply absurd in connection with a man with a record like his in the political and industrial life of this country.

I represent a constituency in which there are thousands and thousands of railway men, and if this is placed before them what is likely to be the effect upon them? The effect will be this, that they will be more enraged than ever before, for there is no man in the industrial history of this country who has been prepared to sacrifice his own prestige more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in conducting these negotiations. And yet the taxpayer is to be called upon to provide the money for disseminating untruths such as this in a Government organ. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to register my protest against accusations of that kind being made in a Government organ. If news is to be published in an official organ, if a report is given of negotiations that have taken place, we are entitled to expect that both sides of the case will be presented. Hon. Members who were present on Wednesday night when the Debate took place, when such useful information was brought to the knowledge of the House, were simply astonished at the school-boy attitude taken up by the Prime Minister in breaking off the negotiations.

We are entitled to ask, if statements are going to be made in this Government paper, that both sides of the case will be given in order that the general public will be able to see the part played by the Prime Minister himself. Everyone will admit that the statements in this paper are grossly unfair and unjust. Like the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Montague) I was in South Wales the other week. I am not connected with the mining industry, but I am associated with a large industry which has thrown in its lot with the miners. I found when in South Wales last week that the proposals of the mine owners there would mean a reduction of one-third in the wages of the miners. The average weekly wage of the coal getter has been £2 18s. 7d. a week. It was proposed that in future they should work for £2 3s. 3d. Labourers on night shifts, if married, would get £1 13s. 4d. per week, and single men £1 8s. 9d. I ask any hon. Member whether he thinks it possible for anyone to maintain an average family on wages such as have been given hitherto, much less when the proposed reductions were brought into operation.

At the hotel where I stayed the proprietor told me that many of the miners in that area had not been able to pay off debts incurred during the last lockout. I submit that miners living under conditions of that kind, with debts hanging over their heads, are not likely to choose a strike again unless there is some justifiable cause. That same proprietor told me that he knew for a fact that many of the married men amongst the miners on Thursday and Friday of each week went to work in the mines with nothing but a dry crust to eat. Anyone taking into consideration the cost of living to-day and the wages that I have mentioned will agree that those who have four or five children must find it utterly impossible to get anything but dry bread at the end of the week. Yet the Government have been prepared to take the side of the mine owners for the purpose of trying to compel men and women who live under such conditions to go even lower than they are now. Because of that, the whole of the industrial workers of the country are continuing to leave their work in support of the miners. There is no other issue involved, and that issue can be cleared as soon as the miners are granted a wage which is reasonable and sufficient to enable them to keep bodies and souls together.

From where is it to come?

I will offer a proposal which might be to the advantage not only of the mining industry but to other industries. There was much more evidence submitted to the Sankey Commission than was submitted to the recent Royal Commission. The evidence submitted to the Sankey Commission is by no means obsolete, and a considerable amount of the information given to that Commission should be of assistance in the reconstruction of the mining industry. It was stated on the best authority we have, namely, that of the Chief Inspector of Mines, Sir Richard Redmayne, that the estimated capital value of the mines is £165,000,000. During the War, what happened in a number of other industries in this country happened also in the mining industry. Abnormal dividends were being paid. It was undesirable to have these abnormal dividends appearing in the balance sheets, and ways and means had to be found whereby an apparently lower dividend might be shown. The device adopted was that of giving bonus shares as was done in the majority of industries in this country. Bonus shares were given to no less an extent than between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. The result is that dividends have to be produced at present upon a capital which was never invested in the mines at all, and even some of the so-called uneconomic pits are only uneconomic because of watered capital in the form of bonus shares.

If we were sincere and honest in this matter we would face up to our industrial problems in this way. We would say, "This is not the concern of the mineowners but the concern of the nation." If we had a Government which was impartial and sincere in regard to industry, they would deal with this question, not only from an economic, but from an ethical standpoint, and place the mining industry on a Moral as well as an economic basis. Until we are prepared to bring moral consciousness into play, we are not going to reconstruct the industry of this country. Here you have what for want of a better term one may call mining sharks. Here you have a device brought into existence to hoodwink the general public and rob the miner of a fair deal. Let us wipe out the £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of watered capital and, after doing so, review the mining situation and we will find that the major portion of the economic difficulty will recede into the background. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Probably the economic difficulty will not disappear completely but it will be considerably reduced. One can mention other industries in the country which, ere long, we shall have to approach in the same way.

My last point is this. We are not going to get through this difficulty unless we are prepared to take into consideration moral, as well as economic, issues. Life cannot be split up into watertight compartments. We are engaged in a dispute in which there has been a response exceeding all expectations and I am inclined to think that a large number of people in this country as yet are unable to appreciate what it all means. Many will go to church and to chapel on Sunday and take part in the services. They will see in the stained-glass windows of our cathedrals and churches beautiful pictures of the Christ. That is not the Christ that I see. The Christ that I see is the Christ dwelling in the hearts and souls of men, and the consciousness that is growing up, the fellow feeling, the spirit of brotherhood that is being expressed by men and women in this trouble to-day, that has caused them to place their all on the altar of sacrifice, is the development of that consciousness of the Christ spirit in the hearts and souls of men. Hon. Members opposite will forgive me if I say this: I may be wrong, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I am wrong, but I do feel that they have taken sides on this occasion, that the Government have taken sides on this occasion, and that instead of nailing the Christ to the cross, they are crucifying the Christ in humanity to-day by starving them into submission. [An HON. MEMBER: "Blasphemy !"] It may be to the hon. Member. If I am wrong, I hope to be forgiven, and I hope he will pray for me. What I am stating here I believe to be true. It is my religious faith, and I apologise to no one for it, but I entreat those who may take a different view at least to do me the honour of believing that I am sincere in this respect.

I believe firmly that a great mistake has been made. Do not let us think that the material things in life are the things that are most important. That is the reason why I say we shall never solve this problem by dealing with it from the economic point of view alone. There is a moral issue involved, and it is the moral issue I am seeking to bring to the notice of the House. You can never run your industries unless you are prepared to recognise that the same is due to those in the industry as you are expecting for yourselves. Let us say to those who have watered their stock in the mining industry of this country that this must be wiped out. Let us get back to real economic issues in the industry, and not expect dividends to be paid on watered capital, and then we shall be bringing a moral consciousness to bear upon this issue, and I feel we can get down to the real economic basis upon which we can reconstruct the mining industry of this country. The party with which I am pleased to be associated does not consider the economic aspect of life to be the all-important factor. The thing that is most important in our midst is the human life. Men do not exist for industry, but rather does industry exist for men, and the most important factor that can be put into the industry is the human element. I appeal to hon. Members to appreciate the fact, even though they may differ from me in my religious views, that I am sincere in this matter and entreat them to endeavour to bring that spirit of brotherhood into the industry of this country which is going to be the only safeguard for the future.

I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I would like, if I may, to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite in regard to the issue of bonus shares, and to say that they have no effect whatever on the economic position of the industry. I am convinced that the hon. Member who has just spoken is absolutely sincere, and he has spoken in a spirit and temper which, I am sure, we on this side appreciate. But on this question of bonus shares, I happen to be an accountant in my private life away from this House, and I want to assure the hon. Member that the issue of bonus shares does not affect to the extent of one penny piece whether the concern is making profit or loss. If a colliery with £100,000 of share capital had a reserve fund and undistributed profits, say, to the extent of £50,000, and it issued £50,000 in bonus shares, instead of paying dividends, it would have no effect on the question of the economic position in which that colliery carries on business. It does not add to the expense one penny. The only effect is that if the company has profits to pay a dividend, the amount required to pay a dividend of 4 per cent. would have sufficed to pay 6 per cent. dividend on the smaller capital.

That is precisely what I was saying. But why is this device adopted?

I think any business man, particularly anyone who has knowledge of properties, will appreciate that no colliery owners who are able to pay their wages and other current expenses out of their coal sales will wish to have a colliery shut down. The loss that that would incur in keeping the colliery in working order when shut down would far and away exceed even a considerable annual trading loss in carrying on, and, therefore, the difficulty of those collieries which are unable, or would be unable at the rate of wages being paid up to the 30th April, to carry on, is not a question of whether they would be able to carry on and show reasonable dividends, but whether the proceeds of the coal sales would exceed the wages and other expenses.

With regard to the other question of our taking sides in this matter, I know I am speaking for practically every Member on this side—I will put the Government and private Members as two separate entities—as far as we private Members are concerned, we have every bit as much sympathy with the workers in the coal mines as has any hon. Member opposite. It is not for me to speak for the Government, but any fair-minded man can see that the Government have not taken Sides in the matter. Do not let hon. Members confuse the present steps taken to deal with this unparalleled state of affairs in this country with any coercion of the miners. The two things are absolutely separate and distinct. I am perfectly convinced that this general strike which has been declared has had the worst possible effect on the miners' interests, and at a later stage it will be my ambition to try to put the suggestions of a back bencher for the consideration of the powers-that-be and the colliery representatives, as to how this colliery impasse may be overcome It will be overcome. But I would urge this, that it must be overcome by the industry itself. Each of our industries must stand on its own basis.

What about the sugar beet industry?

It is clear that it is a totally different thing to try to stimulate a new industry and to prevent us having to purchase from abroad that which we might produce at home, and so get some of our people back on to the land. I would like to say once more with all the emphasis I can that we absolutely are not taking sides in this matter, and never have. We shall not do so when this general strike is over, like an evil dream that we all of us will be glad to forget. We shall not take sides against the miners then. We wish the miners who are thoroughly honest and a deserving lot of men, the very best which the industry can afford.

I just want to make a statement in reply to one made earlier in the afternoon. Statements were made as to the paper known as the "British Gazette," and unfair statements issued therein. In the "Gazette" has been printed a statement to the effect that the National Evangelical Council of Free Churches had handed over their organisation to the Government during this crisis. That was broadcast. I have just seen the Secretary of that Evangelical Organisation this afternoon, and he says that there is no truth in any such statement, that the matter has never been before the Free Church Council, and that no such authority has been given, and I leave the matter at that.

If time would have allowed, one would have liked to deal with the statement of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), and who has such a funny way of showing sympathy with the miners. I want, however, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, just to draw the attention of the House to an item that is in the issue of the "British Gazette" to-day. On page 4 there are in big letters the words:

"Miners' Wages. What the workers really earn. Increases when trade is good."

Then the article of the editor goes on to make a statement which is absolutely untrue! which has not a shadow of truth in it. It says:

"The wages actually paid to the different grades vary considerably. Piece-work coal getters, who are about 40 per cent. of the adults, at present earn an average of about £4 for a full week."

At present earn an average of about £4 for a full week! There are other things, but let me deal with this £4 first. I have in my hand the official paper issued by the Mines Department for the quarter ending December, 1925, the latest official paper out as to mining wages. Any Member can get this paper at the Vote Office, and I would advise hon. Members to get it. The official return says that so far as miners' wages are concerned the average earnings for the whole of Great Britain are 10s. 5·14d. That includes the subvention. Multiply that 10s. 5·14d. by five which is a fair average number of days for the miners to work and you get 52s. 1·70d. That is the Government's statement, yet here we to-day have in this "Gazette" the statement that the average earnings of the miners are £4 per week! The figure I have quoted from the official return is for the whole of Great Britain. If I take the district of Somerset the earnings per man shift worked there is 8s. 1·91d. Multiply that by five, and it gives 40s. 9·55d. The article further says:

"And the lowest-paid class in any large district about 45s. Special provision is made in the district for the lowest grade by means of a subsistence wage, and the Royal Commission recommend that the low wage men should be continued to be protected by the system of the subsistence wage."

The inference there is that this lower-paid class of men, receiving 45s. per week, are getting something higher as a subsistence wage. I represent one of the largest districts in the coalfield, the county of Durham. Thousands of men there, as a matter of fact all our datal men, are on a subsistence wage at the present time of 7s. 6½d per day. Multiply that by five. When I take five I would point out to the House that it is a larger figure than the owners will allow us for compensation figures. Multiply 7s. 6½d. by five, and it gives 37s. 8d. per week, and yet they say here that the average wage of the lowest paid men is 45s. a week.

Is there not added on to that 10d. a day for house allowance and free coal?

No, what has to be added is this—the bulk of married men are entitled to household coal, and where they have not household coal they are allowed rent, which may come in some cases to 10d. a day. That has to be reckoned for in the case of married men, but not in the case of all men, and that is only in Northumberland. In January, 1921, we paid to our strongest class of men in the county of Durham, the coal getters, who are able-bodied, strong men, 20s. 0½d. per shift. That wage has been reduced now to 9s. 8d., and the coal owners gave notice last week that they wanted the same class of men to work for 6s. 10d. a day. In five years there has been a reduction from 20s. 0½d. per shift down to 6s. 10d. Our friends say they have sympathy with the miners, but every Conservative Member, not only the Government, but every Conservative Member, is doing everything he can to give encouragement to the coal owners to go on with the fight and grind down the miners and force this lower wage upon them. Suppose they succeed. Suppose we lose. This means that the owners will be able to force this low wage upon the miner. In view of that fact does any- body believe that you can have any sympathy for the miner? The Prime Minister in 1921 helped the coal owners to fight the miners until he beat them, but as soon as that was over his star began to set and he was driven from office. The present Prime Minister does not pretend to be brilliant or clever, because everybody knows that he is not, but a great bulk of the men of this country have begun to believe that he is neither straight nor honest.

"Order, order," and "Withdraw."

I do not think the hon. Member should make that remark.

If it is out of order, I will withdraw it, but I was only speaking politically and not personally. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Prime Minister has practically been in the pocket of Lord Londonderry all through these negotiations, and an attempt is being made to push the miners over the precipice.