Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 214: debated on Tuesday 6 March 1928

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 6h March, 1928.

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Private Business

Private Bills (Standing Orders Not Previously Inquired Into Complied With)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

South West Suburban Water Bill.

Great Western Railway (Swansea North Dock Abandonment) Bill.

Falmouth Water Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bill Lords (Substituted Bills)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company Bill [ Lords] (Substituted Bill).

London And North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

London, Midland And Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I think, perhaps, I ought to explain that this Bill is identical with the five Bills which passed the Second Reading last week. It so happens that for technical reasons of procedure the Scottish part of this company's proposals has to be presented in a separate Bill, but the provisions are identical in purpose.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Railway (Road Transport) Bills

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill, and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.—[Major Glyn.]

Will this procedure permit the municipalities interested to be represented before this Committee and to give evidence?

There will be another Motion to refer all the petitions deposited, municipal ones among them, to the Joint Committee.

Will this procedure involve municipalities in any expense in bringing forward evidence for or against?

Will this Bill be committed to the same Committee as the other Bills, and will all the Bills be considered at one time by the Committee as a general business, or will they be taken separately by the Joint Committee?

The Joint Committee will have to deal with each Bill separately, but it depends on the Committee whether they will hear the case of all of them before they decide on any one.

But there might be some objections to one particular Bill in certain localities, and not to the other Bills.

I would like to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, because I am not quite sure of my ground. I would like to ask how this Road Transport (Scotland) Bill will operate? I want to know if we have any guarantee for our Scottish municipalities that their rights will be safeguarded, and that this Bill will not imperil the great amount of money invested by the municipalities in road transport.

That is a matter which can be heard by the Committee which deals with the Bill. There are petitions, no doubt, asking for protection of that kind, and they are just the matters that will be heard by the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."—[ Major Glyn.]

The Question now is, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to, communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that I rose for the purpose of moving the Previous Question on the first Motion immediately after you had dealt with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I rose, but you, Mr. Speaker, also rose, and, in deference to you, I sat down. I submit, therefore, that the matter was not closed, and that I was entitled to be heard upon it.

I have already said that I had collected the voices before I saw the hon. and learned Member.

Question put, and agreed.

Ordered, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."

Oral Answers To Questions

Trade And Commerce

Motor Tyres (Prices)

1.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the price of motor tyres in Great Britain in January, 1927, and January, 1928, respectively; and, if he has not the complete information, what were the prices asked by the largest British company in those months?

The types and makes of motor tyres sold in Great Britain are so numerous that it is not possible to give any short general statement of price changes. I understand, however, that the prices of some British-made motor tyres were lower in January, 1928, than in January, 1927, and that the prices of some foreign-made tyres were increased in April, 1927, but have subsequently been reduced. So far as I can ascertain, the prices of the largest British company were the same on the two dates mentioned, except that for one class of tyres there was a reduction of price of 5 per cent.

May I take it from the reply that the prices of motor tyres certainly have not been increased since the duty was imposed?

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what has been the fall in the price of rubber during this period?

Imperial Preference (Wines)

2.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great increase of wines exported to this country from the Empire since the establishment of Imperial Preference; and whether steps can be taken to make public in this country, Australia, and South Africa the effects on production and employment as a result of that policy?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The increase has been from an average of just over a million gallons a year for the period 1909–1913 to over 4½ million gallons last year. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate some more detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. During my right hon. Friend's visits to Australia and South Africa he was able to see for himself the good effects of Imperial Preference in the directions which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned, and I think he can rest assured that they are having, and will have, a wide publicity.

May I ask whether at Conservative auctions preference is given to Empire wines?

Can the President of the Board of Trade give the House any information as to whether Australia is now successfully competing with France and Portugal?

I believe that both Australian and South African wines are in very great demand, and their consumption in this country is steadily increasing.

Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that any great increase in the consumption of wines, from whatever source, is a public advantage?

Following are the detailed figures:

Imports into United Kingdom from British countries average:

Gallons.
1909–131,031,426
1919 (preference first accorded 1919)530,584
1920976,591
1921669,421
1922702,178
1923966,715
19241,105,436
1925 (increased preference 1925)1,294,314
19262,055,597
19274,666,159

Film Industry (Advisory Committee)

3.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the members of the Provincial Entertainment Proprietors' and Managers' Association, Limited, of Manchester, who own and control 86 cinema theatres in the large provincial centres of Great Britain, in which several millions of British capital is invested, has no representative on the Advisory Committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act of 1927; and will he, in making any further appointments to this Committee, give this association an opportunity of nominating one or more members to represent the exhibitors?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I have already given him on this subject.

Are we to understand that the Provincial Entertainment Proprietors' and Managers' Association is barred from representation on this Committee by reason of the fact that they have succeeded in amending the Bill of last year?

Not in the least. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a great number of answers on this matter. What I did was to invite the trade union concerned, which covers this as well as other organisations, to suggest names. They took a ballot of a number of their members, including one gentleman who was a member of this organisation.

Do I understand that it is now the policy of the Government to invite only one union?

Is it not a fact that this particular union was not fully embraced in the other union?

Of course, a minority could not control a majority, but the vote in this case was taken with the fullest publicity and complete freedom

Are we to understand now that the right hon. Gentleman will deal only with the all-embracing union in the mining industry?

American Ships (Repairs)

4.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of its effect on British shipyards, whether the 50 per cent. duty imposed by the American Government on all repairs to American ships effected abroad is uniformly applied or is remitted in such cases as are classed as acts of God?

I am informed that the United States Navigation Laws provide for the remission of the duty on repairs effected abroad which are necessitated, by stress of weather or other casualty, in order to secure the safety of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination.

Liverpool Cotton Association

5.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Liverpool Cotton Association which hinders the formation of a raw cotton spot market in Manchester; and, in view of the fact that the Government are concerned with the importation of raw cotton through their grant to the Empire Cotton Corporation and the Cotton Industry Act, 1923, does he propose to take any steps in the matter?

I have seen reports as to a proposed addition to the articles of the Liverpool Cotton Association, now awaiting confirmation, forbidding its members to be connected with any other association; but, if that is the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers, I do not think it is a matter in which I can intervene.

Are we to understand that, although the Government are anxious to increase the production of raw cotton, they are indifferent to the restrictions which are placed upon the market?

Has the President of the Board of Trade noticed that the extreme difficulty in the American section of the cotton trade demands that the saving of 6s. a ton via Manchester should be adopted and allowed to proceed, and that the position of the Liverpool cotton market in restraint of trade is not helping the cotton trade at all in its parlous condition in respect to the American section thereof?

I have already indicated that these interpolations from different portions of the House show that this is a matter in which the Board can hardly intervene, and one on which the Manchester and Liverpool Members might conveniently meet.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting in Manchester last Friday, representing the whole of the cotton trade in Manchester, they passed a resolution of protest against this restriction as a restraint of trade and against the putting up of a barrier against a free market for our goods?

Egypt (Negotiations)

7.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information with regard to the removal of British troops from Cairo; and where is it proposed to station them?

57.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the offers made to the Egyptian Government and, in particular, what was proposed as to the place and pay of the army of occupation?

I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to await the Papers which will be laid to-morrow, and which will give full particulars of the offers made to the Egyptian Government.

Do I gather that the status quo remains exactly as it is at present?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better wait until he sees the White Paper, which gives full details of all the negotiations.

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Papers which will be laid to-morrow will indicate why these negotiations were entered into at all, and why, when the result of such negotiations must have been a foregone conclusion, the Government went so far as to make these offers?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be perfectly satisfied with the White Paper which will be laid to-morrow. It will give a full account of the whole matter.

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Disability Pensions (G F Mackenzie)

8.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. George Frederick Mackenzie, late No. 28,884, private, Norfolk Regiment, was passed A1 on joining the Northampton Territorial Force, and again A1 on joining the Regular Army in May, 1924; that in the course of his service he was sent into hospital but was discharged after five days' treatment; that shortly after, while on leave, he went into Northampton Hospital and was found to be suffering from consumption; that he was invalided in June, 1927, after three years' service and has been refused a pension and will never be able to work again, and that Mr. Mackenzie's father is an old soldier with a perfectly clean health sheet and that there is no family history of consumption; and whether there is any appeal from the decision of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital that Mr. Mackenzie's disease is a non-attributable disability?

This case was referred by the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, to the Director-General of Army Medical Services, who is the final medical authority in case of doubt, and he decided that the disability was not attributable to military service. There is no appeal from this decision.

Applications, Bermondsey And South Wark

44.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications relating to war pensions of all kinds have been dealt with by the regional office for Bermondsey and Southwark during the months of January and February of the present year?

During the two months referred to 110 applications, or an average of 13 a week, were received. In addition there were 475 interviews, or an average of 56 a week, on a variety of matters, a small proportion of which would probably mature as applications.

Children's Allowances

54.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which reservation of part of the allowances to motherless children has been sanctioned; and whether interest is added to the whole of the balances, including those accumulated at the instance of War Pensions Committees before the scheme was adopted by the Ministry?

The number of cases at present covered by the Scheme referred to is about 2,000. Interest is added to sums compulsorily withheld under the terms of the Scheme or otherwise by the action of War Pensions Committees. Any other balances which might happen to have been un-drawn would not, of course, carry interest.

It is entirely optional. If they do not withdraw it, there is no reason why interest should be paid on it.

Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me upon what proportion no interest is paid? What are the numbers out of the 2,000 on which no interest is paid?

On these 2,000 cases interest is paid, but there are other cases where pensioners to suit their own convenience have not drawn the money. It is there for them to draw, but they have not drawn it. In that case interest is not paid.

British Army (Hospital Accommodation)

9.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many beds have been reduced by the closing of the military hospital, Chatham, the Alexandra Military Hospital at Cosham, and the military hospital at Devonport, respectively; what economies have been effected by this reduction; and what reduction in hospital personnel has followed the closing of these hospitals?

So far as the War Department is concerned, the answer to the first, and last parts of the question is that there has been a net reduction of 215 equipped beds, and of 15 officers, 15 nurses of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service and 149 other staff. As regards the second part of the question, in addition to economies in beds and staff, the buildings have been set free for other Government purposes or ultimate disposal.

Can my hon. Friend say if these personnel have been dismissed, or if they have been simply transferred to other hospitals in the country?

I do not think they have all been dismissed at present, but I should require notice of that question.

I do not know if I failed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but can he tell me why it is that the number of these beds is being reduced?

Scotland

Lochindaal, Islay (Flounder Spawn)

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will get the Fishery Board to place some flounder spawn in Lochindaal, Islay; and whether he is aware that when some flounder spawn was placed there years ago there was an improvement in the fishing for fishermen of the villages of Bowmore, Bruichladdich and Portcharlotte for a number of years until the flounder beds were largely depopulated by English steam trawlers coming in and trawling in the darkness in the loch?

Before this question is answered, may I draw attention to the fact that Members are supposed to be responsible for the accuracy of their questions? How can the hon. and learned Gentleman know that these were English steam trawlers, if they were fishing in the dark?

I am advised by the Fishery Board for Scotland that the physical conditions, currents, nature of coast, etc., in Lochindaal are such as to render it unlikely that an experiment in the deposit of spawn as suggested would be of any benefit to the local fishermen. The previous experiment, which the hon. and learned Member apparently has in mind, was with young plaice, a number of which were liberated in Lochindaal in 1904. The results were inconclusive, and did not justify a repetition of the experiment.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the best authorities are the fishermen who fish there, that they have found that the introduction of this spawn was enormously beneficial, and that they know from their own practical experience that it produces an increase in their earnings? Is not the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also aware of the fact—[Interruption.]—that there is no difficulty in knowing an Englishman in the dark.

Is there any reason to suppose that there is any truth in the insinuations contained in the last part of this question?

With regard to the last part of the question, in the last seven years there have only been two complaints regarding illegal trawling in Lochindaal.

Is not the fact that there has been no recent complaint due merely to there being only two fishery cruisers to patrol an enormous area, so that really complaints are wasted?

Housing Schemes, Renfrewshire (Dustbins)

12.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the action of the lower district committee of Renfrewshire in failing to provide suitable dustbins at their housing schemes at Lochwinnoch and elsewhere within the district area; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

I My attention has been drawn to the position of matters at Lochwinnoch, and, as the result of inquiries made, I find that it is in accordance with the local practice that tenants should provide their own dustbins where these are necessary. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the local authority to leave the provision of dustbins to the tenants of their houses.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that every other public authority has supplied dustbins when erecting houses, and that certain types are insisted upon in the interests of the public health?

I think that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the local authority.

In the event of the local authority not attending to this matter, which is really a menace to the public health, will the Secretary of State press them, to the best of his ability, to do so?

I have no reason to believe that there is any menace to the public health, and, until I have evidence that there is such a menace, I do not propose to intervene.

If it be the case, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, that it is being left to the private individuals in a little township to supply dustbins, is not that a menace to the public health, and ought it not to be done by the municipality or the local authority?

Outdoor Mission To The Blind (Grant)

16.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the grant that is paid yearly to the Outdoor Mission to the Blind of Glasgow and West of Scotland; and whether any supervision by his Department is exercised over the manner in which it is spent?

In accordance with the Grant Regulations, the amount of grant payable to the Mission to the Outdoor Blind for Glasgow and the West of Scotland in any particular year depends on the extent of the grant-earning services provided by them for the welfare of blind persons in their area. The amount paid to the mission for the year ended the 31st March, 1927, was £1,458 8s. 7d. As regards the second part of the question, before grants are paid the Board satisfy themselves that the conditions prescribed in the Regulations are, so far as applicable, observed by the mission. I am sending a copy of the Regulations to the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether any supervision is exercised by his Department over the appointments made by this particular mission of blind teachers for the blind?

I have answered that question; the Board have to be satisfied of the conditions before the grant is made.

Small Holdings

19.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of acres being cultivated as small holdings in Scotland; and the number of claims for small holdings that have not been met?

In 1925, the last year for which particulars are available, the total area of crops and permanent grass included in holdings not exceeding 50 acres of crops and permanent grass, was 673,000 acres. Attached to these holdings was an area totalling from three to four million acres of rough grazings held severally or in common. At, 31st December, 1927, the Board of Agriculture had on their lists 4,924 outstanding applications for small holdings, exclusive of applications for enlargements.

Is it not a fact that these claims would have been very much larger in number but for the fact that they have been restricted to ex-service men, and even these ex-service men have dropped off because they have not been supplied?

That is mere guesswork, because the regulations in regard to the limitation to ex-service men have been abrogated.

Do the figures include applications from ex-service men which have been through all Departments, though they cannot get the small holdings?

Is it true that some of the ex-service men have not been able to make a living?

What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to meet the demand for these small holdings?

Drunkenness (Methylated Spirits)

21.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many arrests for drunkenness, alleged to be due to the drinking of methylated spirits, were made by the police in the City of Glasgow during the 12 months ending 31st October, 1927; and the number of such arrests in each of the wards of the city where they took place or, alternatively, the numbers in each of the respective police divisions of the city?

As the answer to this question involves a number of figures. I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Since methylated spirits are denatured, do the figures include any cases of such having been taken?

Perhaps the hon. Member will wait till he sees the figures, and, if anything arises on them, he can put down a Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who buy methylated spirits for consumption take it away and consume it in their own homes, and after a comparatively small quantity they are unable to stir abroad, and are not therefore subject to arrest? Is he also not aware that the reason for poor people taking to methylated spirits is the disgracefully high price of Scotch whisky?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give the House information when he is a Minister.

Following is the answer:

The following return shows the number of persons apprehended for being drunk and incapable in the various police divisions of the City of Glasgow during the year ended the 31st October, 1927, whose condition is believed to have been due to the drinking of methylated spirits.

Division.Males.Females.Total,
Central6352115
Western8631117
Eastern23730
Southern592079
Northern26834
St. Rollox639
Queen's Park44
Maryhill11
Govan437
Partick729
Marine24630
Total303132435

Empire Settlement (Training Centres)

20.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give the numbers of persons trained for three months in agriculture; and how many have gone abroad?

I have been asked to reply. I understand that the hon. Member's question refers to the two training centres at Corton Vale, near Stirling, and Graigielinn, near Glasgow, which are supported to the extent of one-half of the cost of training and maintenance by grants from the Oversea Settlement Committee under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922. The numbers of persons who have undergone a course of training of approximately three months at these places since such grants were first made are 37 at Corton Vale and 832 at Craigielinn. Of these, all except 245 have proceeded to the Dominions.

Coal Industry

Amalgamations

22.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamations have been carried out in the coal-mining industry since the passing of the Mining Industry Act, 1926; and whether he is satisfied with the progress made?

Such information as I have was given in answer to questions by the hon. Member for Leith on 13th and 21st December, and 21st February. As regards the last part of the question, there are so many negotiations in progress in the mining industry in regard to amalgamations, district combinations for sale purposes, etc., that I prefer not to express any opinion at the moment.

International Agreements

23.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the event of approaches being made from the Continent to Great Britain for an agreement as regards markets and prices for coal, there is any official body capable of conducting negotiations on behalf of the coal industry in this country?

As my hon. Friend is aware, negotiations are proceeding for the formation of district associations for selling coal, and if this movement develops along anticipated lines there is no doubt that this country will in due course possess suitable machinery for the kind of negotiations he contemplates.

Seeing that the Government were the negotiating body for the coalowners in 1926, would they not be the proper body?

Is it not a fact that our trade competitors abroad know perfectly well upon what terms any sort of agreement can be made with our coal exporters, and that it is absolutely unnecessary to set up any body of any kind?

In the event of these anticipated negotiations, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take any steps to see that organised labour will be represented on such a negotiating body in view of the desire for co-operation?

28.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is prepared to take steps to arrange for a conference of all the parties directly concerned in the European coal industry, with a view to establishing uniform hours and wages, as the first step in the direction of the international regulation of the coal industry?

Three Counties Scheme (Humber Export Trade)

24.

asked the Secretary for Mines when the three counties scheme for a levy of 3d. a ton on the home consumer in order to subsidise the Humber coal export trade is expected to come into operation; and whether, seeing that this scheme would, in practice, be disadvantageous to the coalfields of Durham and Northumberland, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

My hon. Friend may have seen that it was announced in the Press that this scheme was to take effect as from 1st March, 1928. I understand, however, that the details of the scheme are still under discussion and I do not know when it will become operative. It is being worked out upon a voluntary basis and I would hesitate to express any opinion on it until negotiations are more advanced.

Is the Department taking any steps to protect Durham and Northumberland against this combine?

Is it not a fact that combines of this sort were recom- mended by the Sankey Commission, by the whole of the Press, by the public and by every party in the House?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman watching the progress of this combination, so that in the event of it acting disadvantageously to Northumberland and Durham, he can take action subsequently?

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration that all combinations are directed against the consumer?

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman seek to prevent British coalfields attacking each other, and is he not aware that the Sankey Commission suggested rational and not sectional combination?

Spain And Portugal (Government Assistance)

25.

asked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information showing the amount of Government assistance given to the coal-mining industry of Spain and Portugal during the year 1927?

I am not able to state the total cash value of the assistance given by these two Governments, but I am having a statement prepared, giving such information as is available and will send a copy to the hon. Member.

Foreign State Railways (Preferential, Rates)

26.

asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give information showing the reduction per ton given in the rail rates, under the preferential rail rates, for the movement of coal on the State railways in Poland, France, Belgium and South Africa, giving the figures for each country separately?

As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

It is not possible in all cases to compare the preferential rail rates with the ordinary rail rates and the details of the rates for each country are very voluminous. But the following are typical cases of rates in the countries mentioned by the hon. Member:

Poland (preferential rate on Upper Silesian coal for export).—To Dantzig and Gdynia, 7.20 Z1. per metric ton.

This is a reduction of 8½ Z1. (4s.) per ton as compared with the ordinary rate for complete train-loads of at least 700 tons.

France.—Reductions on the general railway tariff varying from 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. are afforded for coal for export on all the French railways, including the State railways, but these reductions are subject to the traffic being forwarded in wagons of 20 tons, or in specified minimum train-loads or total quantities per annum.

Belgium.—So far as information is available it would appear that the average reduction in the railway rates on coal exported overland is about 2½ (Belgian) francs (3½d.) per ton and in the case of coal exported by sea and for bunkering the reduction is about 10 (Belgian) francs (1s. 2d.) per ton.

In the case of these three countries special rates have also been arranged with the railway administrations of other countries for through coal traffic, but in the majority of cases it is impossible to say what reduction on ordinary rates these represent.

South Africa.—Details of the preferential rates and rebates in force are not available.

Tax Remission, Czechoslovakia

27.

asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give information showing the amount of coal tax remitted in Czechoslovakia on all coal exported and coal used in the production of goods for export; and will he give the amount per ton?

The coal tax in Czechoslovakia is 10 per cent. of the pithead price, but collieries in financial difficulties pay a reduced tax of 7 per cent. The whole of the tax is remitted on coal exported or coal used in the production of goods for export.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in these countries there is no combination of labour such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) runs?

Transport

Bridge, Lochy

29.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will assist the Lochaber district committee in erecting a single-line bridge at Lochy in place of the present dangerous bridge?

In the special circumstances I am willing to consider favourably an application on these lines.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his Department offered substantial assistance for a two-way bridge, but the district could not afford their quota, and an amount was offered for a single-line bridge, but the district could not afford that, and will he consider increasing the contribution to 90 per cent. for a one-way instead of 75 per cent. for a two-way bridge?

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that they require 90 per cent.?

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will send some of these methylated-spirit-drinking people up there, they will see double.

Cardiff-Barry Road Toll-Gate

32.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received an application from the local authorities concerned for the abolition of the toll-gate on the road from Cardiff to Barry?

The suggested freeing of this toll-road has been the subject of discussion between officers of my De- partment and representatives of the local authorities, but no definite application has been made to me.

Having regard to the inconvenience to the commercial community and the indifference of the local authorities of the area, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ginger them up?

No, the duty of gingering up local authorities is for the local electorate.

In view of the fact that the local authorities are very anxious to know the extent of their liabilities under this proposal, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what percentage of the cost of acquisition will fall upon them?

Certainly, I will consider any scheme put forward by the local authorities.

Heavy Road Vehicles

33.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the damage done to all classes of roads by the ribbed iron wheels of heavy tractors, his Department contemplates drafting any Regulations to restrict the use of vehicles using wheels of this kind?

I am reluctant to take piecemeal action under the strictly limited powers in respect of locomotives conferred upon me by existing Statutes, but so soon as amending legislation on the lines of the draft Road Traffic Bill is passed it is my intention to deal comprehensively with the construction and use of heavy road vehicles generally.

Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that iron-ribbed wheels do far more damage than any other traffic and that this traffic should be on the railways instead of on the roads?

37.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the effect upon local authorities of the absence of power to limit the number, size and weight of heavy transport in the areas they administer; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

County councils already have powers under the Roads Act, 1920, to apply to me for Orders prohibiting or restricting the use of heavy motor vehicles on roads which are unsuitable for them. In view of the wide radius of action of modem road transport, traffic restrictions cannot be regarded as a matter of purely local interest, and powers to impose them must, I think, necessarily be subject to the control of a central authority.

Arterial Road Schemes

34.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the present scheme of arterial roads is to be considered final for the present, or whether further schemes are under the examination of the Ministry of Transport?

No finality is claimed for the numerous arterial road schemes now proceeding in various parts of the country, and my Department is always engaged in the examination of further projects submitted by local authorities.

Railways, Scotland (Grouping)

35.

asked the Minister of Transport if there has been or is contemplated a consultation on the regrouping of railways, with a view to placing the railways in Scotland in a separate group?

I have no knowledge of any such consultation, and, as I have previously stated, I should deprecate any disturbance at present in the general scheme for the grouping of the railways that was settled by Parliament so recently as 1921.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the original grouping of the railways was to leave Scotland as a unit in itself, and that it was on the application of the Scottish companies against that danger that the change was made?

I would remind the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) that I am not the Minister in question. Is it not the case that, while the railways themselves asked to be included in the English railway system, the people of Scotland wanted the railways for Scotland, and that the rates chargeable to the passengers in Scotland to-day remain at the highest peak during the War?

Canals

36.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of miles of the 3,000 miles of canals in Great Britain which have been bought up by the various railway companies; and the number of miles which are used by the railway companies for transportation of goods?

The total length of the canals in Great Britain owned or leased by railway companies at the 31st December, 1927, was 1,050 miles. During the year 1927 traffic was conveyed over all these canals except three, of a total length of 13½ miles, but the information in my possession does not indicate what proportion of the total mileage was actually used for the transportation of goods.

Can the railways be induced to give up those canals which they do not use?

Education

Size Of Classes (Scotland)

17.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of classes under the educational authorities in Scotland during 1927 where the pupils numbered, respectively, under 40 per class, between 40 and 50, between 50 and 60, and over 60?

I regret that the information in my possession does not enable me to reply to the question in the exact form in which it is put. Such figures as are available I will, however, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

We would like to know definitely if it is not the case that there are, in Glasgow for instance, classes of from 50 to 80 children under one teacher. Has not the right hon. Gentleman that information?

If the hon. Member will wait until he sees the figures, he will get the information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last year it was pointed out, in answer to a question,

STATEMENT showing for each EDUCATION AUTHORITY (from the Return of October, 1927), the number of primary classes (excluding Advanced Divisions), according to the number of pupils in average attendance, (a) with under 50 pupils, (b) with 50 but not more than 60 pupils, (c) with more than 60 pupils.
Education Authority.Under 50 pupils.50 but not more than 60 pupils.More than 60

pupils.

Aberdeen (Burgh)44034
Dundee (Burgh)482232
Edinburgh (Burgh)1,00852
Glasgow (Burgh)1,5331,14814
Aberdeenshire63128
Argyll896
Ayr911843
Banff439101
Berwick1171
Bute541
Caithness399
Clackmannan123
Dumbarton45951
Dumfries366
East Lothian2954
Fife1,29516
Forfar381
Inverness1,250
Kincardine1321
Kinross26
Kirkcudbright4083
Lanark1,6242352
Midlothian3353
Moray3587
Nairn941
Orkney403
Peebles142
Perth507
Renfrewshire7261846
Ross and Cromarty351
Roxburgh175
Selkirk77
Shetland4351
Stirling58331
Sutherland89
Westlothian32013
Wigtown3552
Total18,2191,93328

Expenditure

18.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum spent on education in Scotland for the last available year, giving the amount paid from national revenue and local rates, respectively?

that there were 467 classes—I think that was the number—in Glasgow with more than 60 pupils?

Following are the figures:

So far as those branches of education for which my Department has administrative responsibility are concerned, the last available year is 1926–27, and the figures for which the hon. Member asks are £6,798,900 from the Exchequer and £4,984,450 from local rates, making a total of £11,783,350.

Post Office

Cable Rates

38.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, since the beam system of telegraphy has been in operation, he can state to what extent the commercial and press rates of the Eastern Exchange Cable Company have been reduced?

Since the establishment of the first of the beam services the cable rates have been reduced to Australia from 2s. 6d. to 2s. a word; to South Africa from 2s. to 1s. 8d.; and to India from 1s. 8d. to 1s. 5d. Corresponding reductions have been made in the cable rates for the deferred services and certain of the letter telegram services. The cable rates for press telegrams to India have been reduced from 4d. to 3d. and to South Africa from 3½d. to 2½d.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Eastern Exchange Telegraph Company are very much more reliable than the beam system?

Insurance Policies

40.

asked the Postmaster-General the total number of insurance policies issued through the Post Office, life insurance and endowment insurance, respectively; and what is the actuarial position with respect to such policies?

The numbers are as follow: Whole life policies, 19,811; endowment policies, 12,250. There is no separate fund in respect of life insurance contracts granted through the Post Office, as the Act 27/8 Vict. c. 46 created one fund in respect of both deferred life annuity contracts and life insurance contracts. The last quinquennial valuation of the assets and liabilities of this fund showed that the liabilities exceeded the assets; and an amended contingent liability of £244,785 in this respect will, in accordance with Section 3 of the Act 27/8 Vict. c. 46, be shown in the finance accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1928.

In view of the fact that the terms that are offered under this Post Office insurance scheme are more favourable to the insured person than those offered by the ordinary insurance companies, and in view of the further fact, which has just been given in answer to that question, of the very small number of policy holders of the Post Office insurance scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department do something to make this scheme much more widely known?

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be god enough to give me notice of any question on this matter. It is a matter which is partly under the administration of the Post Office and partly under the administration of the Treasury, and I think I must have notice of such a question.

Appointments, Wales (Welsh Language)

41.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to make a conversational knowledge of Welsh an assential qualification in all future appointments to postal staffs in predominantly Welsh districts?

The hon. Member was informed on 28th July last that I do not think there are adequate grounds for introducing special Regulations for the purpose he has in view. I am still of the same opinion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a very grave injustice to Wales?

No, Sir, I do not think so. In fact, selection is made from local candidates, who in most cases do possess a knowledge of the Welsh language, and I do not think that there is any practical injustice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great agitation in Wales in consequence?

No, Sir, I am not aware of that any more than I am aware of any agitation on the part of Welsh Members to speak the Welsh language.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is going to hear about it again?

New Premises, Sale

42.

asked the Postmaster-General if the Sale Urban Dis- trict Council were given an opportunity of laying their views before his Department, prior to the decision being taken to transfer the Sale General Post Office to the adjacent district of Ashton-upon-Mersey?

Representations were received from the Sale Urban District Council, prior to the decision in question, and were duly considered.

Is it not a fact that for the last 12 months the Sale Urban District Council have attempted to get into touch with the Minister, and that as late as a week ago he replied that he still could not see them on this matter?

Because the premises in question were bought something like nine months ago and actually acquired.

Is it not a fact that before the premises were bought the local council desired to lay their opinions before the right hon. Gentleman on this very important matter, owing to the risk to human life, and that his Department refused to listen to them?

The representations were received and were duly considered.

But, in spite of that fact, is it not the case that the representations that were made were incomplete, and that ever since then the local authority have been endeavouring to get into direct touch with the Minister and that he still refuses to see them on this important matter?

I should be very sorry to think that there has been any disrespect on my part towards the local authority. This was a matter of acquiring certain premises for Post Office purposes. I chose the premises which I thought were best adapted for Post Office Services. I heard representations from the local authority, and these were duly considered. There is no doubt in my own mind that the premises that were chosen were much better for our purpose and much cheaper. They did not involve the expense that the other premises would have involved. The premises have been bought, and, therefore, there is no point in my receiving representations.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment a week today.

Facilities, North Reddish

43.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience the closing of the sub-post office in Gorton Road, North Reddish, has caused the residents in that district, he will have inquiry made into the circumstances which led to its being closed, with a view to arranging for the re-establishment of the facilities previously enjoyed?

This office was closed at the end of 1926 on the resignation of the former sub-post-mistress. The North Reddish Sub-Post Office is only about a quarter of a mile distant and there is another office within half a mile in the opposite direction. I do not think that the circumstances warrant the reopening of the office.

Foreign Pencils

50.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the stock of foreign pencils purchased during the War and used by the Post Office has now been exhausted; and whether all pencils now used are of British manufacture?

All stocks of pencils are now of British manufacture with the exception of the stock of copying pencils of foreign make obtained during the War. This stock has not yet been exhausted.

Can the hon. Member say how many years' stock were bought from the United States of America during the War?

No, Sir. I cannot without notice give that information, but I can say that the stock which still remains is only enough for a few months.

Does the hon. Member realise the very serious effect that this question of lead pencils will have on national finance?

Does the hon. Member not realise that it is a question of the principle involved, and does he think it advisable that any Department of State should buy enough articles such as pencils, as are likely to last 10, 15 or 20 years?

Savings Bank Deposits (Interest)

51.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank are allowed to remain for long periods and that the rate of interest has not been increased since its inception, he will consider the desirability of raising the present rate of 2½ per cent.?

Deposits in the Savings Bank, however long they remain, are withdrawable on application and in those circumstances the payment of a higher rate of interest could not be defended. A higher rate can be earned by investment in Government securities including Savings Certificates, and such investment is encouraged. A special Post Office Register of Government stocks is maintained to assist the small investor and the widest facilities are available for the purchase of Savings Certificates.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what profit is being made by this Department annually, and what proportion of it goes to the Treasury? Can he say what use is made of the profits which accrue yearly in this Department?

This is a question which involves two answers, and they are very intricate. I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Member would put his question on the Paper, and I will look into it.

Is it not the case that, so far from deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank being withdrawable on demand, seven days' notice is required unless the sum is under £1?

I cannot carry the exact conditions in my mind; but I know that the Post Office give the safest facilities that it is possible to give.

Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman in the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend's question said that the deposits are withdrawable upon demand? Is it not the case that seven days' notice is required unless the sum of money to be withdrawn is under £1?

Is it not a fact that the seven days' notice is chiefly required to safeguard the interest of the depositors in order that wrong withdrawals may not be made.

Would it not be a simple matter, in view of the profits made by this Department, to devise a scheme for granting a higher rate of interest where sums of money have been left untouched for a period of six or 12 months.

Franchise Bill (Register)

45.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to re-introduce the half-yearly register in the event of the franchise being extended to women on the same terms as men by Act of this Parliament?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to await the promised Franchise Bill.

Does the Prime Minister not see that the register is distinct from the Franchise Bill, and cannot he give me some information on the other matter?

I cannot quite understand what is the other matter which the hon. and gallant Member wishes to raise. If the hon. and gallant Member is anxious that the new voters shall get the vote at the next election, I gave that assurance on the Debate on the Address.

. Does the Prime Minister not remember that the yearly register was introduced as a measure of economy in the Economy Bill, and has nothing to do with the voter? In view of the pledge to extend the vote to women, surely he sees the justice of reintroducing the six-monthly register.

New Zealand Naval Division (Western Samoa)

46.

asked the Prime Minister whether active operations carried out by the naval forces of the Dominions, such as recent operations at Samoa by His Majesty's ships attached to the New Zealand Navy, are subject to the approval of the Cabinet?

The answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government in New Zealand are responsible for the administration of Western Samoa, and the question of the despatch to Western Samoa of ships of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy is solely a matter for that Government.

Racecourse Betting Bill

47.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates the introduction of any fresh legislation in the present Session which will alter the betting laws of Great Britain?

I would remind the hon. Member of the introduction of the Racecourse Betting Bill in this House on the 10th February. In accordance with the terms of my reply of the 10th November last to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), the Government will endeavour to provide facilities for the passage into law of this Bill if it obtains a Second Reading on a free vote of the House.

Does this not mean that betting will become legalised on race courses?

I do not think it means anything of the kind. We do not know what it means until we are apprised of the wishes of the House on the subject.

Income Tax

48.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the issuing of instructions to local inspectors of taxes to the effect that workmen and others who live in their Own houses should not be called upon to pay tax under Schedule A for such pro- perty, on production of proof that their total income does not bring them within the taxable limit, and thus save an appeal for rebate?

If a house-owner's income is of such an amount that he is not liable to Income Tax, he can claim exemption from any tax under Schedule A charged in respect of his property. The inspectors of taxes throughout the country are fully aware of this position and are constantly dealing with such claims. I may add that where the property is subject to annual charges, such as ground rent or mortgage interest, the exempt owner will be called upon to pay to the Revenue the tax which he deducts from his ground landlord or mortgagee, upon whom, and not upon the owner, the charge of such tax therefore falls.

Debt Redemption Trust (Donors)

49.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appeal to donors to the recently established trust for debt redemption on all possible occasions to disclose their names for publication so that this movement may be increased by the force of good example?

I do not think it would be desirable to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that many millionaires of modest disposition in this country are seriously embarrassed by the secrecy which is at present attached to these gifts?

Industrial Assurance (Lapsed Policies)

52.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the loss suffered by many poor people through industrial assurance policies lapsing; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing some form of legislation to prevent this?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Plaistow Division (Mr. W. Thorne).

Is the hon. Member aware that when Section 24 of the Act, to which he referred in his reply yesterday, comes into operation in June next, it will not give the desired protection to these poor policy holders?

I am not aware of that fact at all. We must wait until June and see how it does operate.

Has the hon. Member taken any steps to inform himself of the enormous loss suffered by poor people in connection with the policies entered into by them which are never valid, because there is no insurable interest, but which nevertheless were accepted by the insurance companies concerned?

Tate Gallery (Lane Collection)

53.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the dangers to which pictures in the Tate Gallery are subjected by flooding, steps can now be taken to make a loan for an indefinite period of all the Lane pictures to Dublin?

The Lane collection is housed in the main galleries, far above any possible flood level. The question, therefore, of transferring the pictures elsewhere for safe custody does not arise.

Does not my hon. Friend consider that this is a judgment of God upon the trustees of the Tate Gallery by causing the destruction of many of these pictures which really belong to Ireland.

Would it not be possible to sell these pictures and use the proceeds to compensate the Southern Ireland loyalists thereby saving the British taxpayers?

Casual Wards (Medical Examination)

58.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints regarding the detention of vagrants in casual wards for medical examination until late in the evening of the day of discharge; and whether, in the interests of the vagrants themselves and of the public health, he will take steps to ensure that medical examination shall take place either on admission or during the day of detention?

I have received no such complaints, and am not aware of any instance in which a casual has been detained for the purpose of a medical examination beyond the prescribed hour of 9 a.m. on the day of discharge.

Contributory Pensions Act (Wales)

59.

asked the Minister of Health how many insured persons in Wales have ceased to draw sickness benefit on account of the receipt of old age pensions at 65?

The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available and could only be obtained by a special examination of the sickness records of every Approved Society and branch which has members resident in Wales.

Public Health

Rickets (Imported Skimmed Milk)

60.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any reports that the prevalence of rickets amongst children in some districts is largely caused by the fact that they are being fed on imported skimmed milk which is marked unfit for babies: and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of this commodity as a food for infants?

I have seen a newspaper report of a statement of a lecturer on agricultural economics to this effect. I am advised that the feeding of infants on skimmed milk in any form would tend to produce rickets, and it is for this reason that I have made Regula- tions requiring the words "Unfit for babies" to be displayed on the tins. Recently I have issued fresh Regulations which will have the effect of displaying these words more prominently.

May I ask whether in the public interest the right lion. Gentleman will not publish the figures showing the value of English milk over the foreign condensed milk as a clean product?

I do not think it is necessary to publish figures showing the difference between the skimmed milk and the full milk.

Is it not the case that people who buy skimmed milk have no choice owing to the high price of other milk, and does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view which he made in a statement in answer to a question as to its effect on rickets?

That does not arise on this question, but I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted my answer.

Is it not a libel on our civilisation that these mothers have to buy skimmed milk because they cannot afford to buy other milk in order to feed their babies?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as long as skimmed milk is sold in such small packages people will buy it whether it is marked unfit for babies or not, and will he issue Regulations to provide that this milk is sold in much larger containers?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing importation of skimmed milk into this country, and will he look further into the matter in order to see whether some other steps cannot be taken to avoid this increased consumption of skimmed milk, which must be bad for the people who consume it?

I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member. He seems to consider that children and adults are in the same position. My advice is that, while skimmed milk is bad for infants, it might be quite wholesome for adults.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman prohibit the sale of it for infants?

I would do so, but I am not sure that the prohibition would be observed.

Will the Minister of Health consult the President of the Board of Trade as to whether the Safeguarding of Industries Act might not be applied to this skimmed milk?

Petrol (Lead Tetraethyl)

62.

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the tests carried out with petrol containing lead tetraethyl and the report arising out of these tests made by the Research Association of British Motor and Allied Manufacturers, founded under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in which the poisonous effects of the discharge of vapour from this fuel are described; and whether, in view of the proposed Interdepartmental Committee to be appointed by His Majesty's Government to examine into this subject and the inevitable delays in receiving a Report of such Interdepartmental Committee, he will consider issuing a preliminary warning on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the public generally concerning the use of this fuel?

My attention has been drawn to this report. Immediate steps are being taken to set up the Committee of Inquiry, and they will be asked to make their investigation and present their Report with the least possible delay. The Government do not propose to anticipate the findings of the Committee by issuing such a warning as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect this Committee to be set up; and, when it has been set up, how long is it before he expects to receive their Report?

I expect the Committee will be set up very shortly, and their Report will no doubt be issued when they are ready.

Rating And Valuation (London)

61.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in 1891 Command Paper No. 6460, Local Government Board, showed that the gross valuation of the Metropolis amounted to £39,835,700, with a total increase in the annual rental of £1,373,207 from the previous year; and if he can supply similar statistics for the year ending 1926?

The gross value of rateable hereditaments in London, according to the valuation lists in force on the 6th April, 1926, on which date a quinquennial revaluation took effect, was £74,529,824, which was an increase of £11,550,598, or 15½ per cent., as compared with the amount entered in the lists in force on the 6th April, 1925. The corresponding increase at the quinquennial revaluation of 1891 was £1,623,451, or 4¼ per cent.

Artificial Silk Industry (Wages)

63.

asked the Minister of Labour the rates of wages paid in the artificial silk industry to unskilled, semiskilled, and skilled workers, respectively; and what is the length of the working week?

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, artificial silk forms part of the raw material of many sections of the textile industry, including cotton, wool, hosiery, linen and jute, and, so far as I know, the agreements obtaining in those industries cover workers using artificial silk. The Ministry of Labour have no information as to the wages or hours of workers employed on spinning or weaving artificial silk only.

Am I to understand that the Government which had been safeguarding certain industries takes no interest in the wages and conditions of labour of the persons working in those industries?

The hon. Member must not understand that. What I was pointing out was that the Government have no power to demand the production of wage agreements in any industry.

In that case, will the Prime Minister proceed to take powers to see that wages and conditions of labour in those industries which are safeguarded are properly looked after.

May I ask whether the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is correct in his statement that this is one of the safeguarded industries. Is it not the case that the duty was put on for revenue purposes?

Is it not the case that wages in the silk industry are fixed by a Joint Industrial Council, on which the trade unions and the employers are represented?

I think the Joint Industrial Council does not include the artificial silk trade.

Does it not point to the fact that the best way for men and women to get their wages safeguarded is by joining a trade union?

May I ask where the Parliamentary Secretary secured the information that the wages in the artificial silk industry are based upon those operating in the textile industry?

That is not what I said. What I said was that artificial silk forms part of the raw material of many sections of the textile industry and, therefore, until I know on what particular section the hon. Member desires information I cannot answer.

Why does not the Minister of Labour take steps to secure wages and conditions of labour in this industry seeing that he has taken steps to secure wages and conditions in other industries. Why does he not take similar steps here?

I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Member's question. What I said was that we have no power to demand the production of agreements, nor have we any power to enforce wages agreements in any industry?

Is it not the fact that the Department has taken steps by voluntary effort to secure wages in other industries? Have any steps been taken to secure wages in this industry?

No, Sir. As far as I know that question has never been put to my Department until this moment.

Will the Prime Minister answer the question which I put to him as to whether he is prepared to secure wages and conditions of labour in the safeguarded industries as distinct from other industries?

Sir Patrick Gower

asked the Prime Minister whether this morning's published statement, that one of his principal private secretaries is to take up an important post in the Conservative Central Office is correct; whether this has been done with his knowledge and approval; and whether there is any precedent for a civil servant who has acted as a principal private secretary to successive Prime Ministers accepting a responsible position in the headquarters of a political party?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot recall any precedent for a civil servant having acted as principal private secretary to successive Prime Ministers in the past, but a civil servant is, of course, at liberty at any time to resign from the service and take up outside work whether commercial, professional, or political in character.

When the Prime Minister was first approached by the chairman of the Conservative Association in regard to the securing of the services of this principal private secretary, did the Prime Minister at that time represent to the chairman of the Conservative Association the impropriety, if not indecency, of a political organisation trying to secure the services of a prominent civil servant receiving a salary from the Crown?

I do not know that I feel called upon to answer these questions. Considering the services, loyal and honourable, which Sir Patrick Gower rendered to the Leader of the Opposition, when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, I think they are most ungenerous. The fact with Sir Patrick Gower and with all civil servants who occupy positions of that kind, is that they must consider their future—he has been a private secretary for many years—and it is an open question with them whether they will do better in after life, by leaving the Civil Service or staying in it. I wish to make this point quite clear. I have discussed this matter with Sir Patrick Gower at intervals for the last year or two, and I am quite sure that he has chosen wisely in his own interests to take work other than that of a civil servant.

The Prime Minister has evidently quite misunderstood my question. I made no reflection whatever upon Sir Patrick Gower. I asked the Prime Minister whether, when the chairman of the Conservative Association approached him he—the Prime Minister—made any representation to the chair-Man of the Conservative Association as to the impropriety of trying to secure for political service a civil servant who was supposed to have no partiality in regard to political matters?

Is it in order to put questions in this House concerning the actions of a political party or the internal administration of a political party?

Is not the precedent required that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who, after serving in the Civil Service, became a prominent leader in another party?

There is not the slightest impropriety in the action which Sir Patrick Gower has taken, and I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said about Sir Patrick Gower himself.

If this practice grows, does the Prime Minister consider it altogether desirable that the Civil Service should look to the Conservative party for promotion?

Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions)

"to extend further the duration of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, and to amend temporarily the provisions as to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; supported by Sir Kingsley Wood; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Slaughter Of Animals (Scot- Land) Bill

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended ( in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Protection Of Lapwings Bill

Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 20th April, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

Chairmen's Panel

reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill); Mr. Ellis Davies to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rating and Valuation Bill); Sir Edmund Turton to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill); and Sir Robert Sanders to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee A

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill): Mr. Amery, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Miss Bondfield, Captain Brass, Mr. Campbell, Sir Henry Cowan, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Lunn, Sir John Marriott, Major General Sir Newton Moore, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Somerville, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, and Mr. Wells.

Standing Committee C

further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Mr. Barker, Mr. Beckett, Sir Vansittart Bowater, Major Braithwaite, Mr. Briant, Mr. Broad, Brigadier-General Brooke, Captain Bullock, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. Cluse, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Greene, Mr. Hall Caine, Mr. Harmsworth, Captain Holt, Lieut.-Colonel Horlick, Captain Austin Hudson, Countess of Iveagh, Mr. Kelly, Sir John Leigh, Mr. Lougher, Mr. L'Estrange Malone, Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, Mr. Naylor, Sir Frank Nelson, Sir Charles Oman, Mr. Pilcher, Sir John Power, Mr. Preston, Mr. Shepperson, Mr. Stamford, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes, Mr. Tomlinson, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, Dr. Watts, Sir William Wayland, Mr. C. P. Williams, and Dr. John Williams.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rating and Valuation Bill): Mr. Sandeman Allen, Captain Brass, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Gates, Captain Gunston, Mr. Harris, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Lansbury, Miss Lawrence, Sir William Perring, Mr. Rye, Dr. Salter, Mr. Scurr, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Scottish Standing Committee

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill): the Lord Advocate, Captain Harry Crookshank, Mr. Evan Davies, Mr. Hammersley, Major Samuel Harvey, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Riley, Major Steel, and Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Bills Reported

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill,

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Navy (Supplementary Estimate, 1927)

Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1928 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 36.]

Orders Of The Day

British Guiana Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The Bill which I have to bring before the House this afternoon is a permissive Bill. It is one which gives the authority of this House to the Crown to enable it, by Order in Council, to modify the constitution of the Colony of British Guiana. The constitutions of His Majesty's Colonies are very frequently changed by Order in Council, but that form of action is impossible in the present case, owing to certain legal considerations, arising out of the form of the original Capitulation of 1803 under which British Guiana became a British colony. We agreed in that Capitulation that the mode of taxation in use at that date should be adhered to, and ever since then the Law Officers of the Crown have ruled that the terms of that Article precluded the Crown from levying taxation of its own authority in British Guiana, and equally precluded it from modifying the constitution of the Combined Court—the constitutional body which at that time was the only body empowered to raise taxation or deal with finance. The ordinary legislature of the colony, the Court of Policy, is equally precluded, either from levying taxation or from interfering in the constitution of the Combined Court. On the other hand, the Combined Court itself has no legislative function. It can only tax or revise estimates. Therefore, it is also impotent to change its own constitution. Consequently there is no legal method of altering the constitution in British Guiana except through the intervention of the authority of Parliament.

So much for the reasons which make it necessary to come here for authority. I realise however, that the House will wish to know why it is desired that the constitution should be altered and I shall endeavour to give the reasons as briefly as I can. No doubt they will be stated more fully and with more intimate local knowledge by hon. Members who have been out there, either as Members of the Parliamentary Commission or otherwise. British Guiana is our only colony on the Southern American continent. It is a country as large as the United Kingdom, possessing very great natural resources, a soil of extraordinary richness in the seacoast region, great mineral resources and immense resources in timber. Yet, somehow, that colony has, in the century and a quarter of British occupation, and in the century and a half or more in which it has been mainly British, made no appreciable progress. Its record is one of almost continuous stagnation. It is quite true that it has had to contend with certain difficulties. It had no large native population to begin with and, consequently, had to look to immigration for the increase of population. But in spite of the immigration into British Guiana of over 350,000 people in the course of a century, the population today stands at only 300,000. This is not due to any special unhealthiness of the climate—for, as compared with many other tropical countries, the climate is very pleasant—but to excessive infant mortality, defective sanitation and lack of any proper health system.

Another drawback to the easy development of the Colony by peasant proprietorship has been the fact that its most fertile lands need protection by seawalls against encroachments of the sea, and also need irrigation and drainage. So there was a need for capital. But in many other parts of the Empire, similar difficulties have been easily overcome, and capital has come in, and the population has grown and developed. In British Guiana, however, as I said, the history has been one, if not of decline, at any rate of stagnation. In the present century, confronted with the progress of the world and of the British Empire elsewhere, with the need for bringing education and transport and sanitation up to date, the problem of the colony has become almost impossible. Its finances have become increasingly difficult. At this moment a population of 300,000, not at a high average level of prosperity, is saddled with a burden of over £4,300,000 of debt actually floated or with the Crown Agents due to be redeemed. That is, over £14 a head, as compared with £2 17s. 6d. in the Colony of Ceylon, where there is, at least, an equal average of prosperity.

4.0 p.m.

In the seven years ending 1927, there was only one year in which there was not a deficit, and in that year there was a small surplus of £33,000. Over the whole seven years there was a deficit of £681,000. In addition to that, there is a growing difficulty facing them of a floating debt to the extent of £1,200,000 borrowed from the Crown Agents, and due to be covered by loan, with urgent requirements that can only he met by further considerable loan expenditure. The Colony is in a position that it cannot float a loan in this country on any reasonable terms, not only because of the discouragement to investors created by the financial situation that I have described, but because there is no reserved power in the Government of the Colony under the Secretary of State to ensure that any undertaking with regard to the repayment of interest or capital will in fact be met. That is in fact a critical and anxious situation, which, naturally, all those who are interested in the affairs of our Colonies have watched with misgiving for many years.

Two years ago, acting on a suggestion originally made by some of the elected members of the Court of Policy in British Guiana, I decided to send out a Parliamentary Commission, and two hon. Members of this House—the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell)—went out to British Guiana, and presented to me a very valuable and important Report, which, no doubt, has been studied by Members of this House. A great deal of that Report deals with matters not immediately concerned with the Bill before us, but I should like to pay my tribute here to the care, sympathy and understanding with which they threw themselves into their task, and thank them for very many valuable suggestions which they made with regard to the welfare of British Guiana in every direction. They were sent out on an absolutely open road. They were asked:
"To consider and report on the economic condition of the Colony, the causes which have hitherto retarded and the measures which could be taken to promote development, and any facts which they may consider to have a bearing on the above matters."
I need not assure the House that there were no secret instructions or indications given to the hon. Members. They were given an absolutely free band to study the position in British Guiana without prejudice from every point of view. Their report on the financial situation of the Colony is very serious. They begin that section of their report by frankly declaring that the present financial position is unsatisfactory. They end by stating that they are "satisfied that the financial position is unsound and the outlook serious," and the conclusion to which they came, absolutely independent of any instruction or suggestion from this side, was that the unsatisfactory financial position was due not so much to any weakness of the administrators sent out to British Guiana, nor to any original sin on the part of the people there, but was due to the structure of the constitution which makes sound finance practically impossible. They point out in their Report:
"Hand-to-mouth finance and haphazard and ill-considered taxation are the inevitable outcome of a system under which the responsibility for the finances rests with a Government who cannot enforce their policy and the financial power with the elected members who have no real responsibility."
I ought to explain to the House the exact nature of the constitution of British Guiana. The ordinary legislature of the Colony, the Court of Policy, is a body constituted on lines analogous to those found all over the Colonial Empire—a Governor with a certain number of official members, some ex-officio, some nominated, and an equal number of elected members, the Governor having a casting vote, and therefore able in an emergency definitely to make his policy prevail. There is a very normal, natural give-and-take between the official and unofficial members of the legislature, but this legislature is entirely precluded from dealing with finance. Finance, divorced from legislation, is dealt with by a separate body, consisting in part of the members of the Court of Policy, and in part also of members elected as financial members, and for no other purpose whatsoever. It is as if every financial matter before this House had to be settled, regardless of the general policy of this House, by a body consisting of the members of this House, and another 300 members chosen purely for that purpose, and as a rule opposed to the Government of the day whatever the Government might be. That position is one which makes it a matter of absolute uncertainty whether carefully considered plans of the Government, however well-endorsed by the main body of the legislature, can in fact go through. After all, there are no schemes of legislation which do not involve some appointments, some salaries, some element of finance, and you have this outside body,, with no general responsibility for the administration or the legislation, with no continuous contact with legislation or administration, coming in for a few days' discussion and able to upset entirely the whole machinery of government. As the Commission point out:
"The practical consequences of this lack of ultimate control are chiefly to be seen in the financial system of the Colony. This system is prejudicial to trade, inconducive to sound financial policy, and costly in that it prevents the Colony's loans from being issued as trustee securities, We have referred elsewhere in greater detail to the vital importance of establishing a definite far-sighted and consistent financial policy. At present the elected members are in the position of a minor who can overrule his own trustee."
They go on to say:
"The Government in British Guiana have never been able to govern. This situation was possible so long as the function of administration was confined to attempting to prevent mis-government. it is not possible when the Government are expected to take a direct and active part in the development of the country and the improvement of the condition of the people."
They add a further point:
"Provision for ultimate control is also desirable on grounds of political psychology. The divorce of responsibility from power, which is so marked a feature of the constitution, places the elected members as well as the Government in a false position. The elected members tend to be placed in the position of a permanent opposition, Unrestrained by experience or prospect of office. Though we do not wish to press the analogy too closely, the position of the Government, under such conditions, might in some respects he compared to that of a Ministry without a majority, a state of affairs not tending to inspire respect or promote efficiency and highly detrimental to morale.
We would welcome any change in the existing Constitution which would give to the people's representative wider powers of usefulness and greater opportunity for constructive criticism. But we do not see how it can he possible either to ensure a consistent financial policy or to exercise efficient control of the Colony's sources of revenue, unless Government have the power in the last resort, and under proper safeguards, to enforce their own decisions."

That is the British Guiana Commission consisting of the hon. Member for East Woolwich and the hon. Member for Lichfield. Their point is that the constitution as it exists at present is one which does not secure efficiency either way. Neither the elected representatives nor the Government can ever carry through a consistent policy. The report of that Commission has been subjected to a great deal of vehement criticism in detail by the elected members of the Combined Court. That criticism is published in full in the Paper which was presented to the House yesterday. It is couched in very strong language, but while the elected members lay the blame not so much on themselves as upon successive Governors, Ministries, technical experts, and the ignorance and inaccuracy of the Parliamentary Commission, the fact still remains that their document is from beginning to end also a condemnation of the existing form of Government. I will leave my hon. Friends who were members of the Commission to deal, if they wish, with various criticisms directed against themselves—criticisms which, it seems to me, they have effectively rebutted. I will only read one brief passage with which they prelude their arguments. They point out:

"We are glad to observe that the Elected Members agree with the main conclusions and recommendations of our Report. Like us, they consider that the financial situation is unsatisfactory; that 'radical reform of the Colony's financial system is essential'; that 'a sustained and successful policy of development is impossible under the present system'; and they are prepared to agree in principle to the granting of a reserve power to the Governor of the Colony, at any rate to enable him 'where any loan has been duly authorised by the Legislature, to certify its service charges without the necessity of a vote being taken in the Combined Court.'"
The main fact stands out that it is not one or other party which is specially to blame, but that we are dealing here with a survival of a constitutional type which has really never worked successfully anywhere. We boast of the great merit of our constitution with that sense of re- sponsibility from which responsible government draws its name. The position that administration, legislation and finance are intimately linked together in this House, and that those who are responsible for passing laws are also the people responsible for seeing that they are paid for and effectively administered, has only been reached after long centuries of strife and trouble under another type of constitution, that of representative Government where responsibility for legislation and finance was divorced from the responsibility for actual administration.

This is not an occasion on which to dive into the records of our political development, but it may perhaps be worth while reminding the House that the continuous deadlock and friction between the Executive and the Colonial Legislatures in the years which preceded the outbreak of the American Revolution, and, I venture to think, contributed in great part to the sense of irritation on both sides, of irresponsibility on the side of the elected members, and of impatience on the part of Parliament here, was due to the defects of representative as distinct from responsible Government in those Colonies. After the end of the American Revolution we developed in two directions—in the direction of granting responsible Government in our sense wherever the conditions permitted, but, on the other hand, where conditions did not permit, giving a definite responsibility to somebody, in other words, to a Governor responsible to the Secretary of State and, in the last resort, to this House of Commons.

A very eminent American constitutional authority, Professor Lawrence Lowell, of Harvard, in his work on the British Constitution, remarks somewhere that "a Colony may be governed by its own people or it may be governed by the Mother Country, but it cannot under normal conditions be effectively governed by both combined." I would not go quite as far as that eminent authority in one sense, for certainly all over the Empire we are getting very fruitful results from the combination and the co-operation of elected representatives and official administrators, but I think he is absolutely right in saying that a Colony cannot be governed unless in the last resort one authority or other finally prevails and finally enables a policy to be carried out or pledges given by a previous Government to become operative. It is, therefore, as a problem of a type of constitution not workable in itself, and not as a problem of special misgovernment on the part either of officials or of elected members, that we have to consider this matter. In their final conclusion, the Parliamentary Commission sum up the situation by saying:
"It appears to us essential, as well on the ground of immediate financial exigences as on that of future development, that the authorities finally responsible for the solvency and good government of the Colony should have power in the last resort to carry into effect measures which they consider essential for its well-being. This will involve an alteration in the Constitution, the precise nature which, we suggest, might he referred, in the first instance, to a local commission convened by the Governor to advise upon the steps which should be taken to confer power upon the Governor to carry into effect measures which he and the Secretary of State consider essential for the well-being of the Colony; and also what other improvements. if any, might he effected in the present Constitution."
Acting upon that recommendation, I asked the Governor, subject to the general lines laid down in this concluding paragraph, namely, the necessity that the authorities finally responsible should have power to carry into effect the measures they consider essential to the wellbeing of the Colony, to appoint a local commission to frame for themselves the form of amended Constitution which they would consider most desirable and most conducive to the prosperity of the Colony. The Commission consisted of two official and four unofficial members of the community, and their recommendations are unanimous.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether they were whites or coloured, whether they were planters or not?

I cannot say anything about the actual physical complexion of the members, though I can say that Mr. Hector Josephs, the Attorney-General, is a man of pure African descent, who has rendered conspicuous service to the Crown, both in his own Colony of Jamaica and in British Guiana. These members signed a unanimous Report, the only qualification being that one of the elected members added a note, in which he makes it plain that he would have signed the Report with alacrity if I had promised or even hinted that the result of the Report would be the grant of substantial financial assistance by His Majesty's Government, and that, though he would rather leave the Constitution unchanged, he regards the form of Constitution of which he has approved, together with his other colleagues, as the best to carry out the objects in view.

The local Commission decided that they would prefer to have one Legislative Chamber dealing with both finance and policy instead of two Chambers. They said that
"the preponderance of evidence was in favour of the abolition of the existing Court of Policy and Combined Court, and the substitution therefor of a single legislative body."
They expressed as their own opinion:
"We consider that the plan of dividing public business into financial and nonfinancial matters is not a satisfactory basis on which to frame a Constitution, especially as in all the major problems which face a Government financial and non-financial considerations are closely interwoven."
They, therefore, recommended the creation of a single Legislative Council, which should contain the whole of the existing 14 elected members, both of the Court of Policy and Combined Court, and they recommended no alteration in the franchise or in the number of representatives to be elected. Together with that, there is to be a body of official representatives and of nominated unofficial representatives which will enable the Governor to select from those various interests in the community, with the widest possible discretion—they laid great emphasis on that point—men who might not otherwise be represented; and in this body the official element together with the nominated unofficial element would have a majority of one.

With regard to the introduction of a nominated unofficial element, they expressed the view:
"It is our opinion, and the opinion of every witness who came before us that the introduction into the Legislature of such an element would be an improvement."
They also recommended that definite power should be given to the Governor
"to reserve, for his own decision, any matter which he and the Secretary of State consider essential to the good government of the Colony, but that this power should not be exercised without a previous reference to the Secretary of State (should such be possible), and in any event the Governor's action in this respect should be reviewed by the Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment."
They submitted a draft Clause of some length in the White Paper suggesting the way in which that reserve power might be framed. They believe the existence of the knowledge that there does reside somewhere in British Guiana final authority will
"naturally tend to the exercise on both sides of those qualities which make for agreement."
That then is the recommendation of the local Commission. They know their own conditions, and I have no desire to criticise or go behind their Report. My intention is to base the Order in Council modifying the Constitution of British Guiana upon the Report of the local Commission, and to follow it as closely as may be. I may add, however, that I am still in consultation with the delegation of elected members of the British Guiana Combined Court, who have come over to see how far there are any points on which we can agree between us to modifications which would not prejudice the general type of the new Constitution. That is all, I think, that I need say in commendation of this Bill, except to make one further point plain.

There is no question here of a going back on self-government in the British Empire. The last few years have, in many parts of the British Empire, seen a substantial advance towards fuller representation, in many cases towards a more responsible form of Government, as in the island of Malta, for instance, where a Constitution with precisely the same kind of weakness of divided responsibility had to be modified in 1903. That modification made way 15 years later for that wide measure of responsible Government that is enjoyed to-day. The question is not one of progress to or from self-government, but rather of enabling the car of government to back out of the cul de sac into which it has run, on to the straight high road of constitutional development. The present Constitution of British Guiana is a dead end, out of which there is no outlet for either political or economic development. My hope is that by establishing a Constitution which will lay the final responsibility for Government on the Governor of the Colony, subject to the ultimate authority of the Secretary of State and this House, you will create a condition of things under which the spirit of responsible co-operation and the progress of the Colony will enable the new Legislature to pave the way, in the fullness of time, for further constitutional developments, which are, I am afraid, clearly precluded by the present financial and general situation of the Colony.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

At the outset, I want to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in expressing the appreciation, I am sure, of all parties in the House for the excellent Report and work done by the Commission which went out there, for the information they have given, and anything that I have to say is in no sense a criticism of their work, but rather in appreciation of it. My point of difference will be as to whether or not the Government have taken the right way to meet the difficulties which the Commission have set before us, and in that respect I want to say that I think the House has some real ground for complaint that the important document of criticism by the elected members, consisting of 111 pages, in reply to points raised by the Commission, has been issued only this morning. I suggest to the House, irrespective of party, that it is a serious business to ask us to consider a matter which involves an important point of principle when we have important documents put into our hands only an hour or two before the discussion takes place in this House. It is impossible for any Member to get a full grip of all the points involved and the points of dispute put up by those from the Colony itself. Whether their points are well founded or not it will not do for it to go out from this House that we have dealt with them in so per- functory a manner as appears on the surface. I am in a favourable position, because I received a copy in advance from British Guiana, but that only emphasises the position in which the House finds itself in having this considerable document thrown at it in this manner. That alone is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of this Bill until the Members of the House have had an opportunity of considering the case and all the published documents in their relationship one with the other.

Having said that, one admits that there is a case to be made against the present administration of the Colony; conditions are such that bankruptcy seems to be staring it in the face, and there is certainly something to be said for a modified reorganisation or a reconsideration of the whole position. So far we are on common ground, and there is no dispute. We should have some grasp of all that is involved, both in the geographical situation of the Colony and its potential resources, and of the problems of constitutional government that are involved. It is an area larger than Great Britain, and it is the only foothold that we have on the South American Continent. It is geographically in relationship with America and the West Indies, which ought, one would think, to have opened up possibilities of great development of the rich potential resources that there are. It is possessed of great national wealth and a virgin soil. The extraordinary thing is that, if we compare the volume of trade between 1836 and 1925, as shown in the Report, we find that there is very little difference. In fact, I do not think that it would be wrong to say that, if you were to take into consideration the increased population, it has actually declined. The curious thing is that at a time in history when most of the people of the world live by taking in each other's washing, here is an opportunity of developing a Colony with great national resources where, somehow, the spirit of adventure, both in capital and emigration, seems to be sadly lacking. Whether that be so or not, the position we have to face is the position that has been sot up by the proposals now before us.

As the Minister has said, the Colony has shown for seven years a deficiency totalling something like £681,985. As a further instance of what is lacking in business acumen, the Commission draw attention to the fact that in 1925 no less an amount than 871,000 lbs. of refined sugar was imported into the Colony. When one remembers that sugar is the main industry of British Guiana, there does seem to be something to consider. The population is about 300,000, which is less than four to the square mile. All that is common ground, but it is an admission that there is a condition of affairs that calls for inquiry and quick and sympathetic action. It is a question, however, whether or not that sympathetic action is contained in the proposals of the Government. The Government proposals raise more problems than they solve, and here we have the Mother of Parliaments going back on the policy of representative government. That surely is a very serious position, and ought not to be lightly undertaken, even by supporters of the Government itself. We are asked to throw over a system of government that British Guiana has enjoyed for 120 years—surely a serious proposal. The line that we ought to have taken is to run the risks that are necessarily involved in the development of democratic government. That development does involve certain risks in its working out and the whole history of our own system of government shows it. Hardly any Colony or any of our Dominions will tell a different story. In the early stages of the development, say, of Canada and other places, we have the same story of muddle, sometimes of corruption, and sometimes of things that would not commend themselves at the present time. But gradually they worked through these things until there is now a system of government more or less in line with that which has been worked out in the British constitution.

Would we have acted in quite, the same manner as is proposed if the majority of the population of British Guiana had been white? There are one or two directions in which we might have taken a view altogether different from the view proposed. We are told that there is a difficulty in raising loans for the necessary capital in Guiana. The two things that British Guiana needs are population and capital. Sympathy has not been given to Guiana in regard to capital that may have been given to other Colonies, and, in fact, in the case of Western Australia, has been given; their financial position is certainly no better than that of British Guiana, and yet we have not hesitated to guarantee their loan under the Colonial Stock Acts. In spite of the communication that was sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago, there is no reason why they should not have been given the necessary guarantees in order that they might have raised their loan. I wonder whether we are acting strictly legally in the action that we are taking. We have to remember that the Colony is based on the terms of the Capitulation of 1803; in 1843 a similar constitutional crisis arose, and the then Secretary of State said that he had no legal authority to interfere in any way. Now, however, there seems to be quite a different point of view, and it seems as if we are going to ride roughshod over the people who are in the Colony. Surely the Imperial Government could have given a guarantee to raise the necessary money and could have taken the precautions necessary to see that it was properly administered without taking the step that they are now suggesting.

What are needed in Guiana above all things are railroad and harbour development, irrigation and drainage. According to the excellent map that has been given in the Report of the Commission, there seems only one very small portion of first-class road for the whole of the Colony. That is just a little strip on the Atlantic coast. Sympathetic help and assistance from this side could have been given with proper safeguards, which undoubtedly could have been devised, in order to develop the laying down of roads and of their harbours, the chief one of which has been put out of action by silting up, and to help them in their irrigation and drainage. That would have been a much better line of action than that which is now proposed, namely, the handing over of the government very largely into the hands of absentee planters in their interest rather than development to the advantage of the community. I am not sure that the Government themselves in recent years have not contributed somewhat to the economic disasters that have befallen the Government in Guiana. Quite recently, their sugar crop was bad. They sought to adjust that by going in for rubber plantation. The Government restriction on rubber prevented them going on with it, at any rate according to the statements we get from that side.

Restriction in British Guiana?

According to the statements supplied to us, the restriction applied there also. I should be glad to hear that that is incorrect. There was, however, a check placed on the possibilities of development in this direction. Incidentally, all that the restrictions have done is to make fortunes for Dutch merchants rather than to help our own people. The line that we should have taken was to reform the existing machinery of government and of the franchise. What we propose to do is to hand the people over to the Colonial Office. The Governor himself is going to have supreme power in the last resort, and the people are going to have no control over finance. To talk about giving a people government without control over finance is like taking the mainspring out of a watch and expecting it to work. Our own history shows that the central feature of our system of government is the right of the people to have the control of finance. Admittedly, they have made blunders and they have often bungled badly; nevertheless, it has worked out to a larger freedom both economically and for the people themselves. The stupid export duties have done a good deal, also, to cripple the development of trade in Guiana. We should have put education on to a proper and uniform basis. I know there are local objections in that regard, because under the present system they are more or less able to keep a certain amount of local control, but that is one of the essentials, and we might have helped them in that direction, and given some devolution of responsibility rather than take away their whole system of representative government, as it is now proposed to do.

I want to put in a word or two with regard to some of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Colony. I have been approached by some of those who have had connection with missionary enterprise out there and who say that gradually the position of these people is being made very much harder by encroachments of other people. We know that the main population of British Guiana is gathered round the coast. There is very little population in the wide hinterland, which even at this stage of the world's history is practically unknown territory inhabited by a. few hands of nomad Indians. The wealth consists of bauxite, sugar, and of that wonderful green-heart wood of which I believe they have almost a monopoly. There is also a diamond industry which is declining, and in view of what has recently happened in South Africa it may be of less value still in future. None the less, there are Undoubtedly great possibilities of making this one of the best wealth-producing parts of the Empire, and one which would provide a means of livelihood to a very much larger population. It ought to be rather a suitable area for the surplus population of our Indian Empire, although there seem to be difficulties from that point of view. The Colony has not worked to increase the vitality of the Indian race or to establish a general standard of physical well-being.

With regard to the aborigines, I wish to ask the Secretary of State to consider what steps can be taken to safeguard their position and to see that ample reservations are made for them. There are certain reservations for the coast aborigines and a certain allowance is made with respect to Crown lands, but with the gradual encroachment on these the possibilities are getting even less in that respect. It is of the Savannah Indians of whom I am thinking at the moment. One of the largest export trades is in balata, which is collected under licences, extending over areas up to 250 square miles, for five to 15 years. I understand it is collected largely by black labour under Government administration or by aborigine Indians, and in the result the non-aborigines are ousting the aborigines. According to the Report, the aborigine Indians are of value in the surveys made in the forests. There is an opportunity here for using them economically and at the same time affording them work that suits their natural aptitude in the Savannah districts, by employing them in forestry survey work and protecting them in the collection of balata.

We have a moral obligation in this matter. One of the ugliest chapters in the development of other parts of the world has been the conduct of the old world to the aboriginal inhabitants of new lands. The least we can do in this case is to try somehow or other to make the lives of these aborigines more tolerable, to lead them to other ways of life, and to make them an economic unit in the nation itself. I suggest one or two alternatives that the Secretary of State might have put forward before he came down to the House with the proposals that he has made. What he is doing is to place this Colony very much in the position in which his colleague the Minister of Health has placed Bedwellty and West Ham and Poplar. He is putting a caretaker in and depriving the people of the power of self-government and of working out their own salvation. He is making a blot on the escutcheon of this country, in a way for which there is no precedent. He is going back on a form of elected government that has been enjoyed for a long period in order to place the people under the tutelage proposed by the Bill. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman has caught the House unfairly in that hon. Members have not been in possession of all the information necessary for this discussion to- day.

The right hon. Gentleman might have put before the House other proposals before he made the proposals of the Bill. For instance, he might have gone very much on the lines of the borough councils, in which the elected members can serve on various departmental committees. That would have afforded a far better way of working out the economic salvation of this Colony, and would have done a great deal to disarm the criticism and the opposition that arises from the people themselves. Or elected members could have been placed on the Executive and given some responsibility for departments. Relatively near are Barbadoes and the Bahamas, where there is a large measure of self-government and greater executive power, and those examples might have been followed. There is yet one other plan. Although I am not committing myself to it, it would be well if the House could have an opportunity of considering it. That is the proposal of Lord Irwin, who suggested dividing the coast government from the hinterland. The House ought to have had an opportunity of discussing these various things. Hon. Members have had the subject thrown at them in such a way that there is danger of inflicting a form of Government on the Colony which the Colony does not want. The scheme is bound to raise a great deal of criticism. It is going back on all that we have done over our long period of history. In regard to one of the suggestions I have made, there is a precedent in the case of South Australia, though here I am open to correction. I believe South Australia did have some form of divided government in regard to the large tropical area which was placed under the Commonwealth of Australia. To have copied that plan in British Guiana would not have been a new experiment. If rumours be true, Western Australia seems to be making suggestions to be treated in a. similar way.

By such a method we would be able to help the colonists to develop and realise the potential wealth that is in their country. The most formidable proposal of all in the Bill and the one that arouses the keenest resentment is the proposal that special reservations should be made on the new council for the absentee planters to be represented. That is a most reprehensible form of government and ought not to be encouraged in any way. The people living in the Colony have to live their daily life there and have responsibilities as citizens. They are the people who are mostly concerned and who should be mostly considered with regard to this system of government. I ask the Secretary of State even now to consider whether it would not be better to defer proceeding with this Bill until the House has had an opportunity to read all the relevant papers and to inform itself fully as to all the problems involved, before committing itself to something which is a retrogressive step in the history of the British Constitution and Parliamentary Government.

I rise to support the Bill as the only native-born British Guianan in this House. My family connection with British Guiana goes back for about five generations, and, as a matter of fact, the much-abused articles of capitulation, which have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the rejection of the Bill, were drawn up by the Secretary of Governor Meertens in 1803, who was my great grandfather, P. F. Tinne. With regard to these articles of capitulation I am not going to say anything further, except that though well abused they have managed to stand for 125 years, and that is not a bad record. I propose to confine myself to facts, of which there are plenty to support the Bill, and I shall leave controversy as far as possible to others. There has been a good deal of printers' ink, as may be seen by the documents, and a good deal of breath already spent on the subject, and I do not propose to contribute more than I can help. The main basic fact is, that a Colony which, it is on all hands agreed, has great potential wealth, has been stagnant for nearly a century and a half. The causes are lack of population, indolence and ill-health from tropical conditions, difficulty of access, and in the past racial antipathy, which is at last beginning to disappear. The remedy is being sought in this Bill, and I have great hopes that the Government are going to achieve it.

The authorities for the statements I am making date right back to Sir Walter Raleigh's days and come down the centuries. There are the records of Storm von S'gravesande, one of the old Dutch Governors, published by the Hakluyt Society; Waterton's Wanderings in South America; Stedman's Narrative; Bolingbroke's Voyage in 1807, Dalton's History; Henry Kirk's; The Files of Timehri, whose founder and first editor was Sir E. im Thurn, the greatest living authority on the Indians of Guiana. He, unfortunately, never returned to the Colony as Governor. He was the originator and founder of that journal and during the many years of its existence there were numerous references to all the questions which are dealt with in the Report. Sub- sequently there were local journals, the "Argosy," and "Daily Chronicle," one of whose representatives is in the delegation at present in this country. There are also numerous references throughout the various issues of the West Indian Committee Circular. Nearly every Governor in his annual report has commented on various things ever since I can remember.

5.0. p.m.

Let me say a word on the question of the aborigines, which was brought up by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. He spoke of lack of population and put in a word for the aborigines. There is a relatively small number of real natives—probably about 20,000 nomad Indians belonging to the tribes of Carib, Acawai, Arawak and Macusi. Sir C. Clementi, who had a good deal to do with them in traveling in the interior, definitely stated that he believed the tribes were never more numerous than that. With regard to that, if you read Sir Arthur Helps' "History of the Spanish Conquest of South America," and realise the dreadful slaughter of the aboriginal Indians afterwards, that statement is open to some doubt; but there is no doubt that like any nomad tribe, they are undoubtedly dying out gradually before the advance of civilisation, and I very much doubt whether anything we can do will prevent it. It is absolutely useless to offer them employment of the ordinary type or to try to induce them to come into settlements, because they will not come. They are Indians, they are ferœ naturæ, they belong to the wild, and will not come in: and small blame to them from my point of view. But the real natives of the Colony, if one can describe them as natives, are what we West Indians describe as Creoles. In Paragraph A7 of the Delegation's answer to the Report, the memorandum by the elective members states that the bulk of those described as Creoles include many exotic stocks born in Guiana, a large number of East Indians, a rather smaller number of negroes, who came there originally as slaves, a number of Madeiran Portuguese, who were brought in at a time when the sugar planters attempted to get indentured labour from Madeira, a few of the old Dutch settlers and some English, and all grades in between as the result of inter-marriage, and, of course, there are also Chinese. Then the term "creole" is locally extended to include even native-bred farm animals, that is, those born locally as distinguished from imported; and they even go as far as using "creole" in referring to vegetable products, speaking of "creole rice" instead of rice grown locally in the Colony.

The memorandum of the electives absolutely denies that there is any racial antipathy. As an old colonist, I am only too happy to accept their assertion, but if their memories went back as far as mine they would recall that there were many riots in days not far back which were undoubtedly due to racial antipathy, and I regard that factor as one of the causes of the Colony's delayed development. I do not want to dwell upon it, but I mention it because it is a fact which must be taken into account. With regard to the lack of population, the first remedy for this is undoubtedly, to encourage immigration, and the second is better health conditions and improved sanitation, securing a natural increase by the reduction of infant mortality, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The old indentured immigration has gone by the board. What we hope to see now is a satisfactory colonisation scheme whereby families with a proper proportion of women and children will be brought in as settlers in place of people coming as indentured immigrants, to be returned when their term of indenture is up. We want these immigrants to stay to form a permanent population. The Colony can offer to the East Indian, who has been our most satisfactory immigrant—I am speaking now from the sugar point of view—a home which is just as suitable for him as the home which Canada or Australia offers to white migrants. Our motto Damus petimusque vicissim asks for reciprocity, but in the almost impossible conditions which the Indian Government has required of us before giving us immigrants there seems to be some inversion of Canning's old gibe against the original Dutch colonials in his rhyming despatch of January, 1826:
"In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
Is giving too little and asking too much."
As a matter of fact, we want to give them land and all sorts of other inducements to come, and yet the Indian Government are "sticking" us, I suppose because we are rather easily "stickable." We would be only too glad to welcome Indians and to give them the most satisfactory conditions when they arrive.

As regards the question of a natural increase of population by improved sanitation and so on, may I be excused for bragging, but the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is the pioneer in such matters, is doing much by research and teaching to improve tropical conditions, and we look for great results from the metazoan immunity research, upon which we are now engaged. For a grant towards this work we have to thank the Empire Marketing Board. The London Tropical School is also doing fine work, with its larger resources, and so, also, is the Ross Institute. At the moment we are hoping to secure immunity from certain diseases in the tropics, and I trust that the London School will also take up the same line of research and help us with it.

In the past there has always been a lack of continuity of policy arising from the constant changes of governors and officials. If, for instance, the Secretary of State for the Colonies could come with me and take a walk along the sea shore in Demarara, and observe the "common objects," he would see the remains of various pet schemes for sea defence of successive colonial civil engineers, which have been referred to in various reports regarding waste of money. In front of one estate with which I am connected he would see a regular museum of curiosities, including loose stone boxwork groynes and remains of fascine work. He would see high groynes upon which one colonial engineer pinned his faith, and low groynes upon which another colonial engineer pinned his faith, and he would see, further, enclosures for trapping silt, planted with marram grass to hold it together, which were the device of another civil engineer. The only permanent work which has stood the test of time is Baron Siccama's sea wall, which was built in the 70's. He was a Dutch engineer who was engaged specially to complete the job, and not merely for a term. I commend that system to His Majesty's Government, because the practice of engaging men for a short term, or employing them for a short term, and letting them go before they have finished the job, does not conduce to efficiency, in my view. Only those who have kept up their own sea frontage at great expense, and then seen the Atlantic come pouring over their land through a breach in the defences of their neighbours can realise the bitterness of spirit with which one speaks.

Worst of all have been the constant disputes between the Governors and the Court of Policy, and the resulting stalemates. There is hardly a Governor, and I have personally known most of them since childhood, who has not had such disputes—going back from His Excellency the present Governor, Sir C. H. Rodwell, to Sir Graeme Thomson, Sir Wilfred Collett—I remember his having a dispute about rice; Sir Walter Egerton, who had a dispute about the local mail steamer contracts; dear old Sir Frederick Hodgson, who was, in his day, a very great man; Sir James Swettenham—I think he had frequent trials, I can remember one or two myself; Sir Augustus Hemming, Sir Walter Sendall, Sir Charles Lees, Sir C. J. Kortright and Lord Gormanston. There have been many others, if one could remember them all, and hardly one of them ever got through without one or two disputes with the Court of Policy.

I belong to the well-abused plantocracy, and I have no false modesty in stating my belief that the prosperity of the Colony varies with the prosperity of sugar and depends upon it. As regards paragraph A5 in the Delegation's memorandum, and the references in the West Indian Royal Commission's Report and in the Snell-Wilson Report, it presumably does not occur to any of our critics that the sugar planter must be tolerably efficient if he is going to survive at all. At all events, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) may give me credit for having at once started to test his theory about the growing of ground nuts, so far, I am sorry to say, without success, but I am going on trying, and I hope to have a better report later. That is true of planters at all times. We cannot afford not to be up to date and not to try any possible crop which shows a prospect of success—any proposal either for a change in cultural methods or the growing of alternative crops, and our support of the Imperial Tropical Agricultural College in Trinidad is surely proof of that. We are not afraid of spending money in order to help things along. We are not afraid of trying new things. We want to try new things. It is our business to do so. In my time I have tried, and am still trying where there is any prospect of success, coffee, cocoa and rubber.

An hon. Member opposite talked about restrictions on rubber. If he would like some rubber I will bring him some which I have grown myself. Other crops which I have tried include kola, fibres, nutmeg and spices and citrus fruits—in fact, anything that comes along, even cotton. I am sorry to say I cannot grow cotton at an economic price, though I can grow very good cotton. Therefore I think our critics might give us the credit for having ordinary commonsense and knowing something about our own business. A censorious critic, after I had refused to try some wild cat experiment, said of me once, that I had no public spirit and was merely competent. The West Indian planters who remain have survived Continental bounties and the closing of the United States market, and now that Imperial preference is an accomplished fact, and that we have a beet subsidy in this country, the shade of Sir Nevile Lubbock and others who ran the Anti-bounty League must sometimes smile down in the Elysian fields when they consider the present policy.

We have reached the stage in the history of the Colony at which timid treatment is comparable to medical fiddling when a drastic surgical operation is really necessary to restore the patient's health. However much I may differ in detail from this and that statement in the Report, I whole-heartedly support its main recommendation to place the Colony under Crown Colony government. An old colonial gourmet once said that whoever ate labba—which is a succulent dish—and drank creek water would return to the Colony to die. Under that prophesy I am due to go back there and die in due course. Of course, I may not physically fulfil the requirements, but perhaps when Charon ferries me across the Styx and I meet my great grandfather, I shall be able to justify myself by saying to him with a clear conscience that I thoroughly support this proposal for giving a Second Reading to this Bill.

Perhaps the House will forgive me if I preface the few remarks I have to offer to-day with a personal word. My fellow Commissioner the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) is in no way responsible for any view or opinion which I may express to-day, and I should be very sorry to repay him for his unfailing courtesy and consideration by associating him in any way with views with which he may disagree. I do not think it would be useful for me to try to cover all the ground gone over in the Report which we had the honour of presenting to the Secretary of State. Our business this afternoon is to deal with the proposals regarding the constitution, and yet no one can understand the reason for the recommendation we made unless the whole problem of the Colony is taken into consideration. There is no key problem which unlocks all the rest. The problems of the Colony are so interlocked that the question has to be looked at as a whole. So far as I can find, it is agreed on all hands that some change in the constitution is required. The electives agree that such a chang is required, and it is agreed by everybody in the Colony not only that a change is desirable, hut that it cannot be delayed for long. What we have to consider is not a change that would conform to our ultimate political ideals, but one that would help us to overcome pressing difficulties at the present time. In the history of its constitution there has always been friction between what we may call the electives on one side and the Government on the other side, and no one is entitled to point to the present electives and say that they have themselves created these difficulties.

In regard to the powers of the Crown, the emancipation of slaves, free trade at home, and things of that kind, the Colony pursued a deliberately selfish policy; indeed the reform of 1891 arose out of the action of the old order in refusing to vote the salaries of the sanitary authorities who were trying to improve health conditions on the sugar estates.

Therefore, we must not assume that the troubles which are in existence at the present time in the Colony have been created by the present generation. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has already pointed out that the constitution of this Colony is unique in the British Constitution. It is rather cumbersome; it is not fair to the Government or to the people. No constitution which perpetually embarrasses a Government on the one hand, and on the other hand gives to the electives only the shadow and withholds the substance of government can be counted as proper and effective. The real question before the members of the Commission and before this House is, what shall be done in the way of a change which everybody desires having regard to opinion in the Colony which is, quite naturally, very sharply divided. One party desires that the Government should have increased power to carry out its policy in its own way. As opposed to that, another party desires that the powers of the Government should actually be reduced, and that extended powers should be given to the elected section of the community.

The Combined Court has been accused of having frightened away capital, of having created industrial insecurity, and so on. On the other hand, the Government have been accused of being responsible for the difficulties that exist because they have been guilty of delay in granting concessions. They are also accused of muddling their estimates, and responsibility is thrown from one side to the other. The crisis which has arisen in British Guiana is not unique in the history of our Empire experience. It always happens that when a people grow up towards self-government they have aspirations for larger powers, and when the people concerned are white people, that crisis results in self-government such as has been given to the Dominion of Southern Rhodesia, and elsewhere. When you are dealing with a mixed or coloured population, you have a crisis such as that which exists to-day in India, Kenya, Ceylon and British Guiana. When a crisis of that kind arises, the philosophy of the Labour party and of myself is that we should try at all costs to secure the co-operation of the people affected. First of all, we should endeavour to secure good government for their country; and secondly, by a suitable adjustment of machinery to give to the people that training which will enable them, in due time, to have full and complete self-government.

That may appear to be a contradiction of the recommendation which the Commission made to the Secretary of State. On the lines on which the Colony now finds itself there is no hope of progress, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman spoke correctly when he said that the Colony was in a cul de sac, and it is necessary to get it back into the main stream of British development. On the lines on which the Colony is now proceeding it cannot go much further, but if it is brought into the main stream of British development there is no reason at all why, within a comparatively short time, it should not have complete self-government. It is necessary in estimating the problem before us to make certain discounts. First of all, it is necessary to discount the vehemence of some of the criticisms of the elected members in their memorandum. On the other hand, it is necessary to discount some of the official criticisms of the elected members. These criticisms of elected members are common form throughout the Empire. Officials always have a rather poor opinion of the elected person, and if we could penetrate into the minds of Government Departments in our own country we should probably be shocked to find the low opinion they have of hon. Members of this House. Therefore, let us not be unfair to the elected members of the Colony. They may lack administrative experience and they may lack the wisdom that we think they should possess, but on the whole we may find in the development of the affairs of the Colony that their indigenous intuition will carry the Colony quite as far as expert administrative advice, which is often detached and only temporary.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has described the financial position, and I only desire to deal with that question in a general way. First of all, allow me to say that had the Commissioners to write their Report again they would withdraw nothing that they have said. The only difference they would make would be to place additional emphasis on the financial criticisms they have made. The financial position of the Colony is the fault of nobody. It is not the fault of the electives or of the Government. It is the fault, first of all, of the political system under which the Colony is governed. In the second place, it is due to the unfavourable economic conditions. The Colony has been passing through a very difficult time. There has been a period of drought and depression in the sugar industry, and there had to be a great sea-wall built at a heavy cost. This was absolutely necessary for the well-being of the Colony, but it involved vast overhead charges which are too high for a population of 300,000 people to bear. These things have tended to create a financial crisis in the Colony.

The question of the reserve power and the certification of the loans of the Colony under the Colonial Stock Acts has increased the difficulty. It is calculated that the Colony could not issue at the present time a loan under 6 per cent., but even the reserve power is not the only thing involved. The Customs and Tax Ordinances have to be introduced each year, and that creates a kind of insecurity which finds expression in the shyness of investors generally. Let me point out that the electives themselves appear to be quite willing to face the question of a reserve power in that respect. This is what they say:
"They feel that it the Colony should be reduced to such a position that it could not meet its financial obligations, the Secretary of State for the Colonies might then be entitled to recommend a change in the Constitution, and only then."
That means that the thing is to drift until a financial crisis arises, and then the British taxpayer is once more to relieve the people in that position. That is a matter upon which the House must make up its mind. Are you going to allow a Constitution of that kind to drift, or are you going to endeavour to find some means of preventing the worst from happening A good deal of emphasis has been placed upon the question of the reserve power and the evil that it was likely to effect. The Commissioners say:
"It is a very rare occurrence indeed for the Government to be unsuccessful in matters of any importance whatever in securing a decision in its favour in the Combined Court."
If it is a very rare occurrence that the Combined Court conies into conflict with the Government, it would be a still rarer occurrence when the reserve power granted would ever have to be used. I want to answer a criticism which has been made in regard to the position of the Commissioners. One criticism is that the sugar interests of the Colony, finding themselves defeated at the polls, seek to regain control through a gerrymandered Constitution, and therefore a Commission was appointed to do what was necessary in that direction. One of them especially was the blind and dutiful menial of the Government, on the one hand, and of the planters on the other. From what I have learned of the history of the sugarcrats of the Colony, let me say that I received no encouragement at all to replace power in their hands. In my judgment, they were in no small degree responsible for the position in which the Colony finds itself. They were interested only in the fertile strip of land on the coast; they were hostile, and to-day they remain indifferent, to the development of the interior an a whole. They did extraordinarily well. They consumed the profits of the fat years, and put nothing away for lean years. It was a great place for them in those days; sugar was not only sweet, but profitable. They thought of the Colony as Falstaff thought of Mistress Page:
"She bears the purse, too; she is a region in Guiana, all gold and bounty."
That was the old order. As between plantocracy and democracy, there is a great deal to be said for democracy, and I, therefore, want to put thin question before the House: If a change is inevitable, as is on all hands agreed, what shall that change be? That is what we have to decide. The members of the Commission received no instructions; they might have ignored the question altogether in the hope that the Colony would muddle through to some kind of renewed prosperity. But to ignore a problem is not to solve it, and no body, charged with the responsibility with which the Commissioners were charged, could ignore the expert advice that was put before them; they had to face the problem whether they would or no.

Or, secondly, they might have suggested that the powers of the Govern- ment should be reduced, but there would in any case have been practical difficulties along those lines. It would most certainly have intensified such crisis as exists, and, if a Colony is to be handed over to a self-governing people, I should prefer it to be at a time when it was free from embarrassment, when we were not putting upon the people a load and a burden and a responsibility which they would be unable to bear. I hope that, in due course, the Colony will get self-government, but you could not hand over a Colony to the people in the condition in which it is now. I think that, in the circumstances, I might ask without offence, and I think that the House has a right to hear, precisely what critics would have recommended. Something has to be done; what shall it be? I had my own scheme, which, if necessary, I could have put forward, but,, like a good democrat, I felt that it was the right thing to refer the whole matter to the Colony itself to discuss. Our recommendation on that matter was quite specific. It said:
"Whether ultimate control can best be exercised through the medium of the reserve power, or by securing control through the nominated members of the Combined Court, is a matter for discussion, which might be referred in the first instance for consideration to a strong local Commission appointed by the Governor. In view of the very special importance of this Commission, every effort should he made to enlist the assistance of the best brains of the Colony, and men with experience of other political systems as well as of local affairs."
I preferred a nominated majority if it had to be, rather than reserve power, because I thought it would be less likely to bring his Excellency the Governor into conflict with the Colony, and, secondly, because I thought it would be more easily modified when the time for revision came. But let it be understood that the Electives themselves accept the reserve power if it is accompanied by some sort of help from the Government.

On the question of the reserve power, may I say that I think it is an enormously serious thing to do what the House is asked to do to-day. I am not underrating it at all; it caused me the greatest personal anxiety; but I thought it right that the Colony should have the opportunity of examining the matter itself and seeing whether, by accommodation on both sides, an agreement could not be reached. The local report, however, seems to be, from my standpoint, a disappointment. The Electives would have done far better at my hands than they have done for themselves. This proposal of the local Commission abolishes the electoral financial control; it abolishes the very slight legislative check that exists; it creates a new executive power which, in some ways, is unique in British Colonies, and, although it is only to be used in cases of supreme importance, there is always a danger that it may be stretched to cover trivial things. The only set-off against what I think are serious proposals is the addition of nominated members, and that, again, will depend upon the quality of those members and what they actually represent.

I do not know how the elected members who were on that Commission could have signed that document. It contains things that I never would have signed. I could not have signed on this question of reserve power without having a considerably extended franchise. I should have wanted a definite time limit in regard to the reserve power, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman now, is it not possible to meet the difficulty by saying that the question shall be reconsidered in the course of a few years—say five years, or whatever is a right period? Then there is the question of double security. I can understand, in the condition in which the Colony is placed, that the Government desire to have either the reserve power or a nominated majority, but I do not know why they want both. It seems to me, therefore, that their report does not meet the desire of the Colony to achieve some improvement, in the way that is likely to secure the best results. When these criticisms have been made, it does give to the Electives an entirely new status, and that should not be overlooked. It brings them on to the Executive Council of the Colony; it makes them statesmen rather than critics; it gives them powers of initiative, and, if I personally had to choose between that and the present undignified and irresponsible position in which they are now placed, I should prefer what is now offered.

I wish to say again that I must not associate my fellow-Commissioner with my views on the matter about which I now propose to speak. Let me say to my own party that our Report never once goes outside the philosophy for which I have always stood, namely, that of State supremacy in regard to the land. If you read the Memorandum of the Electives, you see that, 50 times almost, it invites a capitalist invasion into the Colony, asking for concessions here and opportunities there for capitalistic development. It is, therefore, a question of what attitude we must take in regard to the natural wealth and resources of the Colony. It may be that these concessions have to be given, but, if they have to be given, they should be given by the Government, who could exact terms which would be equitable to the exploiters as well as to the Colony as a whole. Let me point out what happened in America. At the time of the Confederation, the State owned all the land between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and, with the addition of the Louisiana purchase, that amounted to 3,000,000 square miles. Every bit of that passed into private ownership; every land thief had his fill. The same thing, more or less, happened in Canada and Australia. British Guiana now represents one of the places where the land, in the main, still belongs to the State, and I personally want to feel that, as long as it can be, that land is kept as a heritage for the people themselves. Some day the people of the Colony, who are now putting all their emphasis on this theoretical question of the reserve power may wake up to find that their natural wealth, their natural heritage, has been grafted out of their possession.

There is another point. We on this side of the House do not support self-government for Kenya at present, because we think that the natives are not able as yet to protect themselves as against the white settler. Neither do I think that the whole of the people of British Guiana are yet able to protect themselves against the inroads of the concession hunter and the economic invader. I ask the African people of that Colony, especially, to remember and to beware lest the slavery of yesterday is succeeded by the serfdom of to-morrow, as it will be if the lands and the forests and the minerals pass out of their hands. I want those things to be a free heritage for them from generation to generation. If the final power in that regard rests in the hands of the Secretary of State, he will be responsible to this House for what he does in regard to alienating that land from the people.

I want to conclude by referring to a brighter side than this rather sad economic story. Personally, I found the people in the Colony immensely attractive, and I am sure I should have become very much attached to them if I had known them longer. All of them seemed to me to be attractive and nice people. The African, especially, is a joyous, docile, industrious and loyal citizen. He has acquired a certain serenity which we hate not acquired for ourselves. That is illustrated by what one of them said to a white man. He said, "Well boss, it's like this. The white man sits down and thinks about his troubles till he just goes and shoots himself. The black man sits down and thinks about his troubles till he just naturally falls asleep." He, therefore, has gained a serenity that is denied to us. The East Indian is fundamentally an agriculturist, a splendid colonist, and it is nothing short of a tragedy that India is unwilling to assist in helping her sons to go to British Guiana, where their economic conditions would be superior beyond all comparison to those which they enjoy at home. Then some criticism has been made of the Commissioners in regard to the question of the loyalty of the Colonists. Let me say that, so far as I know, no one has a right to say a word about the loyalty of these people. I found them proud of their Colony, proud of their partnership in the British Empire, and in every way they seemed to me to be a desirable set of colonists. In some ways they have got spiritual gains which are most marked. They have no trouble over racial divisions and, whether they are African or Asiatic, whether they are Chinese or Portuguese, whatever they are, they live together as one people, wanting merely the good of their Colony as they see it. That is the most important thing of all. With that as a basis to build upon, no one need despair of the Colony overcoming these present difficulties.

I wish to say one word in regard to myself. I do not propose to reply to the stream of abuse that has been poured upon me from the Colony except in one matter which affects the Governor of the Colony and his staff. It was said that, in contradistinction to other Labour Members who had visited the Colony, I was forbidden to associate there with my own people and to make political speeches there. I received, I need hardly tell the House, no advice on the matter. I was charged with a very high and responsible duty, and I should have unfitted myself for the task if I had so forgotten myself as to make political speeches. The way of the constitution-maker is notoriously hard, and I do not know that anyone has a right to complain. It is work that no man would seek. It brings only the wages of reproach and repudiation. But if a man is called to that work, he is not from any motive of ease or discomfort entitled to decline it. The Commissioners were faced with a very heavy and responsible duty, and they had to look the facts straight in the face and to report, not as they would wish things to be according to their political ideals, but as they found them now—positions that had to be met. They were in a position in which they had a problem to face such as that which Browning deals with in "Bishop Blougram's Apology," Their problem was
"Not. to fancy what were fair in life Provided it could be,—but, finding first What may be, then how to make it fair Up to our means: a very different thing"!
I am sure the House as a whole will believe that the Commissioners, free, unguided, uncoerced, brought to their high task their highest powers, and when the Colony has turned this difficult period in her history, and she is marching on the free highway towards prosperity and self-government, I, far one, shall not be ashamed to have been associated with the beginning of her new and fuller life.

As I happen to have just returned from British Guiana on an all too short visit, perhaps the House will allow me to give a few impressions I brought back as far as they bear upon this Bill. I am sure in all sections of the House we listened with the deepest interest to the speech that has just been delivered. Its tone and its calm judicial understanding and sympathetic character must, I am sure, have dispelled any fears we may have had when the hon. Member rose to his feet. It is a happy illustration of the tendency of these Empire matters to move out of the range of ordinary party controversy. We owe that in no small measure to the great degree in which hon. Members are now travelling oversea and also to the fact that, whatever their political complexion here, they find when they reach those oversea countries and forget their party divisions here, that they are received with a welcome and a cordiality which is often embarrassing and very surprising. That was my fortune in British Guiana, and I gather it was also the good fortune of my two hon. Friends who formed this Commission. I did not go there with any direct personal interest in the Colony or any of its industries. I went there, as many other Members have gone to other parts of the Empire, as an independent Member of Parliament, keenly sympathetic and anxious to observe and to learn. I am bound to say, looking at it from that point of view, I share the regret expressed from the Front Opposition Bench that these important documents were not put before the House at a period when they could be given more detailed consideration. They cover a very wide range of subjects, and I am sure it must have been through some misadventure, and not by deliberate intention, that the House did not have the documents at an earlier period.

But, after all, this it not a new story. It is a very old story, and the main points of that story have been before those who have taken part in Empire discussions for very many years. The only way of solution has been pretty clear for some time, and therefore, although these documents are only now put before the House in detail, the main facts of the problem have been before the public for a great many years. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that this is a very serious step that Parliament is asked to take. We pride ourselves upon the development of the British Empire from precedent to precedent, moving nearly always on lines of greater freedom but always on the basis of proved capacity for self-government. It is, as we know, a most difficult thing to govern oneself. It is a far more difficult thing for a community to govern itself. We have talked a great deal in the past decade about self-determination, but we have learned something about the limitations of self-determination, and I feel myself that British Guiana is an illus- tration of those limitations. I know there is a contention, which you find in these official documents put forward by the elected members, that British Guiana in this matter of self-government stands apart. We are asked to remember that British Guiana is a sovereign State. That phrase is actually used by one of the elected members. We are reminded that it was not conquered, like Canada, nor settled, like Australia, and one elected member who has taken a prominent part in the discussion has gone so far as to suggest that the Secretary of State could, if he wished, deprive Canada or Australia of its constitution, but my right hon. Friend knows enough of the movement of opinion and the status of the Dominions to-day not to anticipate any proposal of that sort. He says, while that could possibly be done, you could not deprive British Guiana of its constitution except by reconquest or consent.

I will not attempt to get into the rarefied air of Constitution niceties, but I would beg the House to ask itself what is the good of a Constitution if it does not work? The plain truth of the matter is that this Constitution in British Guiana does not work. It is not fitted to modern conditions, or to the needs of development with which the Colony is immediately faced. My hon. Friend has referred to the long drawn-out character of these difficulties. If you go back to 1848 you will find much the same happenings, much the same refusal of supplies and the same deadlock as you find to-day. All through this period you have had this fact, that the elected members have control in effect without responsibility, while the Government have responsibility without control, and the result has been what one elected member has called a bewildering and kaleidoscopic state of things. In 35 years there have been 17 administrators. How can a man who is trying to lead the Colony into effective economic administration help being discouraged in the face of a deadlock of that kind? It is said in this book, "It is our own little mess out here. Let us clear it up ourselves." But the point of the problem is that it has not been cleared up, and it gets worse. The debt is unliquidated. There are abundant openings on every hand, but there is no security for new capital or enterprise to develop the resources of the Colony. Political freedom is futile if it means merely a freedom to make a mess of things or to stand in the way of progress.

I suppose this Empire has never known a more liberalising statesman than Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was Prime Minister of Canada. I had an intimate talk with him on the first visit he paid to this country in 1897, when the South African trouble was piling up to the climax that came with the South African War. In the course of conversation I sought to ascertain what his view was of President Kruger's attitude in standing in the way, as I thought, of progress in South Africa. I said, he is claiming the rights of self-government; he is claiming the power of his people to manage their own country as they please. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stopped me and said, "That is not the true point of view. No man, whatever his position, and no Constitution have a right to stand in the way of the proper development of a country's resources."

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he would know that his idea of development was not an undemocratic one. Later on, when the trouble came, we know what part Canadian troops took in giving South Africa the first step in the freedom she now happily enjoys.

I have tried to look at this question independently, and I am bound to say I see no better way than this Bill. I regret it. I wish some other way had been possible, but I think no other way is available, and the sooner this Bill is passed and the Colony can go forward to its task of development, the better it will be all round. I am not going to say there are no risks. I think there are risks. I am not going to say the, Colonial Office, in its administration, is always wise. No one is always wise in this world. In fact I have found out that the Colonial Office is not always loved. I suppose that would be true of many of the Colonies of the British Empire. In fact, a delegation came to me in British Guiana, and asked me, knowing that I had some associations with Canada, whether I thought there was any prospect of British Guiana being brought within that Dominion so as to escape the constant, watchful eye of Downing Street. I discussed the matter with them, and pointed out the difficulties in the way of a solution of that kind. Canada has always prided herself upon a freedom from the colour problem. Furthermore, there could not be any special arrangement between Canada and British Guiana which did not also remember the existence of Jamaica and Trinidad, but I pointed out, "If you get rid of your constitutional difficulties, if you give security to capital you may look forward to the introduction of Canadian capital and Canadian enterprise to assist you in the development of the undoubtedly great resources that you possess."

6.0 p.m.

One hon. Gentleman has spoken of the degradation of descending to Crown Colony government. I would ask him to remember that in the British Empire there are a great variety of Crown Colony governments. I see, for instance, that the Acting-Governor of British Guiana when discussing the matter with the elected members pointed out to them that it might be the idea of those in power that 50 per cent. Crown Colony government was not quite enough, but that possibly 75 per cent. or something of that sort would suit the case. It would be very interesting if the Secretary of State could tell us what he himself has in his mind, following upon this Bill. in the way of the legislature that this Colony is to possess. I think Members of the House, when they come to reflect, will agree with me that control, and the power to carry into effect Measures essential to the welfare of the Colony are essential. The future will largely depend upon the character of the nominated men who are chosen under ally new constitution.

I hope that means may he found of bringing into the legislative life of the Colony business men who are not there now, men who have ripe experience, who are public-spirited and who desire to serve. They will not serve under present conditions. I know the difficulty arises at once: Are they to be official members? These men of character and experience will not go upon any legislafive body if they have to run the gamut of elections under any such conditions as we now see, and have to be labelled official members. I think it would be most desirable if means could be found to secure on this new legislative body representatives of the best business interests of the Colony, as nominated members certainly, but not as official members. The hon. Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) who spoke from the front Opposition bench seemed to fear that this was a step down, and not a step up. I have no doubt that he has watched the progress which the Secretary of State for the Dominions has just made through the Empire, and I would ask him if he has not noticed that wherever the Secretary of State has gone he has always spoken and acted in this sense, namely, that the British Empire is doing its best work in the world when it is continually moving along the path of more self-government where capacity is shown.

The whole point, therefore, between the two Front benches is this: Is it possible to leave things as they are? Obviously, it is not. Is this the best way to get British Guiana on the road to self-government? I believe it is. I believe it is a thorny and a very difficult path, but I think that British Guiana will best traverse it if it follows the line suggested in this Bill. The opening for new development is obvious to anyone who goes there. I hope that this Government before leaving office, and following on this new constitution in British Guiana, will be able to put new heart into the Colony. I would like to see, for instance, the main product of the Colony, sugar, put upon the free list as far as this country is concerned. If we had only Free Trade in sugar within the British Empire, this constitution would give British Guiana means and chances of development beyond anything the past has known, and we should, at the same time, have served the interests of the British consumer by giving cheaper sugar.

Reference has been made to the question of coolie labour. We have had the appointment by this House of the Simon Commission, with a distinguished Member of this House as Chairman. In the course of that Commission's inquiry they may look upon the labour problem from the Indian point of view. I am hopeful that an opportunity may be given to British Guiana to put evidence before the Commission of the openings for Indian labour which British Guiana offers far beyond anything that is available to those people in their own country of India. I hope that the Secretary of State will not fail to take the opportunity of suggesting to British Guiana that it should put before that Commission evidence of the wisdom of such action, and the fair terms that Colony is prepared to offer when such emigrants have reached that country. The real solution is, in all these matters, that we should have a little more business and a little less politics. Let us have a good deal more good will on the part of all parties concerned.

The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the fact that the real solution is more business and less politics. I have had a long experience of this House, and I have often found that the word "business" is not only very closely associated with politics but that it is the only politics which a number of people have. The hon. Member seemed to he more concerned not about the interests of the community in British Guiana but about the interests of capital.

I am sorry if, in giving expression to the impression made on me, I have done an injustice to the hon. Member, but I would remind him that more than once he referred to the fact that there would be more security for capital, and that he ended with a request for more business and less politics. I think he even went so far as to suggest a change in the financial relations between various parts of the Empire and this particular Colony.

It seems to me, that before this Bill is passed we are entitled to ask the Government to give us an outline as to what is intended to be done. May I also, before I go any further, point out one other difficulty? I am rather amazed that the third proposal in the first Subsection of Clause I should be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have been taught for years, both on platforms and in the House of Commons, to what a terrible danger we are going to expose this country if a Labour Government are returned to power. I find that the third proposal of the Government, which is contained in this Sub-section, reads:
"There shall be reserved to or conferred on His Majesty full power by Order in Council from time to time to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Colony of British Guiana."
What is going to happen if a Socialist Government be in power in this country? Are we to understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is prepared to face that dire calamity and to see a Labour Government on the Benches opposite legislating without the consent of the locality, without the consent of the legislature in British Guiana, and making laws for the control, order, and good government of the country? That is what he is really proposing himself. An hon. Member who spoke from above the Gangway a short them ago referred, in particular, to the question of the land. He pointed out that the land at the present moment in the Colony belongs to the Government. He was particularly anxious, he said, that under this new scheme it should not be handed over to capitalists. But in the scheme proposed by the Government, if a Socialist Government—and I am not using the word as it is always used from the other side, because I do not think it, is quite a fair term—come into power, the result will be that the whole control of the capital invested in the land will be vested in the Secretary for the Colonies.

It seems to me that we are also entitled to draw attention to other matters. It is proposed to
"create and constitute in substitution for the existing Legislature, a Legislature for the Colony of British Guiana in such form and with such powers as His Majesty in Council may determine, and from time to time to alter and amend the constitution of the Legislature and any powers thereof."
What is the position? The first position is that by Order in Council you can substitute another legislature for the existing one of which we have no details and no information. Secondly, you can by a mere Order in Council, which is to be placed on the Table for 40 days or so, amend or alter it. But the third power which the Government are keeping for themselves, as I said, is to make whatever laws for peace, order, and good government they may, in their wisdom decide. I protest to the House that it is not dealing quite fairly with the Colony and in accordance with the traditions of this House. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) referred to the colonists—I do not want to give offence, particularly when he is not listening—as almost incapable of government. Is not the serious trouble we have in India, and is not the serious trouble we have had in various Colonies due to the adoption of an attitude of superiority in regard to the people? Is it quite clear that, apart from what is called business, this country lacks intelligence, decision, and judgment in its own affairs? An eminent politician within the last 20 years said that a bad Government by the people themselves is very much better than a good Government by an outside body. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when he is considering the Government of a Colony constituted of 300,000 people, with a town, Georgetown, containing a population of no fewer than 56,000 people, he really should pay some respect not to the men concerned with making money in that country—they are not the people whose interest should have first consideration—his first consideration, I submit, should be the natives of that country, the people who have inherited the creed, the position, and the ideas of the Colony itself.

I am not prepared to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) on the question as to whether it was possible to continue the present Constitution of British Guiana. He has been there. I have enormous confidence in him, and he may be right. But the question before us to-night is not the Report of the Commission on British Guiana, or the question of whether the Constitution which has been in operation for 100 years ought to be changed. The question before us to-night is what is the new Constitution going to be? On that we have had singularly little light. We have had the Report of the Committee that was appointed in British Guiana, and we do not yet know how far the Secretary of State for the Colonies considers himself bound to implement every one of those conditions.

I thought I had been quite clear that the Order in Council will be based throughout on the recommendations of the local men to carry out their main scheme.

I am very sorry to hear that. I was not certain that the right hon. Gentleman got as far as that, because it seems to me that he is abdicating the duty of which the Colonial Office has always taken charge in the past, the duty of bringing to bear upon this problem the ripe experience they have had in other Crown Colonies in the world. They have left it to a Local Commission in British Guiana to decide upon the new Constitution for Guiana and they have not considered what has been done in other Crown Colonies, from which they might learn that there are better methods than are proposed in the Report for combining efficiency with democracy. I only refer the Under-Secretary to an example which he knows as well as I do, if not better, and that is the case of Ceylon. The Ceylon Constitution is certainly infinitely more liberal than the Constitution now proposed for British Guiana, and infinitely more democratic, and yet there the Governor is able to carry on on sound lines in close proximity to the different and difficult Indian problems. The new Constitution which was granted there three years ago has worked with surprising success, when you consider the neighbouring associations of the larger continent of India.

The Constitution which is now proposed is infinitely bad. I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the terms laid down. True, the Constitution avoids the risk of communal representation. I am glad to see that that is one mistake which has been avoided but the narrowness of the franchise and the smallness of the legislative body are vices which both right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well have proved to be mistakes in other Colonies, and should have been avoided here. Fourteen elected representatives is a number far too small. It prevents any contact between the representative and his constituents. The constituencies have to be much too large. The electorate as a whole is an electorate limited by property qualification, which rules out three-fourths or nine-tenths of the inhabitants. There are uniquely in the British Empire property qualifications for the people who are elected. Not everybody who has a vote is entitled to be elected, and in every ease they must have property qualifica- tions. We wiped that out in this country nearly 100 years ago. In no other Crown Colony do you find anything of the sort, but here in British Guiana, in 1928, this principle is adopted.

With regard to the reserved powers, the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Snell) was perfectly clear and accurate. Everyone knows that you must have either one or the other, but why both? Either have a nominated majority with-out reserved powers, or as in Ceylon have an elected majority with reserved powers. Why have both? The real reason why I shall go into the Lobby against this Constitution to-night with perfect confidence, is because of the speech of the hon. Mernber for Devizes (Mr. Hurd). He let the cat out of the bag. When my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich was speaking I was very nearly converted to thinking that possibly we might trust the Government. It was in order to protect the aborigines and the poor workers who have no votes from exploitation that he was going to preserve the right of the Colonial Office to govern this country and not to allow the rich or middle-class planters and others in British Guiana to exploit them. There is a great deal to be said for that point of view, and I hope the Government will learn in regard to British Guiana something about similar sensible reforms in Kenya. We know that it is not possible really to preserve State domains when they contain diamonds, even by handing over the control to a governor. Diamonds, alluvial diamonds, seem to have a sort of mysterious attraction for ex-Governors. I do not know whether we are particularly unfortunate in our ex-Governors or in our Colonies which contain diamonds, but when we are to entrust these things to somebody we must be quite certain that we are trusting the people who can be controlled. I would like to know whether the Colonial Office, in view of what has happened recently, think of preventing Governors when they retire from office from exploiting diamond fields.

How does the hon. and gallant Member connect this argument with the proposed grant of a new Constitution to British Guiana?

The hon. Member must speak to the Question of the Bill before the House.

I will try to make it a little clearer. The question is whether we are to trust the somewhat rough diamond of democracy in British Guiana to protect the interests of the aborigines and to preserve the assets of the State in British Guiana, or whether we are to trust the Colonial Office. We must learn in these matters from experience in other Colonies, and, unfortunately, we are at this moment considering how certain ex-officials of the West Coast Colonies in Africa—

The hon. Member is raising controversial matter which is not within the scope of this Bill.

It is a question which we have to consider in connection with this Bill, because this Bill puts into the hands of the Governor, and the Governor alone, of British Guiana the power to govern that Colony. It is taken by this Bill out of the hands of the electorate. They may have been a poor electorate; they may have been a corrupt electorate, but this Bill puts the power absolutely in the hands of the Governor. The Colonial Office will require to watch that very particularly, in view of the speech we have heard from the hon. Member for Devizes, because he said that so long as the Colony goes on as it is at the present time, we shall never get capital invested in that country for the exploitation of its natural wealth. Under the new change we are to get capital invested for the exploitation of the undeveloped wealth of British Guiana. I think we should have more confidence in the change if we could see a change of policy at the Colonial Office as regards the development and the exploitation of wealth and the people who exploit that wealth. Will they preserve the rights of the State over the land, or are they going to give concessions of vast areas for all time to any body of capitalists who manage to get in first? Are we going to have the experience of Kenya repeated and to find these vast areas given away to people on the ground floor who afterwards dispose of them at enormously enhanced prices to other people? Are we going to have a change of heart at the Colonial Office, when under this Bill they are going to increase the power of the Governor in the Colony? I hope that the Colonial Office, who take the same view as myself on these problems, will have the strength of mind to stand up to the exploiters and the concession hunters and to preserve for the State the natural wealth of British Guiana.

The Bill before the House is, as the Secretary of State said, the direct result of the Report of the British Guiana Commission, of which I had the honour to be the Chairman. Before I attempt to give my reasons in support of those so ably put forward by my colleague, I should like to make three personal observations. First of all, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for his warm commendation of the services rendered by my colleague the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and myself, in what was a very interesting and engrossing task. I should like also to thank the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) for his graceful reference to the Report as it stands and, lastly, I should like to sound a personal note about my colleague on the Commission. Nobody could have had a more capable courageous or more excellent colleague than I had in my work on the Commission, and I should like to remind the House of this fact, and it is my duty to do so, that during part of the time we were in British Guiana when I was ill the whole work of the Commission had to be carried on the shoulders of my colleague. During my absence when my colleague had to undertake this work himself he carried it out on exactly the same lines that we had laid down at the outset, and with a capacity, diligence and assiduity which I greatly admired.

I want to explain the reasons which prompted me to make what I have always regarded as a far reaching and grave recommendation in the Report, namely, a change of Constitution in this ancient Colony. The Secretary of State has told the House the terms of reference to the Commission. I do not propose to read those terms but to refer to them shortly. We were asked to go out to the Colony and try to find out what was the matter with it and what recommendations we could bring forward to improve the commercial and economic develop- ment of this far distant part of the British Empire. It has been said in this Debate that the change which is recommended in the Constitution of the Colony is a retrograde step. I certainly do not regard it in that light. I regard it as a necessary change if the Colony is to keep on the high road of what I would call really successful and prosperous government through the broad avenue of Crown Colony government, until she reaches ultimately, as I hope she will, the time when a fuller measure of self government can be afforded to her.

The Colony first came into our possession in the year 1796, when we seized it from the Dutch. Finally it came into the possession of Great Britain in 1814, and it is a remarkable fact, and one which the House should remember, that ever since 1836 this Colony has not been successful. It has, in fact, been the one Colony in the British Empire which Las not shown that development or progress which all of us who look with pride on the British Empire would desire to see. It should be remembered that we inherited with this Colony its cumbersome legislature. Nearly the whole of the population of the Colony, 300,000 people, live on its fertile coastline and many hundreds of thousands of pounds have had to be spent in the past on drainage and irrigation. Some 87 per cent. of the total area of the Colony—some 78,000 square miles in all—consists of dense virgin forests. Only about twelve months ago was the first survey made of that wonderful forest area. That first survey, which was over an area of 650 square miles, disclosed the fact that in this dense forest area 31 per cent. of the timber was green heart which, as I think the House knows, is one of the most valuable and the most difficult to obtain of the hard timbers in the world.

What was the first thing that struck us as a Commission when we began to look into the affairs of this backward and undeveloped Colony? The first thing we examined was the Colony's financial position. If to-night I go over again some of the ground in regard to the financial position of the Colony, I hope the House will forgive me, because it is important that we should get clearly into our minds not only what is the financial position to-day but what its past record has been and what is the outlook for the future if the Colony remains as it is. When we examined the financial position in November, 1926, we found that over the seven years, from 1921 until 1927, there had been successive deficits in the Colony's Budgets, with the exception of the year 1923 when there was a small surplus of about £33,000; and that at the end of 1927 the total deficits for those seven years amounted to no less than £682,000. The Secretary of State has told the House that the funded debt of the Colony and its temporary indebtedness is extremely heavy.

In our Report we pointed out that the total funded and unfunded Debt amounts to a sum of £4,300,000, and that, is an extremely heavy load per head on this small population. The facts are that the money which has been spent on the development up to now of the Colony, would have been justified if there had been four or five times the population in British Guiana that there has been for the last 50 years. They have, in short, arrived at a stage in their development worthy of a Colony with a much larger population and more capable of bearing the very heavy expenditure of public debt with which the Colony is faced. Another important factor to remember is this: the Colony has no reserve fund. She has disposed of her surplus fund and her reserve fund. They were applied last year to the Colony's indebtedness, and the position which was reported in the autumn of 1926 has gone steadily worse.

The position to-day is that the ascertained deficit for the single year 1927 is no less than £230,000, and £80,000 is the estimated deficit for the current year 1928. Not only is that the position but the most serious aspect of the Colony's financial state is that it is actually borrowing by ways and means advances from the Crown Agents of the Colonies to meet its ordinary current commitments, which the Colony should be able to provide out of revenue. Instead supplies are being borrowed to-day from the Crown Agents to the Colonies, and when we were there in 1926, we found that the total sum owing by the Colony to the Crown Agents on ways and means advances, purely temporary advances. was £1,200,000. To-day it has increased to £1,360,000 and the House will see that the financial position is steadily getting worse. In our Report we say this:
"The first duty of the Government of this colony is to balance expenditure and revenue, to establish and adhere to a sound, consistent financial policy, and so to frame estimates each year as to provide a surplus for building up a reserve fund."
I am certain that every Member of the House who has read the Report and our remarks on the finances of the Colony, will agree that we have not laid down anything which is particularly new from a financial standpoint. These are elementary principles of finance but, unfortunately, the Colony has never adhered to them. There has never been in the whole history of British Guiana a sound and stable financial policy for the simple reason that the Government have never had control in their hands in order to establish that policy or see that it was adhered it. Let me briefly explain the position to-day in regard to the legislature. There are two bodies, the Court of Policy and the Combined Court, and I want to remind the House of the actual procedure when the financial affairs of the Colony come before the legislature, such as it is. The Court of Policy is a body where the Government have a majority of one, and has the power to legislate in all matters not fiscal; but the Combined Court, which consists of the members of the Court of Policy with six more elected members, who are called financial representatives, is the body in whose hands is vested the control, real and actual, of the Colony's finances.

On that body, the Combined Court, the position to-day is that when financial matters are discussed the Government's representatives number seven and there are 14 elected representatives of the people. The Government, therefore, are in a minority of two to one. The Secretary of State has reminded the House that 83 per cent. of the whole revenue of the Colony is collected under Customs Duties Ordinance and Tax Ordinance, and in this Colony we have this remarkable position, that these Customs Duties Ordinance and Tax Ordinance are brought in each year. In every Crown Colony with which I have had any intimate association the exact reverse is the case; Customs Duties Ordinance and Tax Ordinance are brought in permanently. They are brought up for review each year, and at times they may be amended, but there is a security to the mercantile community which you cannot get in British Guiana.

The Combined Court has another power linked up with finance, which has not been mentioned to-day, and it is this, that, apart from certain Government officials, whose salaries are guaranteed in British Guiana for a period of five years, there is no legislative provision at all for the payment of the salaries of civil servants in British Guiana; and I put this question to the House: How can any man go out to a Colony like British Guiana, make the sacrifices which Government officials have to make in leaving home in order to serve the Empire in these distant place, give of their best and devote all their abilities to the job which they have undertaken, when they know perfectly well that the elected members of the Combined Court in British Guiana can strike off or reduce the salary of any officer not on the civil list?? Their position cannot be guaranteed, and they have to live from day to day in the hope that their position will be made secure. It is an impossible position and one which I cannot visualise any man of ability taking up. It is one of the reasons why, perhaps, British Guiana has only been able to attract to the lower ranks of its Civil Service not the best men available for the duties.

Now take the procedure in regard to the financial estimates of each year in British Guiana. The Government prepare the estimates of expenditure each year, and these estimates are submitted and discussed at the Combined Court. After they have been passed, the Governor withdraws, and the Combined Court resolves itself into a committee of ways and means to consider the Government's proposals for raising revenue for the year. This committee of ways and means has a majority of two against one in favour of the Government, and it must be remembered that they can accept, amend or reject any of the Government's most carefully thought out proposals for raising revenue without giving a moment's notice of their intention to do so. The only thing they cannot do is to increase any item in the annual estimates presented by the Government. The important point to remember is this: that as the financial position stands to-day, this Combined Court can, if it chooses—I do not say that it would do so—stop the provisions for the interest and sinking fund on the Colony's loans.

I should like to say to the hon. Member for North Camberwell that this is the reason why the Secretary of State cannot agree to the classification of the loans of British Guiana under the Colonial Stocks Act; it is because the Government of the Colony has not the power to provide for the interest and sinking fund on its own debt. It is not a question of guaranteeing the sinking fund in British Guiana. We do not guarantee the position in Australia in connection with any of the State loans, or the loans in the Crown Colonies, because they are masters in their own financial houses and can provide the interest and sinking fund on their own loans and loan obligations. This is a point which I want the House to remember. It has been said that the Combined Court is never likely to override the Government in any material matters, but I must tell the House this, that within the last month the elected members of the Combined Court, knowing well that this Bill was coming before the House of Commons, have thrown out the Government's Estimates for the year 1928. The Government, after careful thought, brought in recommendations last month for raising revenue for the year 1928 by means of an Income Tax, a graduated tax, and this was thrown out by the elected members of the Combined Court. The position in the Colony at the present moment, so far as the revenue for 1928 is concerned, is in a state of chaos.

The position from the financial point of view is in my judgment absolutely impossible. It has been the cause, I am convinced, of the backward position of this Colony in the past, and I would remind hon. Members who say that this is a retrograde step that there can be no retrograde step when British Guiana has had an opportunity for the last 120 years of working under this constitution. She has not been as successful as her well-wishers desire and it is high time that there was a change in this ancient constitution. Briefly, let me tell the House the rest of the recommendations we made in our Report. We urged the necessity of an enlightened policy of drainage and irrigation along the fertile and inhabited coastal area; that new industries, agricultural and mineral, should be assisted and encouraged, that the Public Health Department should be reformed and strengthened with the object of improving sanitation and stamping out preventable disease, that education should be thoroughly overhauled and reformed on the lines suggested by the Education Commission which visited the Colony in 1924, and that the interior should be opened up by railway construction with all possible speed, so that its vast and rich forest area might be exploited and developed. The much-needed population required in British Guiana—to-day there are only 300,000 souls in the Colony, which is the size of Great Britain—can, I think, be obtained by fostering and encouraging a properly-balanced scheme of immigration from the West Indies.

But this is the important thing to remember. All these recommendations depend for their fulfilment on the financial position. These things are urgent, but I want to assure the House that grave as is the financial position, I am perfectly certain it is not hopeless, and if British Guiana sets about putting her house in order, with the aid of the Secretary of State, the position can be improved. She has reached a stage in her development when she is ripe for exploitation in its best sense. I assure the House that the hon. Member for East Woolwich and myself have no desire to see any of the land given to any private person. We never advocated that in our Report, but the whole Colony to-day is ripe for development, and it can only be carried out if this constitution is altered and the Government are made masters in their own financial house. I am sure the House will agree that under any political system it is absolutely essential that a Government should have the power to govern. That is what we want in British Guiana.

May I make a brief reference to the Memorandum which was placed in the hands of hon. Members last night and regarding which my right hon. Friend remarked that either my colleague or myself might have something to say. This is a long Memorandum of 67 pages which was sent to England about two months ago by the elected members of the Combined Court and it is signed by every one of them. It contains accusations against our Commission. It states that we grossly misstated certain facts and distorted others. It attacks the Secretary of State, the Crown Agents and the contractors. In our letter to the Secretary of State, sending our comments upon this Memorandum, we said we were not concerned with the attacks on the Crown Agents, on the Secretary of State or on the contractors, but we were concerned very much with the attacks upon ourselves and on the report. This Memorandum contains every one of the alleged misstatements of the British Guiana Commission with our comments upon them, and I am certain that any hon. Member who reads those comments will be entirely satisfied that we made no misstatements, that the allegations against us of distortion of the facts are utterly untrue, and that we have quite a complete answer to this Memorandum. Before passing from it, may I call the attention of the House to this remarkable fact. This Memorandum, compiled and prepared, no doubt, with much study, by members of the Combined Court, contains some of the most amazing inaccuracies which I have ever found in any responsible document.

I am sure the House will hardly realise that the 14 gentlemen who have signed this Report—the elected members of the Combined Court who claim to have the right and the capacity to-day to govern—do not even know the revenue of their own Colony. They have given the revenue as £1,950,000, but I can assure the House that it has never touched £1,200,000 during the last eight years of its history. I need not do more than refer to the fact that the population of Queensland is given as 322,000, while every schoolboy knows that it is nearly 900,000, but the Memorandum is full of inaccuracies. It should be studied with care. It is an interesting document, if only as showing the mentality of the people who compiled it, but I ask the House to reserve judgment on the figures given in this document. I have had to go very sketchily and hurriedly over the financial position and the report of our Commission but, for all the reasons I have attempted to give, I hope the House to-night will give a Second Reading to the Bill. British Guiana, as has been said by various Members to-night, is in a cul de sac. But perplexing and difficult as are the problems, financial and economic, with which she is faced, I, for one, firmly believe that if we can only enable her to get on to that path which will give the Government control over its own finance we need not despair of the future. Indeed, I would go further and say that in those circumstances, I believe at no distant date we shall see this backward, undeveloped colony marching steadily upon that road of progress and development which we all desire to find for her and which will lead her eventually, through a gradual process, to a large measure of self-government and to a state of peace and prosperity far beyond the dreams of any of her inhabitants to-day.

I would not have taken part in this discussion but for the fact that during the past three years I have had considerable correspondence and personal intercourse with men representing the people of British Guiana, and they are all, without exception, opposed to the proposal which the Secretary of State has put forward. Before saying anything further, I wish to join in the protest against the fact that we were only able to obtain copies of this document to-day. No one can properly discuss this question without studying all the documents issued by the Colonial Office, and I think most of us have been too busy to read them in the time which has been available. I should also like to say at the outset, that I regret very much that the two Commissioners should have treated this Debate as if those of us who oppose the view of the Secretary of State were sitting in judgment on them, or were desirous of censuring them directly or indirectly for anything they have said in their Report. I should be the last, with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) to call in question his bona fides and I have not, nor has any one of us, a shred of sympathy with the statements made about them. I have received myself most abusive letters in reference to both Commissioners but, instead of replying to those letters, I have handed them to my hon. Friend. But the position in which we find ourselves is this. We are told the Colony is in a difficult position, but from the speeches to-night I have not gathered that there is any charge of corruption against the people who have had the management of the Colony's affairs. Neither have I heard anything to-night which would lend countenance to the view that people who lend money to this Colony are not likely to be repaid, or that there is likely to be some default on the part of the representative people of the Colony. I know they are in debt and that at present they are not paying their way. I also know that if the Governor gets this reserve power and uses it, he will be using it perhaps to guarantee some loan and it is held, I understand, that his guarantee will be of more worth than the ordinary guarantee of the legislative council or Government of the Colony.

The point is this. The Colony can borrow in the open market on any constitution, but the loan could not be a trustee security under our Trustee Act unless the Secretary of State for the Colonies was in a position to secure the services of that debt or unless the Colony had full responsible self-government like a Dominion. That is our Colonial Stocks Act, and if they could borrow under the Colonial Stocks Act, they could borrow I per cent. cheaper than they could conveniently do it in the open market without that guarantee.

It is not a question of default; it is only a question of the trustee security.

I know that, and if we are agreed about that point I cannot understand why the Colonial Office or the Treasury cannot accept the Colony's own guarantee without this reserve power being given to the Governor. If there is no question of default then why make this proposal? You can only want to call in someone with a reserve power because you are afraid that these people will not pay of their own volition. You are showing towards them an attitude of mind which assumes that, if they borrow money, they may not repay it, but that when the Governor gives his sanction that is a sort of guarantee which will enable them to borrow I per cent. cheaper than they could borrow otherwise. Under the Colonial Stocks Act, if a Colony agrees to the Treasury conditions then the stock can be put on the market and get the best terms. It says:

"Any Colonial stock with respect to which there have been observed such conditions, if any, as the Treasury may by order, etc., prescribe."
As I understand it, the Treasury do prescribe certain orders, and the point I make is that the people who have had control of this Colony have not up to the present defaulted, and no question of corruption arises in regard to that. Therefore, I want to be told why it is necessary now to call m this new power of the Governor. What has arisen to make it necessary? So far in this discussion I have not heard from the Secretary of State or from anyone else any reason why that should be done. On the question of indebtedness, it is very easy for anyone to criticise this Colony, but I expect, if we knew all the history, we should discover that a great deal of this indebtedness was due to natural causes over which nobody could have any control. All who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division (Mr. Tinne) must have been riot only interested but instructed, and he was able to tell us from his own knowledge of the enormous sums of money lost in trying to carry out public improvements which nature, and nothing else, had broken down. Consequently, when we are considering this cul de sac, as it has been termed, and when we are discussing the financial liabilities of this Colony and inferentially assuming that it is not fit to continue as a self-governing entity, we ought to remember that portion of the gigantic debt—gigantic for a Colony of that size—is due to causes which the most enlightened administrator would probably not have been able to foresee or prevent. When we come to the question of the people who have said that they do not object to the proposal, I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite fair. I am not making any charge against him about it, but Mr. Woolford who issued a separate Memorandum in regard to the Report is, I understand, one who may be called a representative of the colonists, though not official and not associated with the Government, and he definitely says that he signed the Report with reservations. He says:
"When invited by the Governor to serve on the Commission I then indicated that, while I was most ready and willing to do so, I did not approve of the terms of reference as settled by the Secretary of State—restricted as they were—nor did I consider that any real necessity had arisen for recommending the changes in the constitution suggested by him in his despatch.
7.0. p.m.

I cannot help being opposed to the very drastic changes in our constitution foreshadowed by him, and cannot conscientiously agree to any limitation or curtailment of any of the Constitutional privileges the Colony now enjoys. If I did so, I should be squandering all the experience I have gained and the knowledge I believe I possess of public affairs in this Colony. No such control as is being advocated will, I feel certain, habilitate the Colony's fortunes—the present financial position being due to our economic, and not to our political. difficulties. If our expenditure, though I admit necessary, had been properly controlled, we should have been able to balance our budgets quite readily and easily. I am, moreover, strongly of opinion that we shall recover our position in a few years' time, and that we should be allowed an opportunity of doing this. We shall then have profited by our experiences."

This is the part on which the right hon. Gentleman relies. I am going to read it all, because it gives the man's point of view quite clearly:
"Notwithstanding, however, the views I entertain, I should have been ready and willing at once to consent to the proposal that the Governor of the Colony, after consultation with the Secretary of State, should be given a reserved power of control in the last instance, if I were satisfied that some immediate material benefit would be gained thereby. If the Secretary of State had given any assurances, or even hinted, that if this power were given substantial financial assistance might be expected from the Imperial Government, I should have deemed it my duty in the best interests of the Colony to agree to such control being taken and preserved until the loan—if it took such a form—had been repaid by the Colony. No such prospect, however, is being held out to the Colony."
That proves that this gentleman did not agree to give for all time power to the Government, or even temporarily, except for the one specific purpose of the loan. Yet the right hon. Gentleman seemed to infer that the Report was agreed to unanimously, and even that this man agreed, if he could be assured that some money could be forthcoming. It is proved very conclusively that the Report was not an agreed one, but was one from which the leading representative of the Colony definitely disagreed. Those of us who are going to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill will do so because we so thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that you have either to give a Colony self-government or to govern it. We thoroughly disagree —and the experience in India during the last few years has shown it—with this business of pretending to give self-government and retaining an overriding power in certain subjects, and especially in finance. It is not leading to peace and contentment, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) told us, but it is leading to a great deal of discontent and of conflict between the Governor and the people who are elected. In order that the House may understand why the Governor's reserved power leads to discontent, I will read out a passage that makes that clear, because I happen to have taken some interest in this case through the Labour Commonwealth group which meets on Monday, and before whom we have had the people representing this Colony. The statement in question is made in paragraph 23 on page 7:
"Having regard to the absolute necessity of safeguarding at the present time the credit and financial stability of the Colony, we think that the mere possibility of a deadlock, although, we believe, a remote one, might have the effect of making it difficult to float the Colony's loans on advantageous terms, and might also give rise to doubt in the minds of capitalists and others who would otherwise be prepared to engage in commercial undertakings in the Colony. On these grounds we recommend that the Governor should be given power to reserve, for his own decision, any matter which he and the Secretary of State consider essential to the good government of the Colony, but that this power should not be exercised without a previous reference to the Secretary of State (should such be possible)"—
I call attention to that reservation—
"and in any event the Governor's action in this respect should be reviewed by the Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment."
The Governor then may exercise his power and tell us afterwards, and in this House we know that it is extremely difficult to reverse an official decision once it has been made. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Commission contemplated disagreement between the elected body and the Governor on such questions as concessions given to capitalists, and others. That lends some point to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who said, and I hold the view strongly, that we ought not to give Governors powers to override the elected members' in regard to concessions and in regard to the granting or selling of leases for those valuable forests. It is possible that, in order to get a big loan right away, the Governor might think it advisable and right to give some monopolist company a lease over these very valuable timber forests which are waiting to be developed, and the people there might imagine that there ought to be better terms, or that it ought to be split up, or that it should be done in some different way. The people on the spot who live in the Colony ought to have the last word in that matter. It is not just a question of the financial stability of the Colony or of raising a loan, but it is a question of giving the Governor power to determine over the heads of the people how the Colony should be developed.

I think that the India Office ought to have had something to say on this subject, because those who went there from India and the other colonists there went with the constitution as it is and with the idea of building up a Colony under a certain form of government. We are not entitled to ride roughshod over them because of these financial difficulties, which are not the fault of any absolute maladministration or corruption. These difficulties are no reason for taking away the power which this Colony has possessed all these years. When it comes to the Colonial Office having that power, we have exactly the same want of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman and his administration as they would have in a Socialist administration. From my point of view, I do not trust them in this matter of granting concessions. I do not trust either the Governors or the Colonial Office. I would rather that the people, who have lived there for 150 years in the delightful manner which has been described to us by the hon. Member for Wavertree and the hon. Member for East Woolwich, people of all races and religions living happily together, should he allowed to decide their own future. It is because this Bill is a retrograde Bill, taking away complete self-government from a Colony that has possessed it for 150 years, that we shall go into the Lobby against it. The point on which we maintain it takes away that power is one which is vital to all countries governed under democratic conditions. We know that this House values the Power which we have to control finance. You are taking away from the people in the Colony the power to control finance and a much greater power to determine how, by whom, and when the natural resources of their country shall be developed.

With the possible exception of the hon. Member who has just sat down, the whole House seems agreed that the Bill is necessary, although it differs in its opinion as to what ought to be the Order-in-Council that will follow upon it. Everybody is agreed, with the exception of the hon. Member, that some change is necessary.

If some change in the constitution of British Guiana is necessary, then this Bill in its present form is necessary. There is probably no other authority than this Parliament that can alter the constitution which has remained in fundamentals unaltered and unalterable since we took it over from the Dutch. The constitution of British Guiana is unlike any other constitution in the British Empire, and I am very glad of it. It is not the constitution that we should ever grant, though it has an analogy to some which we granted in the 17th century. This constitution we took over from the Dutch, and it has a hoary antiquity to be proud of, but nothing else. In the first place, it is not complete self-government, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) seemed to think it was. It is a power to hold up the Government on finance at every turn and to hold up individual citizens. Under the British Guiana constitution, there is no element of self-government for the people of British Guiana either in legislation or in administration. Self-government, after all, means legislation, administration, and finance together. Neither of the two Houses in British Guiana has power to change the con- stitution fundamentally. In practically every other Colony the constitution can be changed and is frequently changed by Order-in-Council by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

There are comparatively few Colonial constitutions that have not been changed by Order-in-Council since the War. Those of the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanganyika, Southern Rhodesia, Ceylon—the whole gamut of Colonial constitutions—have been changed, either as in the case of Southern Rhodesia, by the grant of Letters Patent, or by Orders-in-Council, and all that this Bill is designed to do is to give to this Secretary of State and successive Secretaries of State the power from time to time to alter the constitution of British Guiana, which is to-day absolutely in a cul-de-sac, unalterable, nobody at present having power to alter it in any direction and having no prospect of altering it. Therefore, I think that in many ways we might claim that the Second Reading of this Bill should not be opposed, though we quite recognise that in the main the opposition has come, not to the Second Reading so much as to the adoption of an act of administrative policy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the local Commission.

It is my duty to put one or two points in that regard before the House. When you begin to change an ancient constitution, quite frankly, you do not want to make more changes than are necessary, and the local Commission have clearly not gone deeply into these franchise questions and these other questions which are bound to come up and be gone into in future, or even into constituency demarcations and all the points raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in his interesting speech. Those questions are bound to come up, but the main structure of the old tradition, after all, is being retained; that is to say, the local Commission are retaining the 14 existing elected members, and they are giving to the constitution, to that structure, the necessary body to enable it to function as an effective governing machine, mainly by adding to the old Combined Court of 14 elected members two other officials and five nominated unofficial individuals. Those five nominated unofficial members will be selected by the Secretary of State and by the Governor in consultation from among any element of the community. I want to disabuse the House of any idea that it will necessarily be, or should be, from the "plantocracy" or any other "ocracy." The five men will probably be selected on account of their variety, and, in accordance with the almost universal rule for nominated unofficial members of the Council in the other West Indian islands, they will take their part freely and in a completely unbound way during the lifetime of the Legislative Council to which they are nominated.

Therefore, British Guiana will still have an advanced type of Crown Colony constitution. The Government will still be in a minority as against the unofficial members. There will be 19 unofficial members, 14 of whom will be elected and five nominated individuals, free in every respect, as against 10 on the official side. The total is 29. I would like to reassure the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—I do not think he is quite familiar with the country—that the whole of the voters are in a comparatively small area, and it is not a ease of the 14 elected members finding it difficult to keep in touch with their constituents. One of the troubles of British Guiana is that you are dealing, in effect, with an extremely small population, and so far from 14 constituencies being too few, there is a great deal to be said for the view that eight constituencies would be ample, but as there have been 14 elected members, the minimum of change to ensure the necessary results, and advance, and stability, and good government has been made.

The next point about which I wish to speak is that which has been raised by several hon. Members in regard to the production of papers. After all, the main document was produced early last year, containing the Report of the Parliamentary Commission. Till the Parliamentary Commission came back, neither my right hon. Friend, nor the Governor, nor anybody else, had raised the question of the Constitution. They were given wide terms of reference, to inquire into things in British Guiana generally, and, quite apart from what they have recommended in regard to the Constitution, they have produced a most valuable, constructive, and helpful Report. But they did find in this anomalous Constitution, peculiar and unlike any other Constitution in the British Empire, one of the difficulties inherent in the situation. It is true that British Guiana, although it has great natural riches and resources, is faced with this difficulty: that, while its timber is the most valuable type of timber in the world and is growing there in great quantities, it has never been developed or brought to the service of humanity and the enriching of the Colony, very largely because it will not float, because it is too heavy.

You are up against factors of that kind that do present great difficulties. It is no use blaming the Combined Courts, or successive Governors, or Secretaries of State, but, none the less, when all that has been allowed for, nobody, looking at the history of British Guiana for the last 150 years, can doubt that the perpetual friction between Governor and Combined Court that has gone on—and, quite frankly, that is revealed in the type of document that has been presented to-day, in the very language that is used there—is in itself a criticism of the type of Constitution which British Guiana has had. As to these documents, the basic document was this Report of the Parliamentary Commission, which suggested to my right hon. Friend that the right way to proceed was by local Commission. He proceeded by local Commission, and, therefore, I think it is a little hard that we should be blamed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for not imposing our ideas and evolving for ourselves—and I quite agree we might have done it better—a brand new Constitution out of our own heads at the Colonial Office. We have left it as far as possible to the people in the Colony, and the local Commission was composed of a chairman, three officials, including the Attorney-General, a singularly able man, one unofficial individual connected with the Colony, who has lived there most of his life, and two of the elected members. They have produced a scheme which, at any rate, at this stage of the revision of the Constitution, my right hon. Friend proposes to accept in the main, and he has been discussing one or two of the details with the delegation of elected members who have been over here.

We presented last November the second main document, which has been before the House, therefore, for three or four months, namely, the plan of Constitution which it was proposed to adopt. The new document presented to-day contains material of a highly controversial kind from the elected members, which we received some few weeks ago, and to which we thought it important that some reply should be made by the people who were specifically referred to in the elected members' remarks. As hon. Members will see from the document, we only received the reply from the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson), who are somewhat vigorously assailed in the document, on the 31st January; from the Governor on the 27th January; from the Crown Agents on the 1st February; and from the people who were almost more vigorously assailed than anybody, namely, the consulting engineers in connection with the Georgetown improvement scheme, on the 1st March. I must pay a special tribute to the work of the Stationery Office in this connection. Since receiving on the 1st March the final document in reply, they have been able to get out what is, after all, quite a formidable Blue Book, and they have done it very quickly.

The hon. Member knows that when we get into the financial work of the Session it becomes more and more difficult to find time for legislation, but let the House remember that, although usually it is not the custom to lay on the Table proposed Orders-in-Council changing Colonial constitutions, in this particular case, as it is the first revision for 150 years, we propose to lay the Order-in-Council, the draft of which has now begun and will amount to 70 odd Clauses, on the Table of the House, and, of course, it could be the subject of a Prayer. The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tinne) and the bon. Member for Lichfield have shown conclusively that the financial condition of the Colony is one causing very serious preoccupation to all who have the interests of this and any other Colony at heart, and I am glad that both of them, speaking, one with considerable commercial experience in connection with this Colony, and the other having been a Commissioner with considerable financial experience outside, ended on a note of some optimism, namely, that once a more harmonious relation between the present elements of the Combined Court and the Government has been effected, and once there is public confidence that the constitution is on British and not on exotic lines, there will be, both for public and for private finance, an element of confidence Which undoubtedly has been lacking and which will be very much needed in the difficult times of the next few years through which British Guiana must go.

Make no doubt about it, that the change in the form of constitution will not work miracles, but will have to be followed by a very careful pruning of expenditure and a very careful overhauling of the present very heterogeneous system of taxation. It has been altered from year to year, very often by a series of compromises which have been most unscientific. One of the most effective results of the Report of the Commission, composed of the hon. Member for Lichfield and the hon. Member for East Woolwich, was to secure the passing of the Forest Trust Ordinance. We had been informed by the Governor that it was very unlikely that it would go through, and that any such proposal was infringing on ancient privileges and powers, When they saw the importance which these two hon. Members attached to continuity in forest policy and the conserving of national forest resources, and above all that the experienced forest officers should feel secure in their positions; and when they saw the emphasis which was laid upon that point, which had been emphasised frequently by the Colonial Office before, we secured the co-operation of many of the elected members in passing what had obviously never been passed before.

I think we may say that already there are signs of an improved state of affairs.

Division No. 25.]

AYES.

[7.35 p.m.

Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Quite apart from all proposals in the form of controls and the form of securing ultimate responsibility, not so much to an irresponsible Governor, but to a Governor acting under the authority of the Secretary of State here, who is responsible to this House—quite apart from all that is the proposal in the local Commission's Report for greater association between the unofficial elements, both elected and non—elected, in the work of the Executive Council. One of the problems in all our constitutional difficulties throughout has been that, while we have been thinking in terms of franchise and in terms of powers of bodies, we have forgotten the essential thing, namely, that ultimately it is the Executive Government that is the all important thing, and that in the growth and evolution of democracy it is the association of the ordinary critics of governments in the responsibilities of government that is the vital thing if we are to secure the advance in freedom, the advance in true democratic development that has been the genius and tradition of the British race.

It is upon that side of the development of the Executive Council that I see the most valuable hope in the present change that we are recommending to Parliament. I am quite sure that really the House wants the change in order that British Guiana may have the chance that it has not had for the last few years. I am sure, too, that we are all fundamentally agreed in spirit in the aims and objects which we have at heart. We are bound by our different political traditions to have suspicions one of the other, and to have suspicions of particular views at particular times. I am, nevertheless, quite satisfied in the main that, when this Bill becomes an Act, it will not merely have the assent of both Houses of Parliament, but will have the goodwill and interest of all parties, and that we shall all endeavour to unite in supporting British Guiana in the future which lies before it.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 89.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.Grotrian, H. BrentPeto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E. (Bristol, N.)Plicher, G.
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.Gunston, Captain D. W.Price, Major C. W. M.
Berry, Sir GeorgeHall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)Ramsden, E.
Bethel, A.Hamliton, Sir GeorgeReid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Birchall, Major J. DearmanHammersley, S. S.Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)Harrison, G. J. C.Rentoul, G. S.
Blundell, F. N.Hartington, Marquess ofRhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Bourne, Captain Robert CroftHarvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)Rice, Sir Frederick
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.Haslam, Henry C.Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Brassey, Sir LeonardHenderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxford, Henley)Ropner, Major L.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveHenderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle)Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Briggs, J. HaroldHeneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.Salmon, Major I.
Brittain, Sir HarryHenn, Sir Sydney H.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Buchan, JohnHills, Major John WallerSanderson, Sir Frank
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William JamesHilton, CecilSassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Burman, J. B.Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)Savery, S. S,
Calne, Gordon HallHohler, Sir Gerald FitzroySheffield, Sir Berkeley
Campbell, E. T.Holt, Captain H. P.Shepperson, E. W.
Cassels, J. D.Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)Skelton, A. N.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.Hore-Belisha, LeslieSlaney, Major P. Kenyon
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)Hudson,Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)Hurd, Percy A.Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)Smithers Waldron
Clarry, Reginald GeorgeIveagh, Countess ofSomerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir GeorgeKennedy, A. R. (Preston).Sprot, Sir Alexander
Cope, Major WilliamKing, Commodore Henry DouglasStanley, Lord (Fylde)
Couper, J. B.Kinloch-Cooke, Sir ClementStanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)Knox, Sir AlfredSteel, Major Samuel Strang
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)Lamb, J. Q.Storry-Deans, R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)Lioyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)Strauss, E. A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)Streatfeild. Captain S. R.
Cunilffe, Sir HerbertLoder, J. de V.Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Curzon, Captain ViscountLucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh VereSueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard HarmanSugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)Lumley, L. R.Templeton, w. P.
Davies Sir Thomas (Clrencester)MacAndrew, Major Charles GlenThompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Davies, Dr. VernonMacdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Edge, Sir WilliamMcDonnell, Colonel Hon. AngusThomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)McLean, Major A.Tinne, J. A.
England, Colonel A.Macmillan Captain H.Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Erskine, Lord (Somerset.Weston-s.-M.)Macnaghten, Hon. sir MalcolmWaddington, R
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)MacRobert, Alexander M.Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.Manningham-Buller, Sir MervynWarrender, Sir Victor
Faile Sir Bertram G.Marriott, Sir J. A. R.Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.Merriman, F. B.Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Fenby, T. D.Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)Watts, Dr. T.
Forestler-Walker. Sir L.Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)Wells, S. R.
Forrest, W.Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur CliveWiggins, William Martin
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Nail, Colonel Sir JosephWilliams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. AnthonyNelson, Sir FrankWilliams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Galbraith, J. F. W.Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Ganzonl, Sir JohnNicholson, O. (Westminster)Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonNicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir JohnO'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)Withers, John James
Glyn Major R. G. C.Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. WilliamWomersley, W. J.
Goff Sir ParkOwen, Major G.Wood. E. (Chester, Statyb'ge & Hyde)
Gower, Sir RobertPennefather, Sir JohnWorthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Grace, JohnPenny, Frederick George
Grant, Sir J. A.Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.Perkins, Colonel E. K.Captain Margesson and Captain
Greene, W. P. CrawfordPeto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)Wallace.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Day, HarryHenderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')Dennison, R.Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Ammon, Charles GeorgeDunnico, H.Hirst, G. H.
Baker, WalterGardner, J. P.Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)Gibbins, JosephJenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Barnes, A.Gosling, HarryJohnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Bondfield, MargaretGraham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)Kelly, W. T.
Bromfield, WilliamGreenail, T.Kennedy, T.
Bromley, JGreenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)Kirkwood, D.
Buchanan, GGriffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)Lansbury, George
Charleton, H. C.Groves, T.Lawrence, Susan
Clowes, S.Grundy, T. W.Lowth, T.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)Lunn, William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Hardle, George D.MacLaren, Andrew

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)Scurr, JohnWalsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'tnampton)Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)
March, S.Slesser, Sir Henry H.Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Morris, R. H.Smillie, RobertWedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Murnin, H.Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)Wellock, Wilfred
Naylor, T. E.Snowden, Rt. Hon. PhilipWelsh, J. C.
Ponsonby, ArthurStamford, T. W.Westwood, J.
Potts, John S.Stephen, CampbellWheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)Whiteley, W.
Riley, BenSutton, J. E.Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)Taylor, R. A.Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Sakiatvala, ShapurjiTinker, John JosephTELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Salter, Dr. AlfredViant, S. P.Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles
Scrymgeour, E.Wallhead, Richard C.Edwards.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-marrow.—[ Mr. Amery.]

Petroleum (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This is a short Bill with only four operative Clauses. It is necessary before we can consolidate the whole law with regard to the Petroleum Acts, which is now most desirable. The first Act was passed as far back as 1871. There was an Amendment, so far as motor cars are concerned, by the Highways Act of 1896. We substantially amended the law by the Act of 1926. The increased use of petrol by the general public, not only for motor cars but for other purposes, has made it necessary to introduce this short Bill and to consolidate the whole law on the subject, partly because it is extremely difficult for local authorities to administer the law as it exists now, scattered over a number of Acts, and partly because the Act of 1871 was not very well drafted and several difficulties have arisen with regard to the interpretation of it.

I will take the four operative Clauses and explain them. Clause 1 refers to harbours. There has been considerable uncertainty as to the true interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1871 on two points. One is the definition of a "harbour authority," whether it is limited by implication to persons acting under a statutory jurisdiction, like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and bodies of that kind, or whether it applies to the owner of any little pier or jetty to which any small ship might be able to tie up.

Of course it was intended by the Act of 1871 that the power of making by-laws should be restricted to statutory bodies, but owing to the wording this Section 2 of 1871 has been made to apply to individuals owning small jetties. That is not desirable, and it is necessary that we should have it amended, as is done in Clause 1 of this Bill. As regards another difficulty which has arisen under the Act of 1871, it is not clear whether the jurisdiction should apply to the authority exercising power over the whole harbour or whether it should also apply to subsidiary authorities exercising power over parts of the harbour. It was intended that where a statutory authority has subsidiary jurisdiction over part of a harbour that authority should have power to make by-laws. The second part of Clause 1 of the Bill makes that point clear. The reason why it is necessary to do so is that certainly in one case a dispute has arisen between a harbour authority and a railway company on the point.

Clause 2 deals with the making of bylaws for substances other than petroleum. It is intended to remedy a defect which has been found to exist in Section 14 of the Act of 1871. In that Section 14 power is given to apply the provisions of the Act so far as they deal with petroleum to other similar substances such as calcium carbide, but power is only given to vary the provisions or modify them in two particulars, one as regards the quantity of the substance which may be kept without a licence, and the other as regards the vessel containing the substance. It has been found in practice that new modifications are necessary and that it is desirable that greater latitude should be given. For instance, it may be desirable to vary the amount of any one substance to be kept without a licence according as different conditions are observed, that is to say, whether it is kept in a reason- ably safe place or not. It is proposed wider this Clause that a general power should be taken to modify the provisions of the Act as applying to other similar substances, on the condition, of course, that there is no power taken to increase the stringency of the provisions that may be made.

Clause 3 deals with the repeal of Section 5 of the Locomotives on Highways Act of 1896. That Section was a concession which was passed at that time and was applied to motor cars, which were considered to be light locomotives. Since that day petrol has come to be used for a great many other things besides light locomotives. It is used, for instance, for agricultural machinery, for motor-boats, for stationary engines used in the manufacture of electric light for houses, and for pumping water. It is desirable that the application of the full requirements of the Act of 1871 should be modified for this purpose as well as for the purpose of motor cars; otherwise they are unnecessarily burdensome. To begin with, by Section 7 it is necessary in every case to get a licence from the local authority. It is obvious that that should not be necessary in the cases that I have cited. If we did not modify this provision as proposed, the ordinary motor boat propelled by petrol would be, for the purposes of the original Act, a ship carrying petroleum, and she would be subject to all the regulations to which a ship carrying petroleum is subject when she goes into port. That was not intended.

With regard to Clause 4, the last operative Clause, it is intended to give to canal companies a general power of making by-laws relating to the transport of petrol. At present some companies have that power and some have not. Towards the end of 1926. I think it was in September, a rather serious explosion took place on a canal in Yorkshire and resulted in a fatality. It was then shown to the Home Office that it was most desirable that all companies should have the power of making by-laws, even if they did not exercise them. Petrol is being carried on canals in increasing quantities, and that alone makes it most necessary that there should be adequate safeguards, in its transport. The House will observe that in the First Schedule a number of minor Amendments have been included. They are all small Committee points and they are necessary for two reasons, one as consequential on the operative Clauses of the Bill, and the other reason is that the Act of 1871 was drafted rather defectively. We want if possible to clear up one or two bad pieces of draftsmanship before we bring in the consolidated Bill, which I hope it will be possible to do later on.

Before we pass the Bill, which would appear to be more or less an administrative Measure, we might have a little enlightenment on one point in particular, with which I tried to make myself familiar some time ago. Before I come to that however will the Under-Secretary kindly tell us what are the main provisions of the Act of 1871? His exposition would have been better if he had told us what powers local authorities have already under the Act of 1871. Then we should have better understood the Amendments proposed by this Bill. I am sure that the House would be glad to have a general outline of the main provisions of the Act of 1871. I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman one question only. Do I understand that under this Bill local authorities can make by-laws to improve the control and transport of petroleum and other very dangerous liquids through the streets of towns? When I looked at this question not long ago I understood that there was still a difficulty in dealing with the carriage of petroleum through the streets. There was a case, I believe in Northumberland, of a terrible explosion that occurred in conveying oil through the street, and people living in houses on both sides of that street were injured very badly. Will the Under-Secretary enlighten us as to the position now, and tell us whether a local authority can compel the carrier of the petroleum to remove the lights on his vehicle out of danger? I understood some time ago that the danger arose mainly through neglect in allowing lights to be attached to these vehicles. I shall be glad to get that matter cleared up.

8.0 p.m.

As one who opposed the Bill that is now the Act of 1926 on 15 different occasions, and got the seven Amendments through the Lords, I might say that there is no need for anyone to ask questions as to what the law is, because it is contained in all the printed matter that is available. I would like to deal with the question of "substance" as mentioned in Clause 2. When the original Act was framed it was not too well known what the substance petrol was; it was not clear how it was to be treated so far as an Act of Parliament was concerned. When you deal here with a substance you leave yourself open to a great many things. For instance, is tetra-ethyl lead a substance? If it is added to petrol does that combination still remain a body to be known by the word "petrol," and if so can I have a reply as to whether any combination of substances that give explosions, say in an internal combustion engine, are to pass under the name of petrol, or are we to be tied down to the word "substance," which may mean anything? Would potato raw spirit be called a "substance," or industrial alcohol? If petrol is to be called a "substance," are we to have some determination as to whether evaporation at a certain point is to decide what that body is. Even suppose you had a law which gave you the right to say that a body evaporated at a certain temperature was petrol, still you have to find means of expressing it, and the question is what may be added to your petrol itself and leave a "substance." Suppose you take the ethyl question at the present time. How are you going to determine what body that becomes? After you have got this ethyl mixed with petrol, does it cease to be petrol, or is the name ethyl to be the subject of legislation? That is a very important point. In the Bill we are to have the power to label a thing. That is a purely political expression, because we know that politicians—I am not a politician, thank God for that—label things. We have got peculiar stuff in our shops labelled jam and marmalade. If we are going on with this labelling proposal, does it mean that any kind of substance that may explode at a certain temperature is going to be called petrol? The Members of this House do not yet realise the dangers of lead tetraethyl, and will not realise them until it is driven in upon them by some very serious cases, one of which, as I know, is now developing. I would ask those in charge of the Bill to explain what they mean when they say "a substance." Is any addition to that which may have the nominal name of petrol to be included in the Bill? Whether or not that is to be done, there is a certain element that must be dealt with in some way or other to ensure the public safety. If the Bill is to permit the addition of any of these elements of which I am speaking, it will mean that every one who is making a "dope" for motor cars or any other form of internal combustion engine will be entitled under the Bill to call it petrol. I would ask those in charge of the Bill to take a very serious view of this point, because my only concern is to ensure the safety of the public. I represent a district of a great city, Glasgow, and I know exactly what has taken place in the past 30 years since they started using petrol in industry in the making of waterproof coats. I know what took place at the fire. I was at it. I know what took place in the Chemical Works at the top of Renfrew Street. I was there. I know from practical observation and knowledge what is causing all this trouble.

If those in charge of the Bill will give a nod now to indicate that this Bill will be withdrawn until we know more about the subject, I will sit down. They are not prepared to do that? Very well, I will go on. When I opposed the Bill of 1926 before it became an Act I was told from the Government Benches that I was doing a very cruel thing, because the Bill was the baby of a man who had been 42 years in the Department and was retiring, and wanted to see the Bill on the Statute Book as one of the great things he had accomplished. I do not wish to detract from that man's capacity, mental or otherwise. He had been a faithful servant, and I should have liked to oblige him by seeing that the Bill was placed on the Statute Book, but let the House note how defective it was, even with the seven Amendments which I got put in. At that time, too, I was given a promise about what should be done in the first amending Bill which came before the House. I had that promise from the Home Secretary, but I had an experience of the Home Secretary during the coal stoppage, when he applied his Regulations to everybody else but his own friends, and when we brought cases up for review he was impertinent and stupid in his answers. But I was told that as soon as the first amending Bill came along the other questions I had raised, which were not included in the seven Amendments, would be dealt with. We know that the controlling Act was passed in 1871, and that between 1871 and 1926 practically nothing was done so far as the dangers of petrol are concerned, except, perhaps, in connection with rubber solution. In that period there were great developments in motor transport, and the danger has become correspondingly greater. Take the case of the motor bicycle. Any man can have a motor bicycle. Probably he is without any proper place in which to store it, and he keeps it in the entrance of his house, behind the front door. He also has a can or two of petrol, and these he takes into another part of the house. I was in a house two or three weeks ago when a gentleman came in with his motor bicycle. He pushed it behind the front door, and then brought in two cans of petrol, put them down beside the fire, sat on them and had a smoke. I say that something ought to he clone to deal with cases of that kind.

Is it realised that in the 1926 Act and in this amending Bill we deal only with petrol in bulk? Is it not realised that the last Act was brought in chiefly at the behest of the vested interests in petrol. It did not deal with anything outside those matters which concerned the petrol industry; it did something for them, but left out everything else. I drew the attention of the Glasgow Corporation to what was taking place, and they came forward with an amendment, and sent a deputation to meet the Joint Committee. Thereupon the Committee realised the necessity of getting at least a promise that something more would be done. What is going to be done? Little houses are being built now, with garages attached. They are wooden garages, with simple doors, and people have found petrol disappear from the garage. As they do not want to question one another's honesty they now take the petrol into the house. That is where the danger comes in, and I want to know what is to be done about controlling from two-gallon lots up to what I would call "the maximum small quantity." We have had legislation dealing with the transport in bulk on roads, though even that legislation is not all that it ought to be. But are we going to do anything in the direction of introducing safety regulations in other cases? It is the question of safety with which I am concerned. It is not a question of increasing expenses or increasing the price of petrol or of insisting that something has to be done which will cost money; but it is a question of securing a measure of safety. The 1926 Act deals with persons keeping petrol for the purposes of trade and industry. It finishes up with "trade and industry." As if the use of petrol had not extended far beyond the confines of trade and industry, seeing that it goes into practically every home. Therefore, I once more ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he is prepared, having gone this distance, to nod his head in indication of his readiness to withdraw the Bill in order that we may get something better.

There is no answer, and therefore I will go on to the question of the transport of petrol on roads. The hon. Gentleman gave us an illustration to-night of what happened in a canal explosion, but there is nothing in this new Bill which would prevent that happening, because the Bill, instead of stating definitely what is to be done, only gives permissive powers to this, that and the other body to make their own regulations, and that is not protection given by the Government. Each body will make its regulations just to suit its own business and not to meet the safety of the public, and the regulations will always be a minimum. Let us take the case of the petrol tanks now seen on the streets—a drum on four wheels holding, perhaps, 2,000 gallons. It is filled through an opening which is closed with two valves. Last summer I was riding on top of a bus in very busy street in the centre of London. In front was a steam lorry. The fireman had been detained too long—it was not his fault—and had to get up steam. He put on some fresh fuel. When he stirred the fire and started up there was a stream of sparks—and immediately behind was a tank of petrol! People will say, "It is all right; it was all closed up." Yes, but it might not have been. It is just the same as people saying, "Miners have safety lamps." The safety lamp was not produced to enable men to work in gas, but in protect them against the unexpected presence of the deadily enemy. It is the same in the case of petrol. The vibration of that tank in going along the street might have caused a loosening of the valves, and on a hot summer's day one knows that the evaporation of petrol is speedy, especially from an iron surface. It might have been better if the tank bad been covered with wood.

I wish the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to understand that I am not opposing it, but merely asking for additions to be made to it. The Bill does not go far enough. If this had been a decaying industry instead of a growing industry, one could have understood this attempt to deal only with one or two aspects of the matter. Finally, I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he can answer the questions which I have put to him. First of all I want to know whether any added substance is to be included as the nominal name of whatever substance is put in; that is to say, is industrial alcohol with some addition to be called petrol; is potato spirit with some addition to be called petrol; is petrol with lead tetraethyl to be called petrol? Is it to be a question simply of the label? If we are legislating for labels, let us remember the process of protection for the public which has been followed in pharmaceutical Acts. I am glad to see that a doctor is now present. There was a great fight about labels. What was the consideration behind the passing of a law requiring that poison must not be put in an ordinary bottle, but in a bottle of a certain shape, so that even though one picked up the bottle in the dark one would know that it was a poison bottle? What brought that about was consideration for the safety of the public. In the case of petrol we are dealing with a substance which is in far more common use than medicine, and is much more dangerous to the public, and yet here we have the Government, which always claims to have the best brains of the blue blood which produces the best brains, coming along with feeble Amendments all mixed up and dealing only with vested interests, all the while leaving the question of public safety where it was before. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to withdraw it now, or, at any rate, give us some guarantee that we shall have some redress before the Bill reaches a further stage.

I notice that the name of the Home Secretary is on the back of the Bill, and I should like to know why he is not present. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with some other kind of spirits put up in magnums. The hon. Member for Springburn who has just spoken (Mr Hardie) comes from the north of the Tweed; he represents a Scottish Division, and I presume that this Bill applies to Scotland. Why is the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the back of the Bill, and why is he not present? I know this Measure does not apply to Northern Ireland, but I presume it applies to Scotland, and there is no representative of the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench at the present moment. I think this is treating the House very disrespectfully. Here we have under consideration a Bill of first-class importance dealing with a growing industry, and we are going to have a much larger number of motor vehicles running through the streets. Clause 3 provides that

"The Secretary of State may make Regulations as to the keeping and use of petroleum spirit by persons intending to use it for the purpose of any class of motor vehicles."
A provision of this kind is of the utmost importance, and, with every respect to the hon. Member in charge of this Measure, I contend that this question should not be left in charge of the second eleven of the Government, and that the Home Secretary ought to have been present. If the Secretary of State for War intends to speak on this subject I apologise, and perhaps he will tell us how this Measure affects his Department. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us something about the use of petrol in hot climates. I want to know if, in the carrying out of these Regulations, any differentiation is going to be made in regard to petrol coming from Russia. I think that would be quite possible under the loosely-drawn terms of this Bill.

There cannot be a count between a quarter past Eight and a quarter past Nine o'Clock.

I want to know if the President of the Board of Trade is doing everything he can to encourage trade with Russia despite the differences that exist between the two Governments. Not long ago the President of the Board of Trade issued broadcast to the world—

May I point out that Clause 3 provides that:

"The Secretary of State may make Regulations as to the keeping and use of petroleum spirit by persons intending to use it for the purpose of any class of motor vehicles."
Does that empower the right hon. Gentleman to make Regulations in regard to Russian petrol?

Now the hon. and gallant Member is proceeding on still wider ground.

This is one of the objections we have to legislation by reference. I will deal with another matter, and that is a question of petrol pumps. Under these Regulations, will the Home Office have any powers to enforce some decency in regard to the form of petrol pumps which at the present time are disfiguring the countryside? We have in this country a lot of beautiful scenery, and I want to know if the Home Office, in putting this Bill into force, only intend to pay attention to the question of safety, and pay no attention to the æsthetic point of view. Is there any intention of limiting the number of these pumps?

That is another matter which is entirely outside the scope of this Measure.

Seeing that petroleum comes out of the ground, would I be in order in discussing the taxation of land values?

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a joke of the proceedings of Parliament.

I beg pardon. I am very serious, and we are anxious to raise everything that we consider should be raised in this House.

The only things which can be raised are those which are in order on the particular subject before the House.

I come now to the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend behind me, namely, the special Regulations proposed with regard to the use of lead tetraethyl. The hon. Member for Springburn went into details in regard to this very extraordinary substance. In Switzerland the use of this highly dangerous poison is already forbidden. In the United States of America the use of this doped petrol resulted in five deaths, and 30 or more cases of poisoning. Although this substance has been advertised for months and has been placed on the British market, no warning whatever in regard to it has been published by the Home Secretary, the Minister of Health, or the President of the Board of Trade.

I am glad to say that in another place—I should, of course, be out of order in referring to the details of the Debate—a Noble Lord drew attention to this matter, and this is the first opportunity that I have had of drawing attention to the matter here except at Question Time, when Ministers can always ride off by refusing information or shirking the giving of proper answers; and if we on this side try to press them they always have their claque from the benches behind them, and we are shouted down. This Bill is a Bill for the greater safety of the public in the use of petrol, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary if he can give me any explanation on this matter. After it has been raised again and again in this House and in another place—in this House, unfortunately, only at Question Time—an Inter-Departmental Committee is about to be set up. It has not yet been set up. I was told the other day by the Minister of Health that no members had been appointed, and that the Committee had not been called together. Now we are going to have further delay in setting up this Committee and waiting for its Report. One thing is certain, and that is that an Inter-Departmental Committee means delay. They will take very great care with their evidence, and their find- ings, and their Report; the Government will delay still further before they act upon the recommendations; and, in the meantime, a great deal of mischief will have been done.

The danger lies in two facts. One is that the spirit itself is poisonous. If any of the liquid gets on to the skin, it can be absorbed and bring on lead poisoning. Lead poisoning is slow in its effects; the symptoms take some time to appear; but the poisoning is none the less deadly when it runs its course. Therefore, the innocent motor user who buys this "Ethyl" clothed in red—and red is a very suitable colour in this particular case—if he has some trouble with his engine, floods his carburettor, and gets a spot of this petrol on his skin, he may be poisoned; and who is responsible? The hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the Home Secretary were here, I should say that the Home Secretary was responsible, but, as he has not chosen to be present, I say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be responsible for the death of this innocent, law-abiding citizen, who is taxed to pay the salary of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, while the hon. and gallant Gentleman neglects his duty by not safeguarding the public by means of warnings. I say that this substance should never have been put upon the market—and it has been upon the market for some weeks—without Orders being issued, through the local authorities and the police, to all who have anything to do with the sale of petrol, to warn the public against handling this liquid. In spite, however, of what has gone on outside this Chamber, and of what we can drag from Ministers in this Chamber, the unfortunate liege has no kind of safeguard at all.

That is one side of the matter. The other is the question of the effect on the general public. Every hon. Member in this House has had the misfortune to be in traffic blocks, and knows perfectly well that the fumes even of ordinary petrol are most objectionable. Present-day cities, especially here in London, with ever-increasing motor traffic, are suffering from a very foul atmosphere due to the exhaust fumes of motor cars. Now this petrol has been introduced, doped with lead tetra-ethyl, and here I want to pay tribute to a newspaper which is not always friendly to my party, namely, the "Daily Mail." This Government allows the country to be run by the "Daily Mail." As far as I can make out, the "Daily Mail" wins its elections for it, and, when it is in office, it allows the "Daily Mail" to carry out its scientific experiments, which its own Department of Scientific Research, money for which is provided out of the taxes, should be carrying out.

This newspaper—I daresay in order to increase its circulation, but in the public interest as well, and I make no complaint in that regard, for I think the whole public should be as grateful in this particular matter to the paper as hon. Gentlemen opposite are for their occupancy of that Bench at the present time—this newspaper has carried out certain experiments, which have lasted for weeks, with this tetra-ethyl lead petrol, and, in its most recent report of tests made by the Research Department of the Association of British Motor and Allied Manufacturers, which was dug out by this paper and given very useful publicity, and which was founded under the auspices of the Government's Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the distinguished chemist who carried out these experiments, and whose report is reproduced in this newspaper, has stated categorically that the exhaust vapour from the use of this petrol is poisonous. Therefore, you may have a traffic block in Bridge Street, just outside this House, and a quorum of Government supporters may be poisoned; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits there all unheeding.

As I have said, the Government are still about to set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to look into this matter, after this poisonous liquid has been for weeks on the market. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he is going to make regulations in regard to this matter. I judge the Department by its previous conduct, and the Department has been wholly negligent with regard to this poisonous, doped petrol which has been placed on the market; and, but for the action of Lord Buckmaster in another place, and of one or two hon. Members in this House, including a gentleman of medical knowledge who is a supporter of the Home Secretary—but for our action and the public-spirited action of a daily newspaper to which hon. Gentlemen opposite owe their office, and to which we owe a good deal of opposition, but which I nevertheless compliment, and I hope my generosity is appreciated, on its public spirit in this matter, the unfortunate public would have had no warning whatever. And yet His Majesty's Secretary of State for Home Affairs has not even the interest to come into the House and explain his Bill to us, but leaves the matter in the, I admit, competent and courteous hands of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This is how Parliament is treated; this is how the Opposition is treated; and, worst of all, this is how the unfortunate public is mulct in taxes to keep up this useless Department of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This is how the unfortunate public are treated, and I hope the opportunity will soon come for them to vent their displeasure in the only way that is open to them, by throwing these incompetents out of office.

I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I should be in order in moving that this Debate be now adjourned, until the Home Secretary Is here? This is his Bill, but he is not here, and his understudy has no experience, he is an amateur, and we are objecting to his trying—

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

I beg to move,

"That it is expedient to provide for the application to persons in the Diplomatic Service of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, and to authorise in the case of such persons the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of allowances and gratuities under those Acts as so applied."—[King's recommendation signified.]
The object of this Motion is to enable the Government to bring in a Bill to regulate the pensions of officers of the Diplomatic Service. I have issued a White Paper which explains the objects of the whole scheme and the proposed legislation. At present officers of the Diplomatic Service are in receipt of pensions under the Act of 1869 and difficulties arise from time to time because many diplomatic officers are transferred from foreign stations to Civil Service appointments at home, and vice versa. We seek to put diplomatic pensions on to the same basis as Civil Service pensions, with small modifications which will be seen at the bottom of page 1 of the White Paper. Officers of the Diplomatic Service interchange positions with officers of the Civil Service. When I say the Civil Service I mean the Foreign Office. There are provisions already existing dealing with the difficulties and anomalies which arise under these interchanges of position, but recently those difficulties, which have always been very troublesome, have increased owing to the combination in 1919 of the Diplomatic Service with the Foreign Office. In some cases the Act of 1869 has become almost, if not entirely, unworkable and certain hardships have been caused. For that reason we desire to put the officers of the Diplomatic Service on the same footing, with slight modifications, as officers of the Civil Service. An option will be given to existing officers of the Diplomatic Service to come in under the new Act. We do not yet know how many will come into the new arrangement but, assuming that they all come in, the utmost annual cost to the public purse would be £11,500 at the beginning and at the end a small sum which we think would not exceed £2,000 a year. The cause of the higher cost at the beginning is this. The new scheme provides for reduced pensions on the one hand and retiring and death gratuities on the other hand. Those gratuities do not exist in the present system. They will be payable immediately on retirement or death. Thus the larger annual increased cost will fall due at earlier dates. The pension reductions, however, will be spread over the whole life of the pensioner. That is broadly what the proposals are. If there are any other details on which hon. Members desire information I will do my best to explain them.

An Ambassador is a man who is sent to lie abroad for the good of his country, and, when he comes to be retired, it is, of course, very right and proper that he should be properly pensioned. As far as I can gather from the hon. Gentleman's explanation which I am sure he tried to make as full and lucid as he always does, this is to bring officers of the Diplomatic Service in line with the Foreign Office. Does this also apply to the Consular Service? Is the Consular Service part and parcel of the Diplomatic Service? Could we have enlightenment on that point first of all?

It applies also to the Consular Service, because the, Consular Service is already part of the Civil Service.

I am very glad, because I have always thought it very necessary to improve the conditions of the Consular Service, perhaps even more than the Diplomatic Service proper. I think this is a move in the right direction. I see under the Superannuation Act of 1909 awards may be made as follows to members of these Services. After only 10 years' service, a pension may be paid, so that a man who goes into the Service at 21 and retires at 31 can take a pension. That is very extraordinary. [Interruption.] He does not serve abroad at all. My hon. Friend is not right. A clerk in Downing Street after 10 years' service can get a pension. Could we have some explanation as to the shortness of the term, because this applies to the whole of the Foreign Office staff and the whole of the Diplomatic Service. Is it to make provision for people who may have to retire through ill-health? There must be some explanation. I do not think I have heard of that in any other Service of the Crown.

I would also like to take this opportunity of drawing attention to the disparity between the emoluments of this Service, with its very pleasant conditions—we are improving the residences of our representatives abroad; especially in the case of Turkey, for example—and what is paid to people in this country who do the work without which the community could not exist. At the present moment, in the County of Durham, where I was last week, a miner working six days a week, with the stoppages, cannot take home to his family more than 40s., and there is no pension for him until he reaches the age of 65. In our Diplomatic Service, according to the White Paper, there is a fixed annual allowance not exceeding £1,700 per annum for a first-class pension; £1,300 per annum for a second-class, £900 per annum for a third-class, and £700 per annum for a fourth-class.

I do not abject to these people having emoluments. If you have an underpaid servant there is a temptation to corruption, and if it be true that even to-day it is impossible for our Ministers to occupy certain posts without large private means, there ought to be special allowances provided for them and they should not have to dip their hands into their private purses. I do not think it right at the present time that any public officer or any public servant should have to depend on private means in order to keep up to the standard expected of him and to carry out his duties. If we are underpaying our representatives abroad to that extent, then the State should step in and help, otherwise you limit the representation of His Majesty in certain capitals abroad to men of wealth, which is wrong. You limit your choice of selection, and it is mischievous and undemocratic in that no poor man will be able to rise to certain positions in the Diplomatic Service. But I cannot help contrasting the pay and conditions of service with the lot of the Durham miner who, working underground in heat, in damp and in danger, cannot to-clay earn more than 40s. a week, I cannot overlook the case of the South Wales miners who, in many of the fields, while working full time, if they are men with children—

I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is going beyond the Resolution we are now discussing. In fact, he is straying a good deal beyond it.

This is the second occasion to-night that I have, unfortunately, come in conflict with your ruling, and I shall not, of course, pursue the matter further in that direction. I was only using as an illustration the fact that these men do not get a pension after 10 years' service, and I have said enough to call for a reply as to why a pension can be given after only 10 years in not a very dangerous and, perhaps, not too arduous, profession. If it is wrong to draw attention to the pay of men at the other end of the scale I will not, of course, do so. We are, after all, increasing the pensions by £11,500 for the first two years, and I should have liked to have drawn attention to other pensioners who cannot get the pensions to which they thought they were entitled. I am sorry I have transgressed twice this evening. I think I have said enough to call for a word of explanation, and I shall await the reply with interest.

I do not want to pursue the criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend because I apprehend that it will not be possible to enlarge this Motion in order to give pensions to all the people who, perhaps, deserve them. I only rise to say that this limited proposal, as far as we can understand it, is one to which we have no objection, and which is, obviously, for the convenience of the Service and in order to facilitate the interchange of officers from Downing Street to the other places further afield in which they have to serve instead of having two watertight compartments—one set of people in Downing Street who have never been abroad and another set of people abroad who have never been in Downing Street. I, myself, some time in the last century, suffered under such an arrangement in a neighbouring Office. I think the administration will be greatly improved if it be possible to interchange one set of officers with the other. As I understand it, this practically assimilates the pensions of the Diplomatic Service with the pension system of the Foreign Office and the home Civil Service generally. I are sure my hon. and gallant Friend need not be alarmed in imagining that this Motion will give every diplomat the option of getting a pension after 10 years if he chooses to ask for it. That is not the arrangement. I think there is nothing to which we can object in this proposal, and if the hon. Gentleman will give a reply probably he will get his Motion.

I want to raise my voice in protest on behalf of the class that I represent here—the working class. Time and again—and this is one of the instances of class legislation—they tell us that there is no such thing as a class struggle existing in society and that we should not preach the class war. We Socialists do not preach the class war, but the Tory Government, in bringing forward this proposal for the payment of superannuation in the Diplomatic Service are embarking upon class legislation. We are proposing to give to certain individuals in the Diplomatic Service £1,700 a year pension. That does not seem very much to a rich man, but it is a tremendous amount to the worker, and it is the worker who will have to pay it—not the rich man. It is all rolled out of the flesh and blood of the working class. Who are these people? Whence are they recruited, these individuals who make up the diplomats who have time and again landed this country into war? Is it a case of outstanding ability? Are they poor men Certainly not. If it were a case of examination, my class would always come out on the top. We have no fear of examinations, we are always for making the examination as stiff as you like. My class will come to the top eventually. Before you can get into the Diplomatic Service, you must have an income of £400 a year.

I am sure the hon. Member would not like to pursue an argument based upon a fallacy. It is not correct to say that an entrant to the Diplomatic Service must have an income of £400 a year. That has long been done away with.

The fact remains that until the working classes, the Labour party, became a power in the land, and until we were able to draw the attention of the country to what was going on, the rotten system was at work. That is not denied. Therefore, it ill becomes this Government to bring forward this Bill, when on every occasion they are trotting out the cry of economy: "We must have economy. We must economise on the education of the children." The Prime Minister said that it was essential for everyone to economise. Here is an opportunity to economise, if the ruling classes are in earnest. The country is becoming poorer and poorer every day, and cannot afford to pay to the men who produce the wealth of this country a decent living wage. How then do you expect that we who represent these men in this House are going to sit calmly here and allow the ruling classes to vote pensions to their own class?

9.0 p.m.

It is a fraud. It is nothing but a fraud. Nothing but a Government of robbers would dare to do anything of the kind. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Scottish diplomat in London, has arrived. We are trammelled in Scotland. It is impossible for us to carry out our desires, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot grant us our wishes, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is represented by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is in charge of this Bill, blocks the way. The Government have not the least compunction in coming forward and saying, "Here is a chance to help a body of men. Even if we take £10 a week off their pension they will never miss their breakfast." We represent men who are working hard and doing work in the absence of which there would be no such thing as the British Empire. The British Empire does not rest upon the diplomats any more than it rests upon the Government of the day. It rests upon the working classes, who have been treated by this Government in the most callous, brutal and unfair manner.

The hon. Member must apply himself to the Motion before the Committee.

I am trying to show the difference of treatment that is meted out to the working people of this country and to those who do not work at all. To those—

"Who toil not, neither do they spin.
Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
That is what is going on here. We are not in the Ruhr or in Canada or in Russia but in our own native land, and under the cognisance of this Government we have 28,000 boys, between the ages of 14 and 16, working in the mines.

The hon. Member really must try not to bring these things into this discussion. They are not in Order on this discussion.

I am sorry to be falling foul of your Ruling, but when I see a White Paper issued like this, it brings me to my feet at once, because of what is implied here and what I see of the conditions of the people among whom I live and move and have my being—the people who are sent before the rota committees. These diplomats can retire, but there is not any given age for their retirement. They are not forced to retire, as are some of my class. With the worker to-day, it is becoming more and more a fact that when he reaches 60 years of age he begins to fear that it is time for him to pass away. We are living in an age as far as my class are concerned when they are wishing for the grave.

I have called the hon. Member to order several times. I hope he will obey my ruling.

I do not wish to be rude to the Chair. On page 4 of this White Paper, there is a word which I do not understand. It is not Scots. Whether it is a crossword puzzle or not, I cannot say. It may be ancient French or Latin. It is probably Anglo-Saxon The word is "opt." This is how it is spelled: o.p.t. That is not English, neither is it Scots nor Welsh, and these are the only three languages permitted in this House. It may be Gaelic. Here is this word spelled o.p.t., and I want to know why the time of this House is taken up by words of this description. I have on occasions visited the House of Lords and seen them performing, and certain individuals rehearsing certain old Norman words—

The hon. Member continues to disobey my ruling. I must ask him to confine his attention to the Motion before the Committee. If he continues to disobey my ruling, I must ask him to resume his seat.

I am asking for an explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I hope he will, to the best of his ability, explain what is meant by the word "opt."

I do not think the hon. Member seriously wishes me to explain the word "opt."

It is very often used in the case of a committee, you co-opt on to a committee. You choose, or select, and in the connection in which it is used here, wishes, or chooses, or agrees.

We like to use a short rather than a long word. Let me now deal with the questions which have been raised—

Before the Financial Secretary replies, there are one or two comments I want to make on the White Paper. It says that the Act provides for awards of fixed annual allowances not exceeding £1,700 for a first-class pension, £1,300 for a second, £900 for a third, and £700 for a fourth, and on page 4 it says:

"An ambassador or Minister may be pensioned before attaining the age of 60 if he has been recalled in the interest of diplomatic relations and cannot be employed elsewhere. This is a restricted form of a power given by the Act of 1869."
I should like to know whether the pensions scheme of the Civil Service is a contributory scheme, and whether it is not the case that under the Act dealing with the workers' pensions scheme it, is a contributory one and does not operate before a man attains the age of 65. If his employer discharges him before he attains that age, there is no question of him getting a pension until he reaches 65. I want to put this point, on the one hand, if you have a servant who is called away or discharged before his time he is to have a pension; the industrial servant, if he is discharged before his time, is he not entitled to the same recognition from the State or the employer for work of equal value? People engaged in industry are as essential to the State as civil servants, and if that, is so, are they not entitled to the same kind of treatment? I had no knowledge or idea of the extent of these pensions until I saw this White Paper, and, therefore, I think we have a right to bring to the notice of the Committee the comparison between one class of person and another. I do not object to all people having some kind of pension, but I want some regard to be paid to those who are engaged in industry, so that when they have finished their work they can look forward to some recognition for what they have done.

I read this in the White Paper:

"That Act provides for awards of fixed annual allowances not exceeding £1,700 per annum for a first-class pension, £1,300 per annum for a second, £900 per annum for a third, and £700 per annum for a fourth."
It is very remarkable that in this House, when salaries are well above the existence line, there is never any difficulity in getting a proposal like this through. In dealing with a superannuation scheme of this kind it would have been well if the Financial Secretary had given us some explanation of the matter instead of reading certain paragraphs. There is a great deal behind this Bill. In this matter speed is not essential. The people who have these salaries are not waiting for something to be done for them, as in the case of the industrial classes. Hon. Members opposite are silent when it is a proposal of this kind, when it is the case of pensions for their own class, but they are not so silent when it is a case of pensions for the working classes. The Government would do well to explain what is behind this proposal, and why there is so much trouble taken to oppose anything of the kind in the ease of work-men. Why is it so easy to get a proposal like this through Parliament? Is is because the salaries are so big that these people do not want pensions? Is is the case of the "fat sow must always be greased"? The hon. Member might give us some information on this proposal. It. would he interesting because it might he applied in many other directions.

Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not want other classes in the community to know how these good things are obtained, perhaps they want to keep it a close combination amongst members of their own class. The House is practically empty at the moment but when it is a case of pensions for the working classes then the benches opposite are fell with hon. Members ready to vote against them, and when they are given they are only a mere pittance. When the question of pensions came up on the Electricity Bill, the same thing happened. The men who had received steady salaries all the years were considered, but the men who were off and on were looked upon with something approaching to disgust. It is a disgrace because such men were generally more useful than the fellows with the big salaries. I ask the Financial Secretary to give us a guarantee that working class pensions in future will be given the same attention as pensions for other classes of people.

I wish to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary as to what he might do in regard to one point, when the Bill is being drafted. Page 4 of the White Paper contains a reference to the payment of temporary pensions in cases where there has been a rupture of diplomatic relations. I suggest that this should be amended so as to provide that no pensions should be paid to diplomats in cases where diplomatic relations have been ruptured. If that were done possibly there would never be another war and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should go on the Chinese principle of paying the doctor for keeping you well and depriving him of his pay if you fall sick. I think the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of all efforts to bring about peace, and I make that suggestion to him as a contribution towards the peace of the world.

The White Paper states that the class of pension is to depend upon complicated provisions as to rank, service, length of residence abroad and classification of the mission concerned. I wish to know who is to decide as to the class of pension. Is that to be in the hands of the Department or in the hands of the Financial Secretary himself; and will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what these complications are and how they are to be cleared up?

In regard to the last observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, I am very much obliged to him for the suggestion which he has made, and I will give it proper consideration. With regard to the question put by the last speaker, II think he will find that it is answered by the paragraph at the bottom of page 1 of the White Paper, which states:

"In the case of persons serving abroad pension is to be calculated on the salary, etc., of officers of corresponding rank serving in the Foreign Office."
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull also asked a question about the Consular Service, and in order to make the matter quite clear may I say that Consular officers are in the Civil Service already, and this is a proposal to bring the Diplomatic Service on to the same basis as the Civil Service, so that the Bill does not affect the Consular status. I do not think there is any other question to which I need address myself ex- cept to say that these pensions are not contributory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has, think, made my replying speech for me on other points. He has said, in effect, that the terms of this Resolution are fair and that they commend themselves to the party opposite. I cannot say anything more explanatory than that; any criticisms that have been levelled at the Resolution have been met by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Post Office (Sites) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This is one of the ordinary Measures of this kind in connection with the Post Office, which have become almost annual affairs in the House. It enables the Post Office to acquite certain sites for the purposes of its working, and as hon. Members who are familiar with previous Bills of the kind know, the Measure will after the Second Reading follow the Private Bill procedure by going to a Select Committee. It then comes back to this House for a further Committee stage and for Third Reading, and I can assure the House that there is nothing in the present Bill which calls for any detailed discussion at the present stage.

I could not state exactly. That is a matter for negotiation.

I should like some further explanation regarding this Bill. I, for one reason or another, have not been present when the right hon. Gentleman has introduced previous Measures of the kind, and I am not acquainted with all the circumstances which he has mentioned. For example, I should like to know more about sites which the Post Office has in view and in which areas they are. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought surely to be able to give the House some idea of how much it will cost even if it is still a matter of negotiation.

I wish to raise one question on this Bill which interests me because it affects my constituency. In the city of Leeds there is a burial ground which was closed some years ago under the Disused Burial Grounds Acts. That Act provides that it shall not be lawful, when a burial ground has been closed, to erect upon it any building except a church or chapel or place of worship. This Bill proposes to erect a Post Office on the site of the burial ground in Leeds, and it is provided that if human remains are found the Postmaster-General shall, without being required to obtain any faculty, cause the same to be decently removed and interred in some consecrated ground to which the Bishop of Ripon may consent. I want to know why the Post Office, when they wish to erect a new Post Office, choose a consecrated burial ground as the site? I should have thought they could have found some more suitable site for the purpose. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Bill which is constantly before the House. It cannot always happen that the Post Office wishes to put up new buildings on a burial ground. The Act of 1884 says in terms that you shall not put secular buildings on a burial ground. Why should this particular burial ground be desecrated by a Post Office?

There is another thing. The Bishop of Ripon, apparently, is to consent to the disposal of the bones buried in this particular ground. As far as I know, this burial ground was not closed so very long ago. It was in 1850, I think. How do we know that the persons buried are Members of the Church of England? Some of them may be Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. We do not know. At any rate, there is no particular reason why the Bishop of Ripon should consent to the disposal of the remains any more than the Bishop of any other denomination. We want to know why you are using a burial ground to extend this Post Office. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will say that this burial ground is near an existing post office, and that that is the reason. I want to know whether this ground is being used at present as a public recreation ground. If so, is he closing an area where people may disport themselves. [Laughter.] The House seems to be very much amused, but it is really a serious question I am asking. First of all, there is the consecrated nature of the ground, and, secondly, the fact that this ground is now used by children and other people. It is possibly laid out as a park or open space—I do not know. We ought not to consent to this Clause going forward, although it may be said to be a Committee point—and after all, the whole Bill is only dealing with two post office sites of which this is one—without some assurance that the Post Office have looked round for further accommodation, seeing that this ground was used as a burial ground and was a properly consecrated ground for the interment of remains.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite at Question time to-day whether he would remedy a grievance which we have in Wales with regard to appointments in the Post Office, and I rise in order to protest against the very flippant answer which he gave. He said he saw no more reason for the appointment, in the case of future vacancies in the Post Office, of those who had an acquaintance with the Welsh language than he thought the Welsh Members ought to have an acquaintance with the Welsh language. If the right hon. Gentleman knew the Welsh Members as well as I do, he would know that they are conversant with the Welsh language. If he wishes me to address him in Welsh, I shall have very much pleasure in doing so, though I am afraid he would be rather bored before I sat down. I hope he will give this matter his very serious consideration. There are some people in some of the parts of Wales who are really not acquainted with the English language, and it is a slight and a slur on a gallant nation to refuse them the right to speak their own language in public places.

I should not like to he discourteous to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), hut he will find all the sites set out in the Bill and the details are a matter for Committee. With regard to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), I am not at all surprised that he should have asked what was a very proper question. The facts are these: In that portion of his constituency there is this disused burial ground. It has been disused since 1854, as far as I am aware. My statements must be ex parte, because the matter must be examined by a Committee upstairs with proper evidence. As I am informed, the ground was never, in fact, a consecrated ground. It was burial ground of the sect known as the Inghamites. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed some apprehension lest this ground should be used as an open space for the recreation of children.

What I said was that it was probably so used now, and my apprehension was that it would no longer be so used.

The hon. and learned Gentleman need not have any apprehension on that subject. I now understand that he expressed apprehension that is might cease to be used as an open space for the recreation of children and other purposes. As a matter of fact, the area of the burial ground is occupied in part by the Postmaster-General at the present moment, although not built upon. As to the other part of the burial ground, it is occupied by the whole width of Toronto Street and for about 15 feet on either side of the street it is now covered with substantial buildings which have been there since 1891. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that this ground, as a burial ground, has long ago ceased to exist, and in these circumstances, I hope and believe the Committee will agree to this appropriation of the remaining part by the Post Office for the purposes of the Post Office.

Before we leave this point, there is a reference on page 3 to Mount Street Gardens, which are public gardens in the City of Westminster. Westminster is notoriously short of playing-grounds, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to put a post office on these playing-grounds?

I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why no reply was given to the hon. Member on my left who put a point that surely was worth being considered and replied to? Does the Postmaster-General think he can walk in here, and in that off-hand manner of his not care whether he does reply or not?

The hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) was speaking on a point which was not in order.

If that be the case, I put it, with all respect to you, that it is too late in the day for you to say that, because you never objected, but allowed him to go on.

I was moved by the reference to the Inghamites. I would like to know if there is anything in the archives of the Post Office which will tell us whether originally there was any protest from them when the matter was first raised, and was there any protest after the Inghamites were disturbed?

I can only speak again by leave of the House. The Inghamites, as far as I am aware, ceased to exist as an active force many years ago. It is believed that all the bodies in this particular portion of ground have long since been removed. It is said that that was done in 1891. It is, however, a little difficult to say, but a part of the ground is in fact covered by streets and buildings and the remaining part is in the occupation of the Post Office, and I do not think any question is likely to arise.

Why should the Bishop of Ripon have jurisdiction over the bones of defunct Inghamites?

Because, so far as I know, there are no residuary legatees of the Inghamites. In regard to the Mount Street Gardens, the apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) are in fact not well founded. It is not proposed to disturb the surface of the gardens, as the work proposed to be executed is a tunnel, which has to be not less than 16 feet from the surface of the ground.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[ Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

Reorganisation Of Offices (Scotland) Money

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transference of the respective powers and duties of the Scottish Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, to Departments of Health and Agriculture and a Prisons Department for Scotland, and to make further provision with regard to the office of Chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland and other offices in Scotland, and with regard to the Public Registers, Records, and Rolls of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of (a) the salary of a Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland, and (b) of the salaries of clerks in the office of the Principal Extractor of the Acts and Decrees of the Court of Session."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

I think we ought to have an explanation from the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the amount of money that he expects to be saved as a result of this Measure. I know it is out of Order to discuss the details of the Bill, which have already been discussed on Second Reading, and we shall have further opportunities of discussing them in Committee, but we have never yet had from the right hon. Gentleman the slightest indication of the amount of money that he expects to be able to save to the nation as a result of the alleged economies in this Bill. Indeed, the more this Bill is examined in Scotland by persons well qualified to know the facts, the less does it seem to be likely that there will be any possible saving, and there are people who estimate that the net result of the Bill will not be to produce what is called a diminution in cost, but will be to add some net charges to the Exchequer. If the right hon. Gentleman has any idea of what can be saved by the change, for instance, in the Prison Commission—

That is not included. This Resolution only applies to the salary of the new Keeper of the Registers, and, secondly, to the salaries of the staff in the Extractor's Department.

I should like to be quite clear that the first two Clauses of this Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill are not to be discussed to-night, because, if so, I must confine myself to asking for an explanation as to the savings, if any, that are expected to be effected under Clause 4 and subsequent Clauses of the Bill.

It is quite clear that this Resolution deals only with two points. The first is that there shall be a salary provided for the new Keeper of the Registers and Records in Scotland, who will in future be head of the Records Department. I cannot say what amount that salary will be at the moment. It will have to be decided eventually in consultation with the Treasury, and so it is impossible now to say what amount of saving will be made, but it is clear that there is the abolishing of one post at present carrying a salary of £1,200, and it may well be that some appreciable saving may he made under that particular head. In any case—

Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright that he did not know what was going to be the salary of this individual who is going to be appointed in charge of the registers?

I do not know at the present moment what the exact amount of the salary will be. That is a matter for arrangement with the Treasury when the appointment comes to be made after the Bill becomes law, and all that I am saying is that at present there is going to be a combination of the duties at present held by three separate holders of these offices, namely, the Deputy Clerk Register, at £1,200, the Keeper of Sasines, at £1,000, and the Keeper of Deeds, at £500, and it is quite conceivable, therefore, that there will be some saving to the Treasury. The other point dealt with by this Resolution is with regard to the staff of the Extractor, who now, instead of being paid as they have been by the Chief Extractor, will become servants of the State, and pensionable. The advantage to the clerks and the staff of the Extractor will be very material, and I do not doubt that that will meet with the approval of hon. Members opposite.

Under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be compelled to appoint a civil servant to do the work that presently being done by a board. That will, I take it, involve a charge on the Exchequer.

No. The present charges are provided for by Votes coming before this House, and they will continue to be provided on those Votes in the ordinary way.

I want to oppose this Resolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland said he is going to engage certain men to fill high positions in Scotland, but he has not yet made up his mind, and has not yet got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what wages he will pay those men. I leave it to the House to say if ever this happened before, if ever an intelligent man in charge of a Department, or, say, a manager in charge of a works, advertised for certain individuals to execute certain work for him without his having made up his mind what wages he was going to pay Is that not proof that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not fit for the position that he occupies? Tories may think not, but the Labour party is satisfied that we could supplant him to-morrow by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. William Adamson). I am going to ask my colleagues to go into the Lobby, and, if possible, we will vote them out of office.

I would like to reinforce the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). We are told in the Financial Memorandum that the object of the Bill is primarily efficiency, but that the change should also be conducive to economy, and should permit some changes in the staffs, particularly in regard to the Records Office, without an increase in the total cost of the Department. With a statement of that kind in the Financial Memorandum, surely the Scottish Office and the Treasury must have gone into the matter to a certain extent. The Secretary of State has told us that this Memorandum does not apply to Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.

Yes, I am referring to the Financial Resolution. We understand that in bringing about the changes which are proposed in this Bill, the Secretary of State is going to alter entirely the status of the servants of the Scottish Office. He is going to make them civil servants.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that the present boards, and the staffs in connection with the boards, are civil servants, and this Financial Resolution has no bearing on any part of that Clause of the Bill.

I put this point to the Secretary of State in that connection. I hold the view that when the changes that are provided for in the Bill come into operation, and the officers are recognised as part and parcel of the ordinary civil Service, the most, natural thing for one to expect is that the civil servants of the Scottish Office will be looking for as large salaries as the corresponding servants in the English Departments, and that in all probability, instead of a saving being effected, they will find that there will be an increase in the cost of administration. If I am right in assuming that, where does the Secretary of State get the power to provide for the increase if it is not included in the Financial Resolution which we are considering?

If there is to be an increase of salaries, that will result in an increased Vote. It does not require a Financial Resolution. In the case of this Bill we do require and ask for a Financial Resolution on two points. The first point is that the Deputy Clerk Register has a salary fixed by Statute. That office is now being abolished, and a new post, more or less equivalent, is being suggested under this Bill, and, being a new post, it is necessary to have a Financial Resolution to provide for salary. The second point relates to the

Division No. 26.]

AYES.

[9.55 p.m.

Aqq-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.Galbraith, J. F. W.Power, Sir John Cecil
Albery, Irving JamesGanzonl, Sir JohnPrice, Major C. W. M.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonRamsden, E.
Apsley, LordGilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir JohnReid, D. D. (County Down)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.Goff, Sir ParkRhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyGreene, W. P. CrawfordRoberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Ballour, George (Hampstead)Grotrian, H. BrentRuggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. MGuest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.Hamilton, Sir GeorgeRye, F. G.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)Harrison, G. J. C.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bethel, A.Hartington, Marquess ofSamuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Birchall, Major J. DearmanHarvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)Sandeman, N. Stewart
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)Haslam, Henry C.Sanders. Sir Robert A.
Blundell, F. N.Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd.Henley)Sanderson, Sir Frank
Bourne, Captain Robert CrortHendearon, Sir Vivian (Bootle)Shepperson, E. W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveHeneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Brocklebank, C. E. R.Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.Smithers, Waldron
Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexnam)Hills, Major John WallerSprot, Sir Alexander
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)Hilton, CecilStanley. Hon. D. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Buchan, JohnHolt, Captain H. P.Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William JamesHoman, C. W. J.Storry-Deans, R.
Burman, J. B.Hore-Belisha, LeslieStott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Butler, Sir GeoffreyHorlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N.Streatfelid, Captain S. R.
Camphell, E. T.Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cassels, J. D.Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Chadwick, Sir Robert BurtonJackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Clarry, Reginald GeorgeKennedy, A. R. (Preston).Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Colman, N. C. D.King, Commodore Henry DouglasThomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Cooper, A. DuffLamb, J. Q.Tinne, J. A.
Cope, Major WilliamLucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh VereTitchfield, Major the Marquess of
Couper, J. B.Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard HarmanWaddington, R.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)Lumley, L. R.Wallace, Captain D. E.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)MacAndrew, Major Charles GlenWard, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Cainsbro)McLean, Major A.Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Cunliffe, Sir HerbertMacRobert, Alexander M.Warrender, Sir Victor
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)Margesson, Captain D.Watts, Dr. T.
Ellis, R. G.Mason, Colonel Glyn K.Wells. S. R.
England, Colonel A.Meller, R. J.Wiggins, William Martin
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)Merriman, F. B.Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff. South)Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)Nicholson, O. (Westminster)wilson. R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)
Everard, W. LindsayO'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.Oman, Sir Charles William C.Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. WilliamWomersley, W. J.
Fenhy, T. D.Pennefather, Sir JohnWorthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.Penny, Frederick George
Forrest, W.Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fraser, Captain IanPerkins, Colonel E. K.Captain Viscount Curzon and
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. AnthonyPitcher, G.Captain Bowyer.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Ammon. Charles GeorgeBarnes, A.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')Baker, WalterBatey, Joseph

staff of the Principal Extractor. At present the Principal Extractor appoints his own staff, and they are not established civil servants. It is most desirable, as has been pointed out by at least two Committees, that that staff should be put on an ordinary Civil Service pensionable basis. There, again, in order to achieve that basis, it is necessary to have a Financial Resolution. Surely hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that this is a desirable change and is only fair to the staff or the Extractor.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 56.

Bondfleld, MargaretLowth, T.Stamford, T. W.
Bromfield, WilliamLunn, WilliamStephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)Sutton, J. E.
Charleton, H. C.MacNeill-Weir, L.Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)Tinker, John Joseph
Glbbins, JosephMurnin, H.Townend, A. E.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Ponsonby, ArthurWalsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Greenall, T.Polts, John S.Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Greenwood, A. (Netson and Coine)Richardson, R. Houghton-le-Spring)Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)Riley, BenWellock, Wilfred
Hardie, George D.Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich)Welsh, J. C.
Hayday, ArthurRobinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Eiland;Whiteley, W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)Rose, Frank H.Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)Scrymgeour, E.Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Kelly, W. T.Smillie, RobertTELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kennedy, T.Snell, HarryMr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Kirkwood, D.Snowden, Rt. Hon. PhilipCharles Edwards.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Fighting Services (Political Activities)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Sir G. Hennessy.]

10.0 p.m.

I wish to raise a matter of which I gave notice last week, namely, the political rights of Service men. These rights have been very seriously affected by recent Orders from the Service Departments, and as my constituency is very closely touched by the Orders, I am sure that the House will be good enough to allow me to raise this question for a few minutes. I see that the First Lord of the Admiralty is good enough to be present, and, therefore, I will confine myself to the Naval aspect of the case. But it applies equally to the other Service Departments. The matter arises out of a Fleet Order, dated 26th August, 1927, a date at which, as the House will observe, we were in Recess, That Order laid down that no officer or man is allowed to speak or appear on the platform at, or take any active part in, any meeting or demonstration held for party or political purposes, or to act as a member of a candidate's election committee or in any way actively to prosecute the candidate's interest.

The House may believe that that provision is wise, or may believe that it is unwise, but that it is a very fundamental change in the practice that had prevailed up to the last General Election, no one can contest. The First Lord shakes his head, but I hope to prove to him, as I

have already satisfied myself, that I am accurate in what I say, because I shall take the previous Orders on the subject. Up to the year 1918 there was no let or hindrance on the political rights of service men. When Lord Charles Beresford contested Portsmouth, he had an election committee of lower deck ratings, and in the town hall he held mass meetings over which a lower deck rating presided. In this example, he was followed by Admiral Meux, and therefore there was no question that before the War, service ratings were permitted to participate in elections. Rightly or wrongly, that was the position. In 1918, for the first time, this position was compromised and the following Fleet Order was issued. The effect of the Fleet Order is to say that service ratings may enjoy full political liberty provided they are in mufti. I will read the exact words to the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that he has contested my point of view. Article 6 of that Order says this:

"Any officer acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, advocating a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any way actively prosecuting a candidate's interest, is not permitted to do the same in uniform. Men may in uniform attend political meetings and put questions. Any man who desires to act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or to advocate a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any other way actively to promote any candidate's interest, must do so not in uniform. Requests for permission to wear plain clothes for this purpose during the forthcoming general election campaign are to he favourably considered."

Since then, I myself have contested three elections in a service town, and I can assure the First Lord of the Admiralty that that has been the practice at every single one of those elections. I am going to qualify that in a minute, but I am taking the story chronologically. At the

elections of 1922 and 1923 service men in service towns were permitted actively to prosecute the interests of any political candidate, and nobody who is living can deny that, because it is a plain, simple fact. In 1924, however, the first inroad that had ever been made in modern times was made by a Fleet Order. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) is present, because he was Financial Secretary to the Admiralty at the time, and has since expressed some indignation against the present Government for following, his example.

This Order was issued during the régime of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell. it is dated 24th October, 1924, a few days before the polling, and also when the matter could not be raised in Parliament. All that can be said for this Order is that it is not so stringent as the Order issued by the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty. It is in the following terms:

"Officers and men on full pay are not permitted to act as members of a candidate's election committee or to advocate a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any way actively to prosecute a candidate's interest."
That Order created considerable consternation in the service towns, but was not generally followed, because it was difficult for the service towns to adapt themselves to this entirely new system, and officers did not realise what the Order meant. At any rate it appeared only two or three days before the actual polling day. The present Order, which I have read to the House, goes very much further than that. It does not specify what rights are left to the service man. It is very important in a matter of this kind that service men should know exactly where they stand.

I ask the permission of the House to take it very briefly through an amazing story, because it shows that the Government have not the vaguest idea what they mean by this Order which has come into being, or how it came into being without the sanction of Parliament. The first point to which I wish to call attention is that on 16th November, I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any change had been made in regard to the right of officers or men of the Navy to participate in political activities—not actually to stand for Parliament—such as attending meetings during the General Election or voting. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I should like to have a definition of 'other political activities' before attempting to answer that question."
I pressed him on the point, and he was unable to say. Evidently he was in some doubt as to whether any actual change had been made. Then the hon. Member for North Camberwell asked him, on the very same day, and I believe following that question of mine:
"Is the position of officers and men of the Navy in this respect fixed by Statute Law or simply by order of the Department?"
The First Lord of the Admiralty replied:
"I should like notice of that question."
Then the hon. Member for Camberwell said:
"Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in that case, whether it is right that this should be done without consultation with Parliament?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1927; col. 1018, Vol. 210.]
He had done it himself. [Interruption.] Precisely, there was no opportunity of consulting Parliament, but he made this very important point, and I am going to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will answer it now, because he has had plenty of notice this time. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty tell me to-night whether this Order-in-Council is promulgated under any Statute, and, secondly, why Parliament was not consulted in an important matter of this kind? I have some other vital questions to ask him; perhaps he will make a note of those. Then I asked the Prime Minister if he would lay down for the purposes of clarity exactly what a naval rating could or could not do during a general election. For instance, could he ask questions and so forth, could he canvass, could he express his opinions? I asked the Prime Minister that question on the 20th February, and the Prime Minister said:
"I think that it is better to leave the interpretation of this general rule to the good sense of those concerned rather than to attempt to lay down a number of hard and-fast detailed Regulations."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1213, Vol. 213.]
The House would not consent to a proposition of that kind for a minute. Our purpose as a legislative body is to tell people what the law is, and it would be most unfair if a naval rating were to find himself in prison because he had broken something which the Prime Minister thinks it better to leave in doubt rather than to define precisely. I pressed the Prime Minister on that day, and I asked:
"Would it not be far more sensible to let these men know exactly what their rights may be, seeing that they have hitherto exercised them without any restraint? I have asked a number of particular questions in order to clarify the issue. May I know whether they may attend political meetings and ask questions of candidates? They are entitled to know that."
The Prime Minister answered—
"There has been no alteration in the Regulation, which has existed for many years, it is causing no trouble"—
I ask the House to note this, in view of what follows:
"and the fighting services have tried by means of definition to ease their position in the direction the hon. Member would undoubtedly desire to go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1213 and 1214, Vol. 213.]
In the first place I contest that this procedure is a procedure which bas previously been in force, and I contest the view that the effect of this Order is to move matters in the direction in which I would desire to see them go, because it is moving them in precisely the reverse direction. The Prime Minister further said on that day:
"I am not aware of any difference in the situation to-day from the situation as I have known it ever since I have been a Parliamentary candidate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1213–14, Vol. 213.]
That is what the Prime Minister said on the 20th February. A few days afterwards I asked him exactly the same question again—whether he would define the precise rights of these men. I put down exactly the same question, and I got a very different answer. I was not referred to my previous question. I was told—this is on the 29th February—
"In view of the large numbers of officers and men of the national army awaiting demobilisation in 1918, special permission was granted at that election to officers and men of all three fighting services to advocate their political opinions provided that they were in mufti. This special permission has since been withdrawn. and I see no reason for its renewal. The general rule in these matters for the three fighting services has now been formulated as a general prohibition of active participation in meetings held for party or political purposes, and the active prosecution of the interests of a Parliamentary candidate. This general Regulation, which I see no ground to modify, is clearly incompatible with the practice of, namely, canvassing, whether in uniform or in mufti, or in any other way of openly advocating the interests of a particular candidate. But personnel of the fighting services even in uniform are not precluded by the rules from attending political meetings and asking questions."
Therefore, we have this great advance, that the position is now qualified to the extent that we know a service man may ask questions. Only a week ago we were told that it was better to leave these matters in doubt. The Prime Minister told us only last week that no change whatever had been made in the practice, and then, in answer to a supplementary question, he said:
"I am no more infallible than the hon. Member; I have learned something from giving an answer in a hurry, and it is not to answer any supplementary questions of this kind without notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1928; cols. 397–98, Vol. 214.]
This shows that the Prime Minister, having told us that there has been no change in regard to this matter during the whole of his political career is now obliged to admit a very fundamental change. In these circumstances, I think I am entitled to say that if the Prime Minister held the view that no change had been sanctioned, he obviously could not have been aware that he was sanctioning a fundamental change taking place. What is the explanation of that? The First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister took up the line that there had been no change at all on this question. I have always put the 1924 Order in all my questions because I want to safeguard myself against the Order of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). Until that date the rights of officers and men were untouched. In 1918, by the Representation of the People Act, officers and men in the fighting services were given votes simply because they were officers and men belonging to the fighting services. Under that Act, they were given votes for the first time, and they had no other qualification. I ask what is the good of giving them votes if you do not allow them to enjoy all that a vote implies? There are hon. Members in this House who have a special claim to represent these men, and the towns they represent would be virtually disfranchised by an Order such as the one to which I have alluded. Under that Order, no rating in my constituency would feel free to put questions to me which up to the present he has always been able to do. Here is a kind of letter I frequently receive:
"I am going abroad on a three years' commission; will you look after my wife—in this or that particular—while I am gone?"
That is the kind of question that every candidate for a service constituency has to answer. There are a large number of householders who are the wives of naval ratings, and the naval rating has been given a vote in order that his wife and family may be looked after. What has happened to make the Government afraid of naval ratings or of Service men? They are often Conservatives. I have already read the exact terms of both Orders, and, bad as the last Order was, this Order is very much more stringent. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that; he does not wish me to read it again, I am sure. I contend that, if the Services are fit to vote, they are fit to ask questions of candidates, they are fit to express opinions on the replies, they are fit to say to their colleagues that they should vote in this direction or in that direction, and there is no reason whatever to be afraid of these men. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman these questions:

Why was not Parliament consulted? Why should not Parliament be consulted, when the whole spirit of the Representation of the People Act is being violated? Will Parliament have an opportunity of being consulted on these Orders? Why have these Orders now been issued? Why was the Order issued in 1924, and why was it strengthened in 1927? Has anything happened to cause the country to lose confidence in the personnel of the Fleet?

The right hon. Gentleman did say that this Order was the result of an Order in Council, but the Order in Council to which he referred at Question Time has nothing whatever to do with this sub- ject; it concerns the subject of officers standing for Parliament, a subject in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) is very much interested. and which he raised last week. I am raising the matter only as it applies to the men. That Order affected officers only in regard to standing for Parliament, and it does not touch the question of general political rights. Therefore, the First Lord of the Admiralty cannot base it upon that. Upon what, then, does he base it, because there is no such Order in the Civil Service? He has said on other occasions that it is necessary that all Government servants should be on an equality. If he is going to say that civil servants cannot express opinions amongst themselves as to which way they shall vote, I shall have occasion to contradict him, because I shall point to officers in his own Department who, with his cognisance and with the cognisance of the Admiralty, come down to my constituency and make speeches about dockyards. Therefore, he is not going to tell me that it is to put naval ratings on an equality with civil servants.

Further, I want to point out to him this: He says himself that the Order is not clear. His exact words were that the Order is capable of being differently construed The Prime Minister admitted also that it was not clear when he said to me, "It is better that these matters should be left in doubt." The only meaning of such a sentence could be that the matter was in doubt under the words of the Order. Therefore, I give that as an additional reason why the Order should be withdrawn, and why, if it is necessary to substitute another Order, that next Order should lay down precisely, for every man to know, what his exact position is under the law. Then I would say to the First Lord that this Order has nothing to do with the Blanesburgh Committee, as he once asserted that it had, because the Blanesburgh Committee was not inquiring into the political—

The beginning of the Order has undoubtedly to do with the Blanesburgh Committee.

That refers to candidature for Parliament, which I am not raising. I am raising the subject of the political activities of Service men. That is the sixth Article, and I have quoted it. The Blanesburgh Committee was not called upon to examine that question at all. I would ask the First Lord why, if the Prime Minister said that there had been no change, will he not withdraw the Order on these grounds, because, obviously, the Prime Minister did not intend that there should be a change? These are the questions that I would put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I hope that he has noted them, and that he appreciates the seriousness of the position. I hope that I have stated my case with restraint. After all, it does affect a large body of Service men and a large body of citizens in whom we have more right to be confident, and whom we have more right to trust, than any other section of the community.

I was not aware that there was going to be an oblique attack on myself and the last Government. The hon. Member might at least have given me notice and I could have refreshed my memory. So far as my memory serves me, I had some occasion, soon after the Government came into office, to go into the matter, with special reference to a dockyard official who had stood for Parliament and had been dismissed on account of his actions. That came up for review, and the man was re-instated in his position. I can say with confidence that, so far as the last Government was concerned, no alteration whatever was made in the exercise of citizen rights so far as officers and ratings of the Navy were concerned. The hon. Member himself has indicated that the Order was issued after the Dissolution and within a few days of the Poll. As far as I can gather from what he has said, it seems to have been just the usual Order that is issued throughout the Civil Service and the other Services when an election is pending, pointing out the line of conduct they should adopt when a General Election is in progress. It is, of course, usually left to the permanent officials to interpret the existing law and issue the Order accordingly, but I can at once say, whatever may have been the nature of it, it was done without my knowledge officially, and certainly it was not based on any alteration of the existing Regulations made by the last Government.

I should like to state what my experience has been with regard to officers, both in the Army and Navy at election time. In the 1906 election, a friend, an Army officer, was staying with me. He came over to Battersea and helped me, but the moment a General Election was called, he said it was absolutely out of order for him to attempt to take any part in active politics. As far as Plymouth is concerned, there has been no election there since 1910, when I have not had sincere and energetic support from men on active service in the Navy. I have never known an election occur when these men did not say, "We cannot appear in uniform; we cannot go to your public meetings; and we cannot canvass." I have never had support from them in that way. The more power that is given to the Navy to take part in elections, the more satisfied I and members of my party will be.

The hon. Member who raised this question has not challenged the wisdom of the general intentions of all these Orders, which is to make it quite clear that Service members, either in the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or the Civil Service. shall be limited and restricted in their political activities. He has attempted to make out that some great change has taken place in the practice which did not exist before. It is true there was no codified practice before 1918, but it was generally understood as regards the Navy—he has only referred to the Navy to-night—that officers and men on full pay should not take an active part in politics. That was generally understood and observed. There may have been occasions when it was not observed, but it has always been the general practice.

As far as the Army goes, there was an Army Order which prevented officers and men, in 1914 I think it was, from attending political meetings in uniform, but long before that it was generally accepted in this country that political activities of the fighting Services should be restricted. In fact on certain occasions the soldiers were confined to barracks on election day. The civilians of this country naturally felt rather suspicious about large bodies of uniformed men appearing at election time and interfering, or attempting to interfere, with what they felt was their freedom in election matters. So that it is no new idea in this country by any means that the armed Services should be restricted in their political activities. What has caused the hon. Gentleman so much trouble and annoyance, really, is that as a result of the election in 1918 being held at a time when the Army was being demobilised, all those restrictions had to be swept away, because they would have affected such an enormous proportion of the electors. Millions of men were being demobilised. He is thinking of the happy times of demobilisation, and trying to make us believe that they always existed before that time, and that it is only since then that some repressive change has been introduced. I do not know why from that time until 1924 nothing particular was done. I do not know the reason. But in 1924, under the Labour Government, a Fleet Order was issued, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said. It was issued in October, I think. He rather suggested that it was not issued under the authority of the Labour Party, but that it was issued just before the Election.

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said I took the statement of the hon. Member himself, who said it was two days before the election.

I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that his party were in office two days before the election and whether it was right or wrong, it was their responsibility.

If they had no knowledge of it, they ought to have had. [Interruption.] They do not wish to dissociate themselves from it, I am quite sure. I do not know why they should, because it seems to me it is very essential that something in the way of restrictions should have been imposed. The hon. Member for Devonport said that there was an enormous difference between the Order issued in 1927 and the Order issued in 1924. I cannot follow the argument. What was the difference? The Order in 1924 reads:

"Officers and men on full pay are not permitted to act as members of a candidate's election committee or to advocate a candidate's claims at public meetings or in any way actively to prosecute a candidate's interest."
That was the 1924 Order—the Order of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The corresponding paragraph of the second Fleet Order which deals with this point and not with the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, says:
"No officer or man shall be allowed to speak or to appear on the platform at or take any active part in any meeting or demonstration held for party or political purposes, or to act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or in any way actively to prosecute the candidate's interests."
Where is the great difference?

It is very much longer. It seems to me that the onus is on the right hon. Gentleman to show why these words have been strengthened.

It rests with the hon. Member to show the difference between the two Orders. There is no difference.

If they were very different, the hon. Member might have supported one and opposed the other, from what one gathered from his speech; but he opposes them both, because they are both the same. In this matter the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and I, whatever our own views may be about the activities of other people in electioneering, were responsible for similar Orders. The grievance of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) really does not exist.

The hon. Member for North Camberwell has nothing to be ashamed of in associating himself with the actions of the party to which I belong. Whenever his party have done anything of that sort it has always been wholly for their benefit. It is not true to say that there was no let or hindrance until 1918. The hon. Member for Devonport said that he had had three elections in which there was perfect freedom, and, according to him, the activities of those who supported him were almost entirely unlimited. Was one of them the election in 1924?

Then I am afraid that the hon. Member's constituents, although unnoticed at the time, must have exercised activities which they were not entitled to exercise.

I precisely said, if the right hon. Gentleman will do me justice, that until this Order was issued, two or three days before the poll, we did not know about it. It was never appreciated, and we could not stop the activities. It was something entirely new. Hitherto, naval ratings in mufti had been entitled to participate.

I quite understand, and it is very natural that when an Order was made very shortly before an election there might be some confusion, and no one would in fairness have taken advantage of it, unless it was in regard to some very flagrant case. But it does not prove that the change has taken place since 1924, because the hon. Member says that he and his constituents either did not know of it, or of they did know of it, took advantage of the fact when other people did not, and thereby gained an advantage. The hon. Member wanted to carry on as he had done before, and with the same result. I am sure he feels that even if his supporters had known all about it the result would have been no different. The hon. Member has asked me as to the way in which the Fleet Order was promulgated. It was promulgated in the same way in which any Fleet Orders in the interests of discipline are promulgated.

If the hon. Member wants to regulate the proceedings by a Statute, all he has to do is to introduce a Bill into the House, and I am sure that with the persuasive eloquence which he enjoys and which we all admire, he will get a fair hearing, if not a successful Division upon it. He then went on to say that he was not satisfied with the Prime Minister's reply or with mine. I humbly apologise for the Prime Minister and myself. The matter, apparently, is one which has caused all of us some confusion, but this confusion seems to have lasted much longer in the case of the hon. Member than anyone else. Then he asked whether his friends could attend meetings and ask questions as to who was going to look after their mothers—[HON MEMBERS: "No, wives!"]—wives, if they were on service abroad. I shall be glad to reassure the hon. Member that that question, or any other question, asked at public meetings if they attend as private citizens will be in order, and I hope the desired result will be that every sailor who goes from Devonport will feel that wherever he may be his wife will be thoroughly well looked after.

The other question which the hon. Member asked was whether they were allowed to canvass. That has already been answered, but, at any rate, the answer is in the negative. Then he went on to say that if they are not allowed to canvass we were really disfranchising these men. They were not allowed to canvass under the Order of 1924; and I have made no change. If the hon. Member wants to make a change in this respect he has only to convince the hon. Member for North Camberwell and myself, and the rest of the Members of this House, that such a change is necessary, introduce a Bill and get it passed. I shall listen to him with a perfectly open mind, but at the present time I am only carrying out what I believe to be the intention of Parliament, which is that these activities should be to some extent restrained, and that that restraint should be equally fair not only on officers as compared with men but on officers in the Defence services as compared with civil servants. That was our intention, and it was the intention of the hon. Member opposite, and in the Orders which have been promulgated we believe it has been carried out. I do not think that I can add anything more to what I have said, and I hope the hon. Member will go away with some faint hope that he will, in spite of all this, still be returned as Member for Devonport.

Divisions

Speaking on the adjournment I believe it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to almost any important subject which comes under the cognisance of the House, and I have a grievance which will not take more than three minutes to explain. It is this. We are frequently troubled by the pestilent behaviour—if that is unparliamentary I will say tiresome behaviour—of hon. Members of this House who, having called for a Division, do not then nominate Tellers. Having called hon. Members who are better employed in Committee, or perhaps at dinner, at any rate from distant parts of the House, into the Chamber at considerable trouble to themselves, they then refuse to go to a Division by not nominating Tellers. Can you, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of your supreme authority, discourage this tiresome practice? Three times to-day—and I am not sure that there was not a fourth occasion—we have been called into the House, only to find that the Division for which we were summoned was "off." This clearly wastes the time of the House as a whole and of the individual Members, and I would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to say something or, if it is in your power, do something to deprecate this very tiresome practice.

On that point of Order, Sir. I hope you will make it clear to the House that everything which has been done here to-day along those lines has been strictly in accord with Parliamentary procedure.

I do not think I can do anything to prevent hon. Members changing their minds between the first call of the bells and the second call of the bells, but I understand that perambulation is good for the digestion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes before Eleven o'Clock.