asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will represent to the Italian Government that, in the matter of the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, it is for this country a matter of honour and vital interest not to default on our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations?

I presume the hon. Member is referring to the situation which would arise if Italy were to resort to war in disregard of her obligations under the Covenant of the League. Such a situation has not yet arisen, and I earnestly trust will not arise. His Majesty's Government are determined to continue their endeavours in co-operation with the Governments of other countries to bring about a settlement of this dispute by peaceful means.

Am I right in assuming that the attitude of His Majesty's Government is rightly described in my question?

It is safer to assume that it is rightly described ill my answer.

May I ask whether the Government are going to publish the reasons why the Committee which was set up to investigate this matter disagreed?

I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question but I do not think it arises out of the original question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that a Western air-pact must be accompanied by a system of mutual inspection or supervision?

As negotiations between the five Locarno Powers regarding an air pact have not yet begun, it would be preferable not to make any statement regarding the form which such a pact might take.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman able to indicate what the Government's attitude will be in the event of a pact being agreed upon? Would not some system of supervision be necessary in view of the secret arming which is admittedly going on, and in view of the fact that recently the Government have admitted complete ignorance of the extent to which European nations have already armed?

It is not a question of the Government being able to indicate its position; it is a question whether it is advisable or not.

Are we going to be faced, as usual, with an accomplished fact? Cannot we know what the Government's attitude is going to be?

After negotiations have begun.

Have not the Government made it clear that they attach the greatest importance to mutual inspection in any pact of this kind?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that limitation should be an indispensable feature of a Western air pact?

My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the references made to this subject on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debates in this House on 2nd May and 31st May.

Are we to understand that every pact which is now arranged with other nations must mean an increase of armaments and never a decrease?

If the hon. Member will look at the reference instead of making assumptions he will find it clearly set out by the Home Secretary that the Government do contemplate limitation as part of an air pact.

We have to consider, not speeches made in this House, but actual facts and figures.

There is no inconsistency.

asked the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he received the French Note making certain representations on the proposed Anglo-German Naval Agreement which was signed on 18th June?

The French Note was communicated to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris on the 17th June. An identical Note was left at the Foreign Office on the 18th June.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why some little time was not given to the consideration of this Note before signing this arrangement with Germany?

We communicated the outline of the Agreement to the French Government.

My point is that there was no time to consider the French Note before you signed the German Note. What was the reason for that?

This matter is to be debated to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German naval delegation stipulated any time limit for the signature of the naval agreement on 18th June?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has given any assurance to the Government of France with regard to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Germany on air armaments?

No, Sir; but it is the hope and intention of His Majesty's Government that an agreement on air armaments shall be concluded between the five Locarno Powers.

Can the Minister give an assurance that there is no intention of concluding a bilateral agreement with Germany in the air as has been done on the sea?

That is a different question. The hon. Member asked whether we had given an assurance to France with regard to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Germany on air armaments.

Are the Government contemplating another act of treachery and surrender?

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now made any inquiries as to the present strength of the German air force, and whether he has obtained any information on the subject which he can give to the House?

I can add nothing to the statements to which I referred in my reply of the 3rd July.

But the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. Has he made any inquiries into the matter, and how long are we to remain in the dark as to what is going on in Germany in this matter?

The whole question can be more conveniently dealt with in the Debate which we shall have shortly. We had a perfectly plain statement from the German Government of what their intention and programme are, and it is in relation to that that our programme is conceived and will be carried out.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what that programme is?

I hope to have an opportunity. The House has already been told—

Three months ago.

No, in May. The House has been told by the Prime Minister and by the Under-Secretary of State for Air what the programme is. An Estimate is to be presented early. I hope it will be in the hands of Members very early next week, and then I hope to have an opportunity of debating it. I shall be very glad to give the fullest possible explanation and justification of the programme.

Will the Estimate be formed on the basis of the assurance received from Germany or on the facts as they are in Germany?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the setting up of a labour department in Northern Rhodesia?

I have not received any proposal for the setting up of a labour department from the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, but the matter is receiving my consideration.

Is it not important that a labour department should be set up in Northern Rhodesia—in view of the fact that there are so many engaged in industrial operations, perhaps more important than in most of our Colonies?

It would be extremely improper to set it up without consideration, and I have promised to give the matter my consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will call for a return of the number of visits paid by inspectors or Chinese protectorate officers to muit-sai in their employer's homes in the last six months of last year in Singapore and Penang and in each of the federated and unfederated Malay States;

(2) whether he will see that the Malayan Governments follow the example of the Hong-Kong Government and give the number of mui-tsai in those states in each of the half-yearly reports with effect from the beginning of this year; and whether he will see that much fuller information regarding mui-tsai is included in the reports?

I am asking the Governor and High Commissioner to furnish full information in his periodical reports, and to supply such a return as may be available of the visits paid to mui-tsai in the last six months of 1934.

Is the right hon. Gentleman asking that this information shall appear in all the reports?

That depends on what answer I receive.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the number of cases of claims by Territorial officers, non-commissioned officers and men for accidents in Royal Air Force flights and the number which have been refused owing to the signing of the certificate of indemnity?

No such claims have been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give the number of cases of injury to Regular and Territorial personnel which have occurred in flights of Royal Air Force machines for which the certificate has been signed and for which it has not been signed for the latest available period?

Since 1930 there have been six cases of injury, three of them being fatal, to Army personnel while flying in Royal Air Force aircraft. They all occurred overseas and two of the killed were an officer and a native soldier of a Colonial defence force. AR the personnal were on duty and in no case had a certificate of indemnity been signed.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider dispensing with the certificate in the case of serving officers, noncommissioned officers, and men of the Regular and Territorial Army?

The Commanding Officer's certificate that the officer or soldier is on duty is dispensed with in joint exercises in which aircraft are co-operating with troops where it is clear that the personnel are required to go into the air on military duty. I do not think it would be practicable to dispense with the certificate in other cases.

Has my right hon. Friend taken into consideration the question of the effect of the certificate on recruiting for the Territorial Army and the feeling aroused in the ranks of the Territorial Army by their having to sign a certificate when they are actually on service?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend slightly misunderstands the position, or I have not made it clear. When an officer or man is on duty he receives a certificate from his Commanding Officer that he is on duty and that it is proper for him to be flying, and then of course he is covered. If he is flying quite irrespective of his duty, the Regulations provide that he should sign a certificate of indemnity like any one else.

Is it to be supposed that aircraft of the Royal Air Force can go up when they are not on duty? Is it to be supposed that any flights can be joy-riding, where a certificate is not required? Otherwise would it not be the case that all flights would be flights on duty?

Air Force airmen flying machines are flying in the course of their duty. The question here is, I understand, about Territorial officers or men flying in Royal Air Force machines. If they are flying on duty, they are completely covered. If they are not flying on duty they have to sign a certificate of indemnity like any one else.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) what procedure is being adopted by the Broadcasting Committee in preparation for the new charter; are the proceedings of the Committee public; will the evidence be made public; and will representatives of organised associations be allowed to give evidence so that all points of view may be taken into consideration before a final decision is reached; and whether all memoranda and minutes are forwarded to the British Broadcasting Corporation for their observations, and will these be made public;

(2) how many meetings the Broadcasting Committee have held; when it is expected their report will be available; and will the minutes and evidence be made public?

Persons and organisations desiring to submit evidence or representations to the Broadcasting Committee were invited to do so not later than the 31st of May last. The Committee has held 19 meetings up to the present. These meetings are not open to the public nor will the minutes and evidence be made public. It is not the case that the Committee forwards al memoranda and minutes to the British Broadcasting Corporation; but if it desires to obtain the Corporation's reply to any criticisms or suggestions it is within its discretion to do so. The proceedings of the Committee have now reached an advanced stage, but I am not yet in a position to say when its report will be available.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Postmaster-General to use all his power to ensure that as much publicity as possible is given to this evidence and that all points of view will be fully considered before the Committee presents a report?

I believe that all points of view have been considered fairly and squarely.

That is not my information.

As to the other point, the proceedings are being treated as confidential with the intention of giving as much freedom as possible to the witnesses in the expression of their opinions.

asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the report of the Broadcasting Committee in the House of Commons before a final decision is taken by the Government as to the terms of the new charter?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question when the report of the Committee bas been received.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point of my question is the desirability of having a statement before the report is issued?

asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the announcement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, on 25th June, that Germany is prepared to adhere to the rules in Part IV of the London Naval Treaty relating to the sinking or disablement of merchant vessels by submarines, whether His Majesty's Government would favour an extension of those rules to similar action by sea-planes and other aircraft?

His Majesty' Government favour the application of rules similar to those in Part IV of the London Naval Treaty to aircraft operating against merchant vessels.

Will steps be taken, in any future negotiations with other powers, to press that matter forward?

I have no doubt those points will arise.

Is it not better to abolish these instruments altogether than to wait until after war has been declared, when you never can tell how they are going to be used?

asked the Prime Minister whether, before the end of the present Parliament, the Government will give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers?

In view of the congested state of public business, I can hold out no hope of an opportunity being afforded for a discussion of this matter. As the hon. Member has been informed on a previous occasion, the views expressed in the report are being borne in mind in relation to current legislation as occasion arises.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the fact that the recommendations of that report have been consistently ignored for three years, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Maharajah of Mysore in 1881 assigned free of charge to the exclusive management of the British Government the lands forming the civil and military station of Bangalore, and renounced the exercise of all jurisdiction of the land so assigned, and that proposals for retrocession made by the Government of Mysore in 1912 and 1924, respectively, were not accepted by the Government of India; and why the Government of India are now negotiating with the Government of Mysore for the handing over of the civil station of Bangalore to the jurisdiction of the Government of Mysore?

The lands forming the civil and military station of Bangalore were assigned by Mysore to the British Government in 1881 in the manner described by the Noble Lady for the purposes stated in Article 9 of the Mysore Instrument of Transfer. Under that Article the State agreed to the maintenance or establishment of British cantonments whenever and wherever the Governor-General in Council might consider such cantonments necessary. The present negotiations relate to the extent of the area now required by the British Government for the purposes agreed upon. I am not aware of any proposals for retrocession made by the Government of Mysore in 1912. In 1923 His Highness the Maharaja made a personal appeal to the then Viceroy.

Will my hon. Friend answer my question as to the reason why this proposal which he admits was made in 1923 and was not entertained is now being entertained?

I have given the Noble Lady the reason for the present negotiations. I would remind her that these follow official proposals which were made by the Mysore Government to the Government of India in 1928 and to the Davidson Committee in 1932.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the memorial of protest against the transfer drawn up by trade and ratepayers' associations of British and Anglo-Indians, it is stated that it is a matter of common knowledge that this transfer would not have been agreed to had not Mysore made it a condition of entering the Federation?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is intended to publish the schemes for the protection of the civilian population against gas attack, and what are the reasons for the repeated postponement of their announcement?

The general circular on civil air-raid precautions is being posted to local authorities to-night. It will be communicated to the Press at the same time, and will be placed on sale to the public. The terms of this circular naturally required the most careful consideration, and, before they could be finally settled, an opportunity had to be given to the new Air Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office to complete its survey of the work done hitherto.

asked the Home Secretary what is the membership of the air raids precautions committee; what is the number of black-outs, the places where they have been held, and their results; and what is the number of blackouts arranged for the month of July?

The committees dealing with the subject of air-raid precautions are sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it would be contrary to established practice to disclose the membership of such subcommittees. Two "black-outs" have been carried out in the neighbourhood of naval dockyards, at Chatham and Sheerness respectively. Thanks to the loyal co-operation of the public, the results were in general very satisfactory, and are now under detailed examination. No "black-outs" have been arranged to take place in July, but it has already been announced that there will be a "black-out" at Portsmouth in August.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been made to him by any of the Colonial Governments with regard to the proposals recently made for the conditional transfer of a certain part of British Somaliland to the Italian Government?

I have received no such representations regarding the tentative suggestion which was recently made.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now indicate what further progress has been made with reference to the establishment of a central airport for London?

As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the City Lands Committee of the Corporation of London is examining the possibility of providing an airport within or near the City of London, and I have no doubt that they are giving every possible attention to the many and varied problems which arise. It will be realised that the investigations in a matter of this kind must inevitably take some time.

Having regard to the fact that the time taken to travel to and from the present airports affects the popularity of the service, particularly at home, will my right hon. Friend do his best to accelerate progress in this connection.

Yes, but anybody who looks at London will realise the difficulty of finding open spaces and what an extraordinarily difficult problem it is.

Is anything being done to improve the transport facilities to and from the existing airports?

That is under consideration.

asked the Minister of Transport how much money is held by corporation electricity undertakings from 5s. deposits from consumers; and what benefit do ratepayers get from the interest on such deposits?

The official statistics relating to electricity undertakings do not call for the amount of deposits of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. Such deposits when required by authorised undertakers as security for payments due to them and retained for more than six months are entitled to interest, usually at the rate of 4 per cent., such interest being payable to the consumers out of the revenues of the electricity undertaking.

I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

I move this reduction in order to call attention to various matters in connection with the Ministry for which the Prime Minister is primarily responsible. The first question I would like to put to him is one that I asked a few days ago, and which, as I understood him, he was not able to understand clearly. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands now because I have put it in writing. The point I tried to make across the Table was that, so far as we have been able to gather from conversations with one another in the House, a certain number of the Ministers who are now serving under the Prime Minister have not had any personal or written communications with him on the subject of their appointments. My argument was, and is, that the Ministry from top to bottom is to-day a new one and that each member must receive his appointment from the present Prime Minister. That is laid down in Todd's Parliamentary Government on page 283 as follows:

"It is the first Minister alone who can advise changes in an administration and recommend to the Sovereign persons to fill vacancies therein. If he himself should vacate his office by death or resignation or dismissal, the ministry is ipso facto dissolved. Individual Ministers may retain their offices if permitted by the Sovereign, and may form part of a fresh combination with another head, but this would be a new ministry, and as colleagues of the incoming premier they must make a fresh agreement with him."

On page 205 Todd says:

"They all resign when the Cabinet retires or is dismissed, and their offices are placed at the disposal of the statesman who is nominated by the Sovereign as the head of the new Ministry."

The simple question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether those Ministers who continued pending the present Prime Minister taking over, and whose offices were not changed, have been appointed by him to the positions they now hold? We are in the position in which a new Prime Minister has been appointed by His Majesty and he has chosen a new Government, some of whom were members of the previous Government and some of whom are new to the fold. When there were changes in the combination that was formed after the General Election, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was permitted to broadcast, and we certainly had some statement in the House as to what had taken place, and whenever there is a new Prime Minister I think it is usual for him to come to the House of Commons and make a declaration of his policy. In this instance, the day after the completion of the Cabinet—it was the day after so far as the public knows—the right hon. Gentleman went down into the country and made a speech, of which, of course, none of us complain, except as to the substance of the speech; he went into the country and made a declaration of policy. It may very well be that the Government are well assured of the backing of their supporters in the House—and last night proved that, as most Divisions prove it—but there are such things as the dignity and the rights of the House of Commons, irrespective of any majority, however large. I want to claim on behalf of the House of Commons, not on behalf of the Opposition, that the first place where the right hon. Gentleman should have made a declaration of policy as head of the present Government was from that Box in order that it might be discussed. That was not done. We have no idea whether the policy of the Government remains the same nor have we any explanation from the Government. We may get it to-day, but I maintain that we ought to have had it before to-day.

I think the right hon. Gentleman should have led off to-day with a statement explaining why the Cabinet has been enlarged and what are the actual duties of the Ministers without portfolio and other Ministers. The House of Commons and the country are entitled to know why the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary has left the Foreign Office. I am sure that the Home Office is not a sinecure, but somehow the right hon. Gentleman is now to combine the office of Leader of the House of Commons with that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. No one has been told a word why that change has been made. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, quite straightly, whether he agrees with those who say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has proved himself the worst Foreign Secretary of modern times, and whether that is the reason. I do not know whether he has been shifted up or down. We are entitled to know why that change has been made. It cannot be on the ground of health, and it cannot be on the score that there is no one else who could be appointed deputy leader to the right hon. Gentleman.

Next we should like to be told why Lord Sankey has been given the sack. When Lord Sankey left the Labour party to join the combination, he informed us that he was staying on in order to help forward the work of the India Committees and the consultations that were taking place. He has been "sacked" in the middle of the discussion of the India Bill in the House of Lords, and we should like to know why. Does he disagree with the policy of the present Government? Has there been any change which has caused him voluntarily to relinquish the position, or has he been, like an ordinary workman, just "sacked"? I do not know whether I ought to commiserate with him, but it does add one more pension to the big list of pensions given to ex-Lord Chancellors.

Then we should like to know why Lord Londonderry has been shifted. We understand that Lord Londonderry is an ex-airman, that he knows all about the Air Force, and, speaking without any sort of feeling on the subject, I personally think that he was a very efficient Minister for Air. But he did happen to make speeches in the House of Lords on the question of air armaments in which he appeared to take a different point of view from that of other spokesmen of the Government. He gloried in the fact that aeroplanes and air warfare generally—air bombing, and so on—had not been obliterated; that is to say, he considered the Air Force to be necessary as a weapon either of offence or of defence. We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman why he has now been given the sinecure post of Lord Privy Seal in order to lead the House of Lords. I should not have thought that was a full-time job, anyhow, but we are told that is why he occupies that position.

There are two other Ministers about whom we should like to know something. So far as the late Prime Minister is concerned, we understand that ill-health has caused him to resign, and I can say quite truthfully that I know that that is a fact, and I regret that he should be in that position and hope that the rest he is getting will help him to recover. The late Home Secretary I saw in the House yesterday. As to the late Minister of Health, I am not sure whether it is on the score of bad health or why it is that he has gone out, whether he acted voluntarily or whether room had to be found for other people. With regard to the late Home Secretary, he always seemed to be in such robust health and strength that I do not know why he should be shifted and the right hon. Gentleman put into his place, but I hope the Prime Minister will tell us.

When we come to the new appointments, so far as they are younger men—perhaps I am not the person who should say this—I rejoice with the right hon. Gentleman or any other Leader of the Government that there should be more younger men at the head of affairs than has been the custom. The work of the Cabinet is infinitely harder now than it was, and, also, we need younger minds, though I am bound to say that when I listen in this place to some who are young in point of years I think their minds are very old indeed. I would point out to the Committee that on one occasion the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. - Colonel Moore - Brabazon), speaking from behind us—and I think he also said some rather uncomplimentary things about us—warned the Government that there were enough capable people in the House outside the Government to form three or four Ministries.

We challenge the whole principle on which the Prime Minister has based his appointments to this Cabinet. We believe it is a principle which will lead to disaster in the future. Ministers are not chosen, as I understand it, because of their ability, but are chosen in sections to represent what are called the various sections which make up this combination called the National Party. On that I want to say that however my colleagues and others have described this combination since 1931 I have never accepted the proposition that party politics had been buried, and that the Government of the day were a Government representative of the nation as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has no more title to be called the Prime Minister of a National Government than any other Prime Minister of my time, anyhow. The right hon. Gentleman certainly commands a great majority in this House, but he knows perfectly well that few as our numbers are we here represent at least one-third of those who voted at the election, and you cannot call a Government national which represents only two-thirds of the electorate. Further than that, in 1931, when this sort of slogan was invented, the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party now below the Gangway on this side sat with the right hon. Gentleman, and they represent another fairly big section of the electorate.

I consider it is what is called "cheek and impudence" on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to go masquerading around the country saying "Whatever you do, let us keep up the unity of the nation." There has been no unity politically, no unity at all, and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that on every occasion we here, few as we are, have tried to put the point of view of the nearly 7,000,000 electors whom we represent in this House, and when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends go about the country telling the electors that the day of party politics is finished they know they are talking downright rubbish, undiluted nonsense, and none of them knows it better than the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister.

Why tell me?

I thought I would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is all. I will tell him why I tell him; I do myself the honour of reading his speeches, and I know the guff that he talks. The Government keep up this pretence, and it, is a sheer pretence. I am sorry the Lord President of the Council has gone. He and his dozen friends represent their constituencies, as I do, and as do other hon. Members, but none of the 13 has the right to claim that they represent those with whom they formerly associated, and whom they left in 1931. It requires to be said in this place that the fiction that there is any such thing as a National Labour Movement is absolutely untrue. The right hon. Gentleman and his dozen friends represent their constituents, but not a trade union in the country, a co-operative society, or a Socialist society went over with them. Nevertheless those 13 Members claim the right to have three seats in the Cabinet and two assistant ministerial posts. If they are, in the judgment of the Prime Minister, the best men, well and good, but do not let us be told that they are there because they represent Labour in this country. They represent Labour only in the same manner as does any other Member of this House. Like the right hon. Gentleman I represent a party in this House, as does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen but the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council does not represent any party in the country. Therefore, we want—I and my friends—to enter an emphatic protest against the policy of the Prime Minister in forming a Government on the assumption that it is representative of all parties in the State, and that party politics have had no existence since 1931.

I will say a word about party politics. As I understand it, party politics are excellent when they are Tory politics. They are only bad when people like myself want to secure a majority for their party. Only yesterday we heard that we took up causes and made a lot of the grievances of people, in order that we might win power. I would like to know what anybody else does in this House. I hear people here talking about their trade, the trade of their district, their business men and their localities, who want tariffs or subsidies, or some help from the Government, and that is all considered quite right. You must think we are children if you think we take any notice of what you say on these matters. I call attention to it only in the hope that some of the people whom right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench address will know, when it is said that party politics have been buried, that the speakers are talking with their tongues in their cheeks.

There is a much more serious side to this matter. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman made a great speech on democracy, with almost every word of which I agree, when he was speaking to the meeting of the Commonwealth representatives in Westminster Hall. I should like to say to him that there is something that destroys democracy in a much quicker manner than Fascism or dictatorship or anything else, and that is any suspicion of corruption. I have had a bitter experience of this. Almost from the day when the late Will Crooks and myself entered public life as Poor Law guardians, we were pursued by a vendetta of people who charged us with every political and social crime that could be conceived. I think we have had at least half-a-dozen public inquiries into our administration and the various Presidents of the Local Government Board and Ministers of Health from the time of the late Sir James Davey, who made an exhaustive inquiry in the nineties to the present time, all of them have said that whatever charges might be levelled against us for giving money away too lavishly, no one could ever say that any of us had been guilty, directly or indirectly, of corruption. The late Charles Booth said of Will Crooks and myself that we had maintained, or rather that we had introduced, a public spirit into East London that was lifting up the administration of affairs in those parts. I beg the House to believe that I do not claim a single vestige of virtue about these things above anybody else, but when the London Municipal Reform Society issued a leaflet 10 days ago, charging my friends in the various borough councils and on the London County Council—

I have so far given this Debate a great deal of latitude, but I am bound to hold that matters dealing with local government cannot be raised on the Prime Minister's salary.

I am using it as an argument. I am surely entitled to do so. I think if you allow me to finish you will see the point. The London Municipal Reform Society issued a leaflet charging people with using their position to get their friends jobs in various ways. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I would say it to the Lord President of the Council were he here, that it leaves a very ugly taste in the mouth that in this rearrangement the Lord President of the Council goes to £2,000 a year and his son, who has been in public life only for a few years, goes to a position of £5,000. I may be told that that is quite in the order of things; well, the people with whom I mix outside have said many things about this Government to me—they are more or less my political friends—but the one thing they do not understand is that. Neither do they understand how it is that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), having been in the House a very short time, is sent, over the heads of everybody else, to become Civil Lord of the Admiralty. It all may be defended on the plea that these 13 men have the right to these seats in the Ministry. I say that that is a principle which, I believe, will destroy people's confidence in this House and in our general reputation. It will be for the right hon. Gentleman to controvert what I have just said, and which I will repeat, namely, that of all the changes which have been discussed outside, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has gone to £2,000, and his son has gone to £5,000, and that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, after only being here a very few months, becomes Civil Lord of the Admiralty, has left a very bad taste in the mouth.

I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President give excellent advice to people like myself in local government. I am perfectly certain that had a borough council taken two of its members and given them positions relatively the same as these this House would have been full of questions to the Minister of Health which would have been supported by the right hon. Gentleman. All of us in this House, or a very large large number of us, heard the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) dealing with this subject during one of the Debates on India. The point be made was that it was quite right that men should come to Parliament and legitimately hope to get a position on the Front Bench. Perhaps my colleagues will not agree with me when I say that I believe true democracy will compel this House ultimately to give one flat rate of payment to all Members, and that those who give service more than others will be satisfied with the honour of giving their service. I know that that may sound very extraordinary, but speaking for myself, I do not understand the principle which sends to this House lawyers who, after a few years, and sometimes less than a few years, find themselves on the Bench. I would prefer that no judge was appointed except from outside politics altogether. I think we should have a better administration of justice, and a much better government. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman something else. When that band of people, of whom the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) was one, started, they were very poor men, and they were all proud of giving public service. I believe that the true test of democracy will be found when many of you—for I shall not be here in the days to come—are willing to give voluntary service without any hope of being anybody in particular, and without any hope of monetary reward.

I come to the question of the Ministers without Portfolio, and I repeat what I said at the beginning, that it is a pretty tall order that I should have to raise this question before the right hon. Gentleman has given any explanation. As to the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs, we were told that there was to be a Supplementary Estimate, but I do not think that is good enough when there are two to be appointed. With regard to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), I would like to ask, to whom is he responsible? Has he a chief? Is he under the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, or under the instructions of the Cabinet? What is his position? And has he a room at the Foreign Office where he has a secretariat, or is he just a glorified assistant or a glorified undersecretary? I think this is very important, because if he has to go about and speak for the nation, or for the Government, his status should be settled. If he is a sort of ambassador-extraordinary to the various courts which he visits, I should like to know whether that is because the present ambassadors employed by the country are not able to carry out their duties properly. We are not opposed to a Minister representing the nation on the League of Nations, but we are in disagreement about this sort of double-headed arrangement by which there is a Foreign Secretary here and a sort of deputy-Foreign Secretary not only carrying out duties at the League of Nations in Geneva, but at the various capitals also. Then I understand that there is to be a new Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that we have just introduced a Bill for his appointment. Of course, there will be a Supplementary Estimate for him later on. To whom is he responsible? Is he part of the hierarchy at the Foreign Office?

The right hon. Gentleman has already called the attention of the Committee to the fact that this would need legislation. I think that that had better be discussed when the Bill is introduced. The question of other Ministers does not involve legislation.

With your permission, I will only say that, as we are discussing these new Estimates, which are quite novel, it would be to the advantage of the Committee that we should judge what their position is. That is all that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman. Then we come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings. He has been a good friendly critic of the Government. I should not have thought that he needed to do much thinking. He has talked to us a great deal, and he has also written a book which he recommended me to read to know what he thought ought to be done about employment. So that all that the Noble Lord has to do is to hand his book to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, just as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has handed in his documents, and get ahead with it. Apparently, the Noble Lord is to do thinking for the Government. Will people think that they need it? We know they think, but they think wrongly—that is all. We challenge these two appointments, not because we are not in favour of certain Ministers being appointed to plan. I was rather amused yesterday to hear the right hon. Gentleman's description about planning. I suggest that he should have a real heart to heart talk with the Noble Lord, because if there is one who believes in planning in this House it is he, and yesterday I understand the right hon. Gentleman did not think much of that much-used word.

There are three more or less sinecure appointments—the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy—and I think also I might include another to make up four, the First Commissioner of Works. When I held the last-named post I was told, and I found it was true, that I would of require all my time in that position, and that I might assist the Dominions Secretary, the then Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy in trying to discover how to deal with unemployment. Well, we all know what happened. It amuses me very much, because if there was one popular Member of the late Government it was the Secretary of State for the Dominions. He used to stand at that Box and tell us of the millennium the day after to-morrow, and the ranks behind cheered. He was the one success in the Labour Government, and that is why you have taken him over. I am told that he is the only success in this Government. Anyhow, when I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time, he replied that he found he had a very great deal to do when he was Lord President. But he did manage to lead the House as Deputy-Leader; in fact, he was the Leader.

I really cannot believe that the office of Lord President of the Council is a fulltime job. We know that the Lord Privy Seal's is not. Everybody has admitted that. You may give him a sort of job in the House of Lords to lead it, although the House of Lords never wants any leading. I cannot help thinking that one or other Minister might have done that. As for the Chancellor of the Duchy, I have a great respect for the present holder of that office, and know that he did a great deal of work going out to India. But now that that job is finished, what is he going to do with his spare time? Why should we appoint two extra Ministers in these circumstances? These are days of economy when every penny has to be looked at. I cannot make out why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to all this.

I cannot understand why the holders of these offices could not carry out the duties that are being put upon the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I believe that in the Labour Government in 1924—I am not sure, and am open to correction—that the Lord President of the Council represented that Labour Government very largely at Geneva, and was to all intents and purposes the Minister for League of Nations Affairs; and I should have thought that, instead of swelling the Cabinet to its present size, it would have been possible to utilise those offices for this purpose. We are not opposed to the setting apart of certain Ministers to think and plan and co-ordinate the work of Departments connected with employment and trade, or to think out questions connected with foreign affairs, but we think that this continual expansion of offices, this continual piling up of Ministries, must in the end bring about the worst results to the Parliamentary system. We think that the Prime Minister, in forming this Government, has committed a great blunder. We think that he and his party should have taken advantage, not of the Lord President, but of the position created by his retirement, to recast the Ministry and make it what it is in fact—a good, straightforward Tory Government.

It is, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, politically dishonest for him to say that he and his Government represent the nation. They do nothing of the kind. He knows perfectly well that, when the General Election comes, we shall be ranged up in our different parties and fighting as partisans. Why? Not because any of us is any worse than any other, but because we believe that the particular principles which we hold are better for the future of the country than those held by the people to whom we are opposed. There is nothing wrong in party politics as party politics, but we resent very much indeed the fact that the Prime Minister has formed his Government on a sectional basis—so sectional that he himself did not understand the fractional arrangements that had been made. We are told by the Press that he sent one list along, and it had to come back to have a change made, one of his friends being left out and someone else put in. I think that that is pretty bad. I have not any hope, of course, that this reduction which we are moving will be carried, but I think the House of Commons will go away and think a good deal, not so much about what I have said, but, about the fact that we have come to the point now when men are appointed, not at all because of their allegiance to any particular faith, but because the Government of the day wishes to keep up the fiction that it is a combination of men representative of the nation, whereas it is only representative of a portion of the nation.

My hon. Friends and I have also put down a Motion for a reduction of this Vote, but, before I give the reasons why we have done so, I should like to make a few observations on some of the points which have just been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. His speech began with the presentation of three points. The first was a constitutional one, which I confess I am still not able to understand, just as the Government were not able to understand the point when he put it across the Table a few days ago. Of course, when the Prime Minister changes, the whole Ministry changes, and it is a new Administration. But it is also, I should have thought, a matter of course that any Minister who retains the same office continues in that office.

Such people as I have consulted, and such books as I have consulted, say that each individual member of the new Ministry must make a new agreement with the new Prime Minister.

Undoubtedly, each has an understanding with the new Prime Minister, but constitutionally he does not vacate his office. In the case of a Secretary of State, the question is whether the ceremony of his installation in office has to be repeated on the new occasion. For example, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who, under the previous Prime Minister, held the same office, does not, under the new Prime Minister, surrender his seals to the King, and does not receive them again from His Majesty. Consequently, he continues in office, and there is no question of a change such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Indeed, the passage which he read from a constitutional authority on the subject made that perfectly clear. I caught the words in the course of that paragraph that the individual Minister who does not change his office remains in it.

No; that is not so. The paragraph says:

"Individual Ministers may retain their offices if permitted by the Sovereign, and may form part of a fresh combination with another head, but this would be a new Ministry, and, as colleagues of the incoming Premier, they must make a fresh agreement with him."

With him, yes, but not with His Majesty. They remain in the service of His Majesty as they were before, and do not in fact vacate their office. That is the sentence to which I referred in the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman read. His second point was that he complained that there had been no declaration of policy in the House of Commons by the new Prime Minister, and I agree that probably it would have been more proper and more in accordance with precedent for such a declaration to have been made. But I cannot profess any very great indignation at the omission. What I am more concerned about is, not the absence of a declaration, but the absence of a policy; and, since the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday showed very clearly that on the greatest domestic issue at home, namely, the question of unemployment, the Government have no policy, and since on other matters they do not show any very vigorous effort to reveal any policy at the present time, I cannot, as I say, feel particularly grieved that the Prime Minister did not come here and summon the whole House of Commons to meet him in order to exhibit a vacuum.

The third point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the discussion to-day ought properly to have been opened by a statement from the Prime Minister, and there I entirely agree with him. Here is an important proposal made to Parliament for the appointment of three additional Ministers. Two of them are provided for by this Vote, and the appointment of the third is to be dealt with in a separate Bill. I think the Prime Minister ought to have come to the House and given us at the outset of our discussions definite and clear reasons why it is necessary to make these additional appointments of officials of the State, and to impose these further charges upon the public Exchequer. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, since the War there has been a great multiplication of offices. Some hon. Members may think that this was unnecessary; most of them probably think that it was necessary; but certainly the number has been considerable.

Since 1914, the following new ministerial offices have been created: a Minister for Air; a Minister of Labour; a Minister for the Dominions; a Minister of Transport; a Minister of Pensions; a Minister of Mines; a Secretary for Overseas Trade; an Under-Secretary for the Dominions; a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour; and a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Ten new offices have been created. On the other hand, there have disappeared from our Constitution the two Irish offices of Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, so there has been a net addition of eight. Now we are to have three more, bringing the total of the additional offices up to 11. Besides all these, there are, of course, the unpaid posts of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, all of them meaning that individual members of Parliament, mostly in the House of Commons—some may be in the House of Lords—are attached to Ministers, and, while they have certain useful if not very conspicuous functions to perform, they have one very definite duty, and that is to give to the Government of the day on all occasions an unwavering, unquestioning, and even unreasoning support.

Here, therefore, we have 11 Ministers and 11 private secretaries, or 22 in all, mostly Members of the House of Commons, who are now attached to the Administration or are members of it. That is a matter of no small importance. Since the functions of the State are continually growing, and new duties are imposed upon the Executive, it is no doubt necessary to make special provision and to create a number of new ministries, but the fact that that necessity arises and has to be recognised is not a reason for going on to create other new ministries which may not have the same justification. On the contrary, the fact that certain new ministries are necessary is all the more reason for regarding with a very careful and scrupulous eye any further proposals for making new appointments. It is also recognised as very desirable that there should be some ministers, in the present immense complexity of public affairs both at home and abroad, who should have the leisure at their command to frame policies, perhaps to carry on propaganda, and certainly to devote themselves to special questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), among his proposals, has suggested that there should be created a special Cabinet—he suggests of five members—for dealing with some of the difficult problems of the day without the continuous pressure of Departmental duties. But that is not what the Government are now proposing; it is not part of their present proposals.

In any case, the chief point that I wish to make to-day is that there are already four offices which we have inherited from times past, which have no specific Departmental duties, and which ought to be used for purposes such as these. There was a Select Committee of the House in 1920 which considered the question of the remuneration of Ministers, and in the report of that Committee there is mentioned the fact that there are four practically sinecure offices, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Those four offices exist precisely for this very purpose. The First Lord of the Treasury is also Prime Minister, and, although he has no Department of his own, of course, he has the chief duty of being the plan-maker for the Government and dealing with large questions of policy and framing the general course of administration. The Lord President of the Council has practically no Departmental duties. I was surprised to hear the present Prime Minister say a few days ago that when he held the office of the Lord President of the Council it was the heaviest job he had ever had. He has held the offices of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, President of the Board of Trade, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, and to suggest that the office of Lord President of the Council is comparable to those can only have been a figure of speech. No doubt he may have had, as Deputy Leader of the House in the absence of the then Prime Minister through ill-health for long periods, to act as Premier both in the House and in the Cabinet. The Lord President of the Council has some duties to perform in connection with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research and a few duties of that kind, but they are small and light.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman in error? Did not the Prime Minister say he had never worked so hard for so little money?

I think my version of what the right hon. Gentleman said is correct. As to the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I have twice had the honour of holding that office myself, and I know that there is about two hours work a week for an able-bodied man. The office is always given to persons who are expected to perform other functions or whom it is desired to have in the Cabinet and for whom there may be no Departmental office vacant at the moment. The Lord Privy Seal is an office which is entirely a sinecure. Why is it that those offices have not been used on this occasion for providing posts for those persons whom it was desired to have in the Ministry to perform non-departmental work? The reason, I suggest, is that the present Prime Minister, when he reconstructed the Ministry, had a very difficult task. He had to fit in a number of different pieces. He was not free, as he was free when he formed his Government in 1924, to pick whomever he thought the best man to fill the post. He had to consider the claims of the various groups that participate in the present combination. He had to keep up the symmetry of the facade of the present Government and to provide not only for the central block but also for the two wings. Therefore, not being able simply to pick persons to fill the posts, he had to create posts to suit the persons. And that is, in my view, the real reason why these three posts are being created, that there was such a pressure for office from so many quarters that he has had to expand the Ministry to meet it.

Take, for example, the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs? I do not think there is a Member of the House in any quarter who does not rejoice that the present occupant of that office should be a Member of the Government and a Member of the Cabinet. We should be sorry indeed if anything were said to indicate a different opinion. But why should he not have continued in the office which he already held as Lord Privy Seal? That is precisely the kind of office which was intended for work of that character. Is it intended to create, as part of the Constitution, a permanent Minister for League of Nations Affairs? We have never heard of that suggestion before. I do not know that it has ever been proposed in any quarter. Has any other nation created such a post? Is it intended that all the members of the League of Nations should create Ministries of that character? If not, why should this country alone assume a kind of special ownership of the League of Nations by being the only Government to create a Minister for League of Nations Affairs? Then, again, an Under-Secretary is proposed for that Ministry, although what functions he will have to perform no one can yet foresee. Here again it is intended, apparently, that the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranbourne) should be the incumbent of that office, and the only justification I know for the creation of the office would be the suitability of the Noble Lord who is intended to fill it. The post is created for the person and not the person appointed to fill the post. Further, with regard to the Noble Lord who is to be Minister without Portfolio without further title, why should not he have been given the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster unless it was that purely personal considerations intervened?

If further compression of the Ministry was desired, or combinations of offices, in order to make room for some other Ministers, again and again we have found the Dominions and the Colonial Office combined under one head and, as far as I am aware, the arrangement has worked exceedingly well. In various Cabinets recently we have had the Foreign Secretary and a Dominions-plus-Colonial Office Secretary and one Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office and two at the Dominions and Colonial Offices. Now in place of that number of Ministers we are to have two Cabinet Ministers for the Foreign Office, we are to have two Cabinet Ministers for the Dominions and Colonies, and no fewer than four Under-Secretaries.

With respect to the Minister without portfolio, in the first place I should like to challenge that title. Why "Minister without Portfolio?" Why the introduction of this Continental term not known to the British Constitution? It does not distinguish the Minister from any of his colleagues because, as far as I know, no Minister in this country has a portfolio. If he had been called "Minister without a despatch box," or "Minister without red tape," or "Minister without pigeonholes," that would indeed be very distinctive. Why this negative title at all? Has there been devised a new ceremony of installation? Secretaries of State receive their Seals. The Lord Chancellor receives the Great Seal from His Majesty. How does the Minister without portfolio not receive a portfolio? Is there a red leather portfolio stamped with the Royal Arms in gold on the table at the Privy Council? The Minister, I presume, presents himself to His Majesty. The King would take from the Clerk to the Council the red leather portfolio, extend it to the Minister, and withdraw it, and it would be put back in a drawer and the Minister would leave the presence backwards with extended, empty hands.

I imagine that he will be the Minister to do the thinking for the Government. We have been told repeatedly on official authority that that is to be his function. He is to be the Minister who has to think out policies for the Government, and very necessary the duty is. I assume that he will have an office, or at least a cell. He will retire from the Sessions of Parliament for what Shakespeare calls "the sessions of sweet silent thought." Why should not he have some title indicating his functions—Minister for Quiet Cogitation or some other title of the kind? I am sure that in the long annals of the Chinese Empire a great many such titles could be found. Is he to have an escutcheon on his notepaper—a coat of arms? If so, I would suggest four blank quarterings in order to indicate an open and receptive mind. The colour green would indicate simplicity and vernal productiveness. The badge ought to be a reproduction of Rodin's Thinker and the motto Descartes' famous phrase, Cogito ergo sum—I think; therefore I am.

I know that this term, Minister without Portfolio, is to be found, by those who are curious enough to make research, in the year 1915, and it was my own chief, Mr. Asquith, in whose Ministry such an office is to be found. It was Lord Lansdowne in the Coalition Government of 1915 who, without salary, was appointed and who was described in the List of Ministers as Minister without Portfolio, but not in the Statute. There was a Statute passed a year or two later dealing with various new appointments to the Ministry of 1917 and the only title that was given to this Minister was "a person appointed to be a Minister of the Crown at a salary without any other office being assigned to him," and the side note of the Statute was, "Right of certain Ministers to sit in Parliament." That was an evasion. The draftsmen in those days did not know what title to give. The index to the Volume of Statutes, but not the Statute itself, uses the term "Minister without Portfolio" and it reappears in the Supplementary Estimate that we are considering to-day. My point is, first, whether it is necessary to have any Minister of that type at all, seeing that you have these ancient offices, and secondly, whether, if there is to be such, some better title could not be devised more in consonance with our traditions. Since we have such great names as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, names which are redolent of centuries of British history, why should we introduce this new title which merely brings with it an aroma of Continental politicians.

I do not know whether it is the hot weather or the approaching end of the Session, but I do not seem able to do anything right to-day. I do not know whether I owe the House an apology for not having opened the Debate. I certainly understood that the Leader of the Opposition was willing to begin and, knowing the number of points that were going to be raised, I thought it would be simpler, certainly for me and possibly for the House, if I did what I had to do in one speech rather than in two. I should certainly have had to make a second speech to meet the points that had been raised. I will, first of all, deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and a number of points that he raised, with most of which I can deal, though with some I do not think that I can. There was one charge that I never like to have made against me, and that is want of respect in my treatment of the House. I should like to assure him that, in not making any particular statement when I assumed office as head of the Government, I was strictly following recent precedents. There was no statement when Mr. Asquith succeeded Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. I was in the House at the time. There was no statement made when I succeeded Mr. Bonar Law in 1923. I would just observe that there was no malice prepense in my making a political speech at Himley the day after I became Prime Minister. That had been arranged months before. It was a curious and happy coincidence for me that it happened to be near my own home country. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to imagine what sort of a speech he might make in Bow and Bromley supposing he had just become Prime Minister.

I must say a few words about the question which the right hon. Gentleman raised two or three weeks ago. I apologised to him, and I apologised to the House for my inability to apprehend his point at that moment. I confess that it seemed to be so remote in fact that I did not grasp it until I realised that it was based upon that passage in Mr. Todd's book which he read to-day. That passage in Mr. Todd's book I do not think is as clear as it might be, but what is contained in that passage is not consistent with practice, not at all. I have had all these cases looked up in the Privy Council Office, which is the office responsible for the swearing in of all Ministers when they take office, and there are precedents for the resignation of a Prime Minister without the other Members of the Administration vacating office going back at least as far as 1761, when the elder Pitt retired without his retirement involving the downfall of the rest of the Cabinet. When Lord Goderich, afterwards Lord Ripon, formed a Government after the death of George Canning in 1827 a number of the members of the Cabinet retained their offices and were not re-appointed or re-sworn, and further examples occurred when Lord Russell in 1865 succeeded Lord Palmerston, in 1902 when Mr. Balfour succeeded Lord Salisbury, in 1908 when Mr. Asquith succeeded Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and in 1923 when I succeeded Mr. Bonar Law.

What happens in fact is that when a Prime Minister resigns the King, if he accepts the resignation, immediately sends for someone to carry on the Government. Everyone places his resignation formally in the hands of whoever is to form the Government, so as to give him a free hand to make any changes he may think desirable, but until any one or all of those resignations are accepted the office goes on without any break at all, and no Minister receives a seal afresh or is sworn in those circumstances, unless a change is involved by a resignation having been accepted and someone else taking office. That is a summary of the constitutional position which has been the practice certainly, as I said, for about 150 years or more. It applies right through the Government and to all Ministers.

I think it only fair to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to let them know the sequence of events, because he made it a matter of complaint that lists of Ministers were not issued with the rapidity with which he thought they might have been. The late Prime Minister tendered his resignation on the Friday. I was invited to become Prime Minister. I accepted, and kissed hands. I was able to make such changes as were necessary in the Cabinet very speedily, and the list, if I remember aright, appeared the next morning. Such changes as I thought necessary with regard to the Under-Secretaries were kept over until after the holidays, and every one, of course, carried on. No resignations had been accepted. They were made with all speed when I returned to London, and the appointments were announced as soon as made. There was one made by itself. The Comptroller of His Majesty's Household was made singly, and announced singly.

There is one other point just here. The right hon. Gentleman pressed me for some time as to why the changes were made, and that is a matter, with profound respect to the House, which I do not feel at liberty to discuss. It is a matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible, and I will only say that one or two theories which have been put forward are, as theories often are, very wide from the facts. The freedom of choice of a Prime Minister in a democratic system is to my mind one of the most important and valuable privileges and prerogatives that we have—absolute and complete freedom to recommend to His Majesty whomever he may think fit. There is one observation I should like to make because it was touched upon by both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, and I must say a word about it. The experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) of Coalitions, of course, is small. It is confined to what I hope was not to him an unhappy twelve months.

No, 1915.