Lords Sitting of 17 March 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments.
Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Public elementary schools in "single school parishes" as defined in Section 3 (6) of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1908.

  INDIA (LAND REVENUE).
  Land revenue assessments in the Punjab since 1855.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS.
  Rules, 1908; Memorandum respecting.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Rules, 1908 with Memorandum.

  LOCAL LOANS FUND (ACCOUNTS, 1906–1907).
  Accounts of receipts and payments by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Local Loans Fund, for the year ended 31st March, 1907; together with a Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General there-on.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ISLAND OF VATERSAY.
  Return of correspondence respecting
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of 6th February last), and to be printed. [No. 30.]

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, as this subject has been several times before your Lordships it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length. The Bill was originally brought in at the urgent request of the shopkeepers themselves. It was referred to a Committee, which reported strongly in its favour. The Report said—
  "The Committee are convinced by the evidence that Sunday trading is on the increase; that the Bill is urgently needed; that it is desired by the shopkeepeng interests, and would inflict no serious hardship on the poorer classes; that it would be a great benefit to the country generally, and that it commends itself both to the reason and the conscience of the community."
  The following year I brought in a Resolution stating—
  "That in the opinion of this House the question of the Sunday opening of shops demands the serious and early attention of His Majesty's Government."
  This was unanimously adopted, and a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed. This Committee also was strongly in favour of legislation. They pointed out that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory and unjust and they said—
  "The Committee recommend strongly that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increasing feeling against Sunday trading."
  Under these circumstances, we were disappointed last year that Sunday trading was omitted from the list of subjects on which the Government proposed legislation. We then proposed another and stronger Resolution—
  "That this House reiterates its opinion that the subject of Sunday trading requires the serious and earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, and urges them to legislate in accordance with the unanimous reports of the Committees of 1905 and 1906."

  327
  This, also, your Lordships agreed to unanimously, but my noble friend the Lord President of the Council spoke very unsympathetically, and frankly admitted that the Government were not disposed to move in the matter. However, we hoped against hope, but as it is evident that the Government will do nothing, we have re-introduced our Bill. It is in the form adopted by the Committee of 1905, with one or two small Amendments suggested by the Committee of 1906. Every provision in it has been approved by that Committee also, though the Bill does not in some respects go so far as they recommended.
  Now, my Lords, what are the provisions of the Bill? It does not in one sense propose to alter the law of the land as regards Sunday trading, except in detail. Sunday trading is already illegal, but the law is inoperative because the fine is too small. We propose to raise it to the amount approved by Parliament in the case of the Early Closing Bill. The shopkeepers, however, feel, and both Parliamentary Committees agreed, that if the law is to be made operative, certain exemptions are necessary. The main exemptions are refreshments, medicines, milk and cream, newspapers, tobacco in the hours during which public-houses are open, and for the morning hours bread, fish, vegetables, fruit, and cooked meat. In considering a Bill of this character we must have regard to the wishes and feelings of shopkeepers and of customers, especially the poorer customers. Now, as regards shopkeepers, the Bill is supported by all the important trades. The Report of the Committee comprises a list of 350 associations which support the Bill, and the number is now larger. Not a single association of shopkeepers desired to give evidence against the Bill, and I do not know of any by whom it is opposed. This is surely a most remarkable concensus of opinion, and having now been for over thirty years in close touch with the shopkeeping community I may assure your Lordships that there is nothing about which they are more unanimous or more determined. I see that Mr. Stacey, the energetic secretary of the Early Closing Association, in a letter in yesterday's Press, even goes so far as to say that the shopkeepers, including the
  328
  small shopkeepers, are practically unanimous in its favour. I must not omit to mention the shop assistants. They naturally feel very strongly on the subject, and surely they are entitled to their Sunday's rest.
  Now I come to the customers, and here I think we may fairly take the trade councils and trade unions as representing the views of working men. The Committee give a striking list of about 200 trade councils and trade unions who support the shops in this demand. As representing public opinion, I may also refer to the views of municipalities. Resolutions in favour of the Sunday closing of shops have been passed by the corporations of Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, Swansea, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee, Aberdeen, and over fifty other cities and boroughs, and by the executive council of the Urban District Councils Association, representing no less than 490 urban districts. Finally, a few days ago (5th March), at a meeting of the London borough councils, convened expressly to consider the question of shop hours, a resolution was passed, one clause of which was that shops should be shut all day on Sunday. I must frankly admit that the case of the Jews presents some difficulties, and I will at this stage only say that, while ready to meet them as far as possible, the view of shopkeepers is that if Jews come to live in a Christian country they should conform to the law of the land. We are most anxious, however, to meet the views of the Jews as far as possible. The Committee recommended that certain areas where the Jews have special markets might be scheduled, and we are quite prepared to accept such a clause. This, however, is a matter for Committee. I ought also, perhaps, to mention that some of the costermongers in the East of London, though not, I believe, in any other city, are opposed to any curtailment of Sunday trading. I believe, however, that the Bill has been misrepresented to them. The Joint Committee, in their Report, said that they were—
  "Of opinion that the greater part of the opposition is based on a misapprehension. Under the exemptions provided in the Sunday

  329
  Closing (Shops) Bill of 1905, which the Committee have in the main adopted, they consider that no serious inconvenience could be caused."
  In conclusion, I cannot more strongly commend this Bill to your Lordships than by reading a few short paragraphs from the Report of the Joint Committee of 1906. They said—
  "They are satisfied of the great importance of maintaining the Sunday as a day or rest not only on religious and moral grounds, but also as necessary to the preservation of the health and strength of the community … Though the Committee had no doubt as to the importance of the Sunday rest from the point of view of health, they thought it well to consult the President of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Douglas Powell, who was good enough to come and express his opinion, which he said was that of the whole medical profession, that there cannot be the least doubt of the importance of one clear day's rest in seven.' The Committee do not consider that the words of any particular Bill come within their terms of reference, but they recommend strongly that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increasing feeling against Sunday trading in this country."
  The religious aspect of the question has several times been urged, with his usual force and lucidity, by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. If I do not refer to it, it is not because I undervalue this aspect of the case, but because I can leave it in abler hands. My Lords, in conclusion, on behalf of the shop-keeping community I most earnestly commend this Bill to your favourable consideration and trust you will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Avebury.)
  *LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I ask for your indulgence while I say a few words respecting this Bill. I feel sure that the noble Lord who introduced it is actuated solely with a desire to benefit the people of this country by assuring that every one should have a weekly day of rest. But, unfortunately, if this Bill should pass into law in its present shape it would inflict immense hardship upon many thousands of the poorer working classes in my community. I feel justified in speaking on behalf of those living in East London, because I have worked among them for over fifty
  330
  years. I have represented a constituency in East London for fifteen years, and am now for the twentieth year acting president of a federation of forty-three congregations comprising 30,000 souls. They are about half the number of Jews in East London; I estimate the total number at about 70,000. Of these, the majority would be seriously affected by this Bill. They observe the seventh day Sabbath of the Decalogue, as did their fathers and ancestors for thousands of years. They, therefore, cease working on fifty-two Saturdays in the year, besides thirteen festivals; and if by this Bill they are compelled to close their shops and stalls on fifty-two Sundays, that will make 117 days in the year on which they will not be able to trade. Such a restrictive measure would ruin thousands, and throw them upon the rates, and if they were tempted to sacrifice their Sabbath they would deteriorate morally and swell the number, probably, of atheists, and even of anarchists. The Committee which considered this question in 1906, unanimously resolved to add the following paragraph to their Report—
  "Lastly the Committee must draw attention to the case of the Jews, with whom they have much sympathy. They would be glad if a compromise could be found that would satisfy the Jewish community. The Committee have been informed that any measure will be opposed which does not expressly permit those Jews who close on Saturday to open on Sunday. Such an arrangement, on the other hand, would probably be opposed by the shop-keeping community as a whole, and the Committee cannot recommend it. The Committee, however, realise that in the large cities there are to be found areas which are inhabited mainly by Jews. In those areas certain markets have grown up in which a large business is transacted on Sunday. The Committee are of opinion that these areas might be scheduled in any Act permitting any Jew who closes his shop and does not trade on Saturday to trade in these areas until midday on Sunday. The Committee recommend that, if the Jewish community desire it, permission should be given for the sale of kosher meat and Jewish bread up to midday on Sunday."
  The only argument of importance which I have heard in opposition to that recommendation of the Committee is that the Jews should not have any special legislation. It is said that since they come here they must abide by the laws of the majority. I would point out, in reply, that there already exists special

  331
  legislation in favour of the Jews in the Factory and Workshop Act of 1878, reenacted in 1901. I quite agree that everybody in this country must abide by the laws, but when new laws are proposed which are injurious to them and restrict the freedom which they generally enjoy it is the duty of their defenders to oppose them. The bulk of these Jews are Russian refugees, and it is hardly sympathetic to say that they come here. They are driven here by the murderous cruelties of the Russian Black Hundred, who murder, and incite to murder, men, women, and even little children, and are not themselves punished for their acts. The majority of these Jews have been obliged to flee to civilised countries like this, where they hope to have their life and property safe. They wish to work in peace; and if the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878 were extended to shops and stalls, I myself should be perfectly satisfied.
  I will only refer to one item in the Schedule of this Bill. While bread, fish, and cooked meat may be sold for a short time on Sundays, raw meat is not included. I should like to ask the noble Lord why it is that, in spite of the recommendation of the Committee, that concession has not been granted? This restriction would fall heavily on Jewish butchers in hot weather and when a festival occurs on a Friday or a Monday. They could not keep meat so long, and the poor people would be prevented from buying the scraps and offal which they consume, being unable to afford the expensive joints. Moreover, other than Jews protest against the Bill in its present shape. There are about 4,000 Mahomedans living in this country and 5,000 Mahomedan visitors come here annually, and I know from official sources that this Bill is strongly condemned by them. It is stated that such an interference with Mahomedans as this Bill involves, would be resented by Mahomedan British subjects, whose numbers exceed those of Christian British subjects. If these shops were closed they would not be able to buy kosher meat, the only meat that strict Mahomedans will eat in this country. I trust your Lordships will let this Bill meet with the same fate as the Bill of three years ago. My people
  332
  want to be let alone. Their Sunday trading is largely in food, and is carried on mainly with their own people. It has been well said that you cannot make people religious by Act of Parliament, but you can make them irreligious by Act of Parliament if you create fresh obstacles in the way of religious people keeping their Sabbath and other religious observances. I leave the matter to the humanity of your Lordships' House, and I hope the Bill will not pass in its present shape.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel I almost owe an apology to the House for intruding again on this subject. Every year for a good many years past I have been privileged to say a few words respecting it, and while I feel that your Lordships listen sympathetically to the noble Lord who is so honourably identified with this work as year by year he renews his endeavour to get this Bill passed into law, you may not feel the same with regard to those who year after year speak in support of it. For, indeed, there is practically nothing new to be said on the subject. We have all the facts before us, and what we venture to complain of is that those who desire to postpone legislation, adduce, not arguments in opposition, but pleas simply for delay.
  One Committee after another has during the last few years considered the subject, and the Joint-Committee which sat two years ago presented an exceedingly weighty report to your Lordships. I venture to think very scant justice has been done to the immense labour which that Joint-Committee bestowed upon it. I was not a member of that Committee and therefore can speak with freedom as to the merit which attaches to the work the Committee did. Last year no Bill was introduced, but my noble friend brought forward a Resolution in favour of such legislation as that which this year we are invited once more to undertake. Your Lordships will remember that those of us who are in favour of it, and I think the House generally, felt some little disappointment on the former occasion at what was said by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp,

  333
  who spoke on behalf of the Government then as I gather he will speak to-night, and whose words in this House on behalf of the Government contrasted somewhat markedly with the Amendment he had himself proposed in the Committee.
  Not only have this Bill and Resolutions respecting it been again and again before the country, but during the last two or three years there has been a remarkable awakening on the whole subject of Sunday observance. The movement has been supported, not only from the religious standpoint, though from there it took its start, but by medical authorities, commercial authorities, and by those who represent the Labour section of the community in almost every large town in England and Wales, there being a widespread apprehension on the part of the working classes and others that they are in danger of losing their day, of rest and, where this is desired, of worship. Lord Avebury has again pointed out how all those to whom we have a right to look for evidence on this subject have been practically unamious in support of some such measure as that which is now again before your Lordships. The Shopkeepers' Associations all over the land support it; the municipal authorities, who, as my noble friend says, are most unwilling generally to take action in a matter of this kind which is more or less controversial, have found public opinion to be so strong in their boroughs that they have thrown themselves into the ranks of those who are supporting this legislation; and now the municipal councils of London, following what has been done in the country, support the proposal.
  On the other side we have, it is true, some objection on the part of the costermongers and of a few associations such as the Society of Operative Printers, who have circulated to your Lordships a document which is a remarkable example of how a man honestly desiring to put a case before the public may misunderstand the matter in such a way as to render his manifesto practically worthless. This document rests on a basis of supposed fact, which is directly contradicted by the Bill itself, by the Reports of Committees on which the Bill is founded, and by the evidence
  334
  which has been adduced year by year in the speeches of Lord Avebury and others. There are, and always have been, three classes for whose interests the opponents of legislation of this kind ask consideration—the small consumer, the small trader, and the Jewish community. Every one of these cases has been most carefully considered in the Report which has been long in your Lordships' hands, and the objections are met in the Bill now before us.
  As regards the consumers, it is almost impossible, as we have again and again said, to get conclusive evidence from any representative spokesmen or spokeswomen, because nobody is formally authorised, so to speak, but anyone who will look at the endeavours which have been made by successive Committees to obtain evidence from the kind of people who are supposed to be treated harshly by legislation of this kind will see that the matter has been gone into to the very bottom, and that it is really a baseless proposition that there is a widespread feeling of objection to this legislation among those who represent small consumers. Witnesses have spoken on behalf of those trade unionists or their families who are the consumers affected, and such witnesses are practically unanimous in saying that the objections are fanciful and unreal. As to the small traders, the noble Lord has often pointed out that the associations which have spoken with practical unanimity up and down the country consist very largely of small traders, and that no delusion can be greater than that which represents this proposal as being made on behalf of large tradesmen as against small tradesmen.
  Then with regard to that portion of the community for whom Lord Swaythling has just spoken, the Committee which has tried to deal with this matter has expressed a desire that such objections to legislation as are fourd to be real on the part of that community should be dealt with respectfully, carefully, and generously. But I think we have a right to say that we must not, in legislation of this kind concerning the people as a whole, be too much regulated and influenced by

  335
  consideration of the wishes and scruples of those who must, after all, be a very small minority of the people of the land taken generally. Mahomedans have been mentioned by the noble Lord. But we are not making new legislation in a new spirit; we are making old legislation practical; and the question of how a general law will affect the position of an infinitesimal minority of the population is hardly the kind of argument that can be regarded as conclusive when we are dealing with the general well-being of a Christian nation. The community at large has spoken with no uncertain voice on this subject, and while we will take the greatest care to consider any Amendment or suggestions for improving the provisions relating to the Jewish community, I hope we shall consider the interests of the people at large as over-riding even some objection felt by so important a section of the population.
  The exemptions allowed in the Schedule—exemptions which are capable of being enlarged, but are in my opinion ample as they stand—at all events show what care has been taken to find out where the shoe pinched and to prevent it pinching if that were possible. If one sees what takes place in some of the Sunday markets in our great cities, it is impossible to say that the majority of the things sold are things which it is necessary to sell on Sunday. A large proportion of the merchandise is crockery, second-hand clothing, singing birds, and growing plants. There is no attempt to show, at any rate on any large scale, that the purchaser of these things is unable to go for them on any other day. Where this could be shown we have tried to meet the difficulty by special provisions in the Bills which have been successively brought forward. I think the reality of the need for the Bill amply proved. The evil with which it deals is increasing, and I hope the House will not again be told that it is impossible to proceed in the matter, and that further consideration is required. The subject has now received the fullest consideration, and nothing is to be gained by delay.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, like the most rev. Primate,
  336
  I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for speaking again upon this subject, for I am afraid that during the course of the last two or three years I have spoken not a few times with regard to it. To-night I shall add very little. Although I have sometimes differed from my noble friend Lord Avebury, with regard to the details of his proposal, I have always thought that in principle he had a very strong case. I think so now, and if he goes to a division I shall certainly follow him into the lobby.
  What I may call the Second Reading position is really a very simple one. The practice of Sunday trading is already illegal under the laws of this country; but, as we all know, owing to certain inadequacies in those laws they are constantly defied. Then there is no doubt that the practice of Sunday trading tends to increase. The evidence upon that point is, I think, overwhelming. Another matter which I think should weigh with your Lordships is this, that this is not a case in which you can look to public opinion to redress the evil. As we all know, if a single man persists in the practice of Sunday trading, he virtually forces the hand of all other traders in the neighbourhood. There seems to me, therefore, to be a very strong case for the intervention of the Legislature.
  As to the history of the matter, we have the fact that in 1905 a Select Committee of this House reported in favour of my noble friend's Bill. In 1906, your Lordships, on my noble friend's Motion, referred the subject to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that Committee reported in favour of the Bill presented in the previous year. Last year we carried a Resolution proposed by my noble friend in the same direction. Therefore, so far as this House is concerned, we are very strongly committed to the principle of this proposal. My noble friend has brought evidence to show that it has the support of an immense body of the shopkeepers of this country. He is supported by the trade unions and trade councils, which we may surely take as authoritative exponents of the views of the working classes. He has the support of a number of very important local

  337
  bodies and corporations, and, as I said a moment ago, he has the support of this House so far as its recorded votes are concerned during the last three years. It seems to me that if ever what I may call a Second Reading case was established, my noble friend has established it this evening.
  It is quite true that any legislation of this kind is almost sure to occasion hardship in some directions, but it does seem to me that we have to consider the balance of advantage and disadvantage, and that we ought not to be deterred from carrying out an improvement in the law which will give infinite relief to many thousands of the people of this country, merely because certain smaller classes of the community may be to some extent inconvenienced. In Committee we shall be able to consider whether there are any cases of hardship not provided for in the exemptions already specified. We have it from my noble friend Lord Avebury, and from the most rev. Primate that if any such hardships are found to remain, they will gladly entertain Amendments for meeting them. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill, reserving to yourselves, of course, the right to modify it, should it be shown to require modification, in Committee.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord who introduced this Bill will have had any illusion as to the answer he is likely to receive from His Majesty's Government. The Home Secretary, both by letter and in answer to a Question in another place, has stated that it is quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to deal with the question during the present session, and that they are even unable to take up a private Member's Bill on the subject. Therefore this afternoon, although His Majesty's Government do not propose to offer opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, I must warn the noble Lord that in the circumstances they do not view that proceeding with any enthusiasm.
  I think it is only fair to your Lordships to point out that the matter is not quite so simple as it seems at first sight. There is an increasing number of people who
  338
  wish to see a Bill passed to secure, not the Sunday rest, but the principle of one day's rest in seven, leaving it to the individual to choose the day most suitable. That has some merits, such as solving the difficulty of railway travelling and matters of that kind. There are a large number of Sabbatarians who regard this Bill as not going far enough and allowing a great deal more trading on the Sunday than in their opinion is really necessary. But there is, as I have said, an increasing body of opinion among the working classes in favour of following the example of French legislation, and of enacting one day's rest in seven rather than of insisting on the particular day of rest being Sunday.
  Then there is the method of carrying out the principle of the Bill, as to which everybody is not yet agreed. The method of the Bill is to exempt a number of trades from its operation; but I would remind your Lordships that the present Act of Charles II. will remain in force, and I am not sure that if we put this Bill on the top of it we shall not to some extent make the confusion of the law worse than it is at present. On the last occasion when we discussed this question we had a Motion before us, which is a very different thing from a concrete Bill. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke, as he reminded your Lordships, in 1905 on this measure, and as a sincere admirer of the noble Marquess I hope I may be allowed to quote part of what he said to your Lordships on that occasion. This Bill is substantially the same Bill as that which was before your Lordships in 1905. That Bill received some condemnation from the noble and learned Earl who was then on the Woolsack, but the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said—
  "I cannot help thinking that that section (Clause 6) will place the Home Secretary in a very invidious position, and one in which no Minister should be placed."
  He spoke of the Bill as a piece of not very successful patchwork, and he also said that the result of its passing would be to produce not a few ambiguities and inconsistencies. He said he regarded the Bill as still open to very serious objections, and would regret to see it

  339
  become law. That is the Bill which your Lordships are asked this afternoon to read a second time.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There have been two Committees since then.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is true, but those Committees have not incorporated any substantial alterations. It is practically the Bill of 1905 which the noble Lord now asks your Lordships to read a second time. The most rev. Primate made a reference to myself, the same reference as he made last year. He was tempted, I think, by the success which it met with on that occasion, to repeat it. He spoke then as he spoke to-night of a difference between the language I held in this House and the language I held as a member of the Committee. If the most rev. Primate had pursued his study of the Report a little further he would have seen that the clause which was inserted on my Motion was a very different one from the original moved by Lord Avebury. That clause read—
  "The Committee desire to express their entire concurrence with the opinion expressed by the Committee of last year that Sunday trading is on the increase, and that the Bill is urgently needed."
  The words which were substituted expressly excluded the use of the word "urgently," and were very much milder in form than the original draft. I am glad to have had this opportunity of explaining to your Lordships that there is not that seeming inconsistency in my views which the most rev. Primate would have you believe. May I also say this to the most rev. Primate, that I think he is very optimistic in taking the view that the Jewish objections have been met by the provisions in this Bill. We have heard from Lord Swaythling that he would be very glad if your Lordships would decline to read the Bill a second time.
  LORD SWAYTHLING: I said I hoped your Lordships would not pass it in its present shape.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is no doubt of this, that the various objections
  340
  which were laid before us by members of the Jewish faith have not been met, or, at any rate, have not been satisfactorily met, by the provisions of this Bill. Then this legitimate criticism, at any rate, may be passed on the Bill, that it leaves the Act of Charles II. in force, and it is possible that, although certain trades are excluded from the Bill, penalties will still be applied for under the old Act. That seems to me a grave and serious objection. I can assure your Lordships that, I think in common with most Members of your Lordships' House, I should be very willing indeed if, by common agreement of all parties and of all religions, some method could be found of dealing with this question, which would be entirely satisfactory to all by securing, if not Sunday, at any rate one day's rest in seven.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Yes, I suppose we should all be very glad if all parties and all religions could agree about anything. I do not think the noble Earl's assurance at the conclusion of his speech is very satisfactory. I did not intend to speak on this Bill, for the very good reason that I have spoken so often upon it, but I cannot refrain from saying that, having myself served on both Committees, I share entirely the surprise of the most rev. Primate at the entire change of attitude which the noble Earl has assumed in this House from that which he adopted on the Committee. It is perfectly true that the noble Earl suggested several amendments, but I thought this was done so that we might arrive at some common ground in favour of the Bill. I did not imagine that it was done by a member of the Committee who in this House was coming forward as an entire opponent of the Bill in all forms and shapes, unless every single soul and every religious body in the country came to an agreement upon it.
  I am still more surprised at the statement which the noble Earl has thought it his duty to make without the slightest corroboration or support of any kind. He tells us that there is a growing feeling in this country in favour of the enactment of one day's rest in seven instead of maintaining the Sunday. What is his

  341
  ground for making that statement? No such statement has ever been made before a Committee. I remember a member of the Committee suggesting to a witness whether he did not think that would be a solution of the difficulty, and, as is generally the case when a question of that kind is put, the witness scratched his head and said it might be. But I have never heard the smallest evidence of a general wish in that direction, though I have received a great many communications and suggestions from various people on this subject. With all due respect to the noble Earl, until he can bring forward some proof of his statement I must believe that he is labouring under some misapprehension.
  With regard to the case of the Jews, we all admit that that is a great difficulty. I think I may claim for myself that I did what I could on the Committee to obtain for the Jews a perfectly fair hearing, and every consideration. I do not deny the difficulty, and should the Bill go into Committee I would be ready to do all I could to meet them. But I do not think that a great and growing evil should be allowed to continue throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, merely because it may be difficult to meet the position of one small section in the country. I therefore hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it is quite true, as the noble Earl opposite has said, that he moved in the Committee to omit some words which, as Chairman, I had suggested, and to insert other words. But what were the words which he proposed and which I accepted? They ran—
  "The Committee do not consider that the wording of any particular Bill comes within the terms of reference, but they strongly recommend that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increased feeling against Sunday trading in this country."
  I did not think it advisable to stand by particular words. It is a great thing to have a Committee unanimous, and the noble Lord's words gave us substantially what we wanted. I think your Lordships will agree that it was wise to accept the words proposed by my noble
  342
  friend opposite. I entirely concur with what has just been said by the noble Duke. We did not find that there was any feeling in the country in favour of one day's rest in seven apart from Sunday. The noble Lord said that the provisions of the Bill would press severely on the trades included. But the trades included are most anxious for the Bill. With regard to the Jews, it must not be forgotten that they are allowed to open their shops on Saturdays after sunset, when the best trade is done. I am asked why we precluded the sale of raw meat. That was done at the earnest desire of the butchers' associations themselves; but that, of course, would be a matter for consideration in Committee. I particularly stated, in moving the Second Reading, that there was every desire on our part to meet the wishes of the Jewish community, and that Amendments in Committee, in so far as they do not affect the principle of the Bill, will have full consideration. We have every desire to meet their views without sacrificing the Sunday rest of shopkeepers generally.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 26th instant.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, this is simply a Consolidation Bill, and I believe I can confidently and with perfect truth assure the House that it contains no new matter whatever. I therefore trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Carrington.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. We are greatly indebted to my noble friend for having brought it in, for a Consolidation Bill has been wanted for a long time past.

343
I believe the noble Earl hopes that in that distant day, as we all trust it will be, when his tombstone comes to be engraved, it will have upon it something about farmers' charters and the regeneration of the land; but I am not at all sure that the greatest memorial to his tenure of office will not be the consolidation of the various Acts of Parliament dealing with agricultural holdings. I hope the noble Earl will not ask us to take the next stage of the Bill without a sufficient interval. That remark also applies to the next Bill on the Paper—the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill. It is most desirable that those parts of these Acts with which county councils and valuers have most to do should be grouped together in such a manner that they can be easily dealt with. I shall, at the proper time, be able to show to the noble Earl that there might be a convenient regrouping of some of the clauses of the Bill which would make them more easily administered. Certain doubts have arisen in reference to this subject which may possibly be set at rest by a slight alteration in the order of clauses, and I think there are some cases in which parts of Acts other than those which these Bills propose to consolidate have been introduced. It may be desirable for the sake of clearness that these should be incorporated in the Bill. But I hope that neither the noble Earl nor any other Member of your Lordships' House, will strive to insert in these Bills, which are purely Consolidation Bills, any new matter or any alteration of the law, however desirable, in our opinion, that alteration might be. I am quite certain that to do so would lead to great difficulty in getting the Bill through Parliament. I hope the noble Earl will resist any attempt at amendments in that direction, and I can assure him that he will have my support.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CARRINGTON: This is simply a Consolidation Bill on the same lines as the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading; and I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend for the support he has promised to give His Majesty's Government in the passing of these two Bills. Of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I would most earnestly endorse the hope of my noble friend that no new matter will be introduced into these Bills, as that would be absolutely fatal to their passing. I trust my noble friend will expedite any improvements he may think fit to suggest, as these Bills are really necessary, and it is of the greatest importance that they should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2"."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to communicate with him as to the date on which the next stage should be taken.
EARL CARRINGTONnodded assent.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, before the Second Reading is agreed to I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for introducing a Bill consolidating the enactments with respect to small holdings and allotments. This is a matter which was pressed on the Government by the County Councils Association, and it will be of great advantage to those who have to administer the Acts to have them consolidated in one measure. There is one point to which I should like to call attention, and, although it is a drafting Amendment, I think it is one of some importance. The House may remember that when the Small Holdings Bill was in Committee I called attention to the fact that, although the county council was the initiatory authority for bringing the Act into force, its name did not appear at all until you got a considerable way down the Bill—namely, to Clause 3; and it was only then introduced by an Amendment giving county councils power to make a scheme. I criticised that because it seemed to me that when

345
you were passing a Bill which was given in charge of the county councils, it was an extraordinary way to draft the Bill to start off with the Commissioners who were to force the county councils, in case they did not do their duty, while the county councils themselves were not mentioned at all except in a subsection half-way down the Bill. It was only in that way that we found out that they were the authority who had to deal with the Act. I only refer to it now because I have to thank the noble Earl for making an alteration which puts the county council in its proper position in regard to the Act. The first clause now provides that the county councils may, if they are of opinion that there is a demand for small holdings, put the Act in operation. Although only a drafting Amendment, I think in the circumstances it is one which I have been justified in detaining the House in alluding to, especially as it was a point to which attention was called at the time. By this Consolidation Bill the matter is now made perfectly clear.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MOTOR CAR LEGISLATION.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU,in asking whether His Majesty's Government would, in considering any further legislation or taxation relating to motor cars, bear in mind the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars and the Royal Commission on London Traffic, and take such steps as may be necessary to create a national road authority, by whom the main roads of this country should be managed, said, My Lords, I am asking His Majesty's Government this afternoon the Question which is in my name on the Paper, in consequence of certain rumours which we must all have heard, that fresh arrangements are to be made on the question of the taxation of motor cars, and I think it might be convenient if His Majesty's Government could give us at any rate some information of the lines on which the proposed legislation will proceed. I am, of course, aware that
346
this House cannot deal intimately with questions of taxation, but as the projects which seem to be foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer include matters of rating which will affect a great many of your Lordships very considerably, I think it is within the competence of this House that we should have a short discussion on the question. First of all, I would ask the noble Lord who, I believe, is going to reply for the Local Government Board on this Question to refer to the matter from two points of view. I am not now going to press the motorists' point of view, because the time will arrive when that can be done both in the other House and in this. But from the local authorities point of view the question of taxation and legislation with regard to motor cars is very important. To begin with, if we are to believe what has been said in another place, and if we are to take the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to certain deputations which have waited upon him, he has no intention at the present moment of giving anything to local authorities either in regard to providing them with funds for the extension of road management and improvement by them or in regard to setting up some central Board for the working of our roads. The former, I confess, is the more important of the two. At present no less than three Royal Commissions and one Departmental Committee have reported that the present system of road construction, maintenance, and administration is very bad. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, the Royal Commission on Loudon Traffic, and the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, have all made certain recommendations which, I fear, are at any rate for the present moment to a certain extent rendered nugatory by the fatal want which impedes so many good resolutions, namely, the want of money. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to tax motor cars more highly (and I am not personally one of those who say that certain classes of motor cars ought not to pay more than they do), I think that at the same time local authorities and motorists have some right to ask that if money is to be raised from them, it should be raised on the lines of the recommendations of these Commissions and this

347
Departmental Committee, namely, on the lines of road improvement and of alleviating the great nuisance arising from dusty roads, which is the greatest nuisance motorists have to face in the country, and the removal of which nuisance would not only add to the comfort of motorists, but also alleviate the sufferings of those who live alongside the roads.
At the present the Treasury receives all the money which is derived from carriage taxes, establishment taxes, and all kinds of other small licences and taxations. The money so received is paid into the Local Taxation Account and returns to the counties in the form of a grant in aid of local taxation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take from them, besides a proportion of that, a certain amount of the licence fees for renewals of driving licences and for motor cars registrations—a sum amounting to something like £80,000 a year—as well, all I can say is that the county councils, which now have a very hard time of it, will have a still harder time in the future. It must not be forgotten that they have to put all that is necessary under the Local Government Act in the shape of triangles, signs for designating dangerous crossings, and so on, and they can only do that out of the sum they receive on licences and registration of motor cars. If the Lord Chancellor were here he would corroborate me, I think, when I say that last year they received over £2,500 in motor car licences and driving fees to assist them towards putting up these notices, and I trust that His Majesty's Government, if they consider any question of increased taxation, will see that this is not only a question of motor cars, but a question of carriages as well, and will give some contribution to enable the county councils to assist towards the improvement of the roads and the removal of their dusty condition. I do not intend at this late hour to trespass on your Lordships' time at any great length, but I should like to say that it seems to me that if motors are to be taxed from the point of view of luxury, there are other things which should be taxed equally, and perhaps to a larger extent. For instance,
348
there are yachts, racehorses, jewels, pictures, and even such things as the possession of an orchid house or anything else of that kind. But if the motor-car is to be taxed on that basis, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather under a fallacy concerning it, because the number of motor cars owned by rich people as compared with those owned by men of moderate means is comparatively small, and everyone studying the statistics knows that at the present time the largest single owners of motor cars are professional men, such as doctors and so forth, who use them for the purposes of their business. I think that is a class which ought to be dealt with very lightly in regard to increased taxation. If, on the other hand, motor cars are to be taxed as destroyers of the roads—which is another argument that I can quite understand being put forward—there are other vehicles which destroy the roads far more than motor cars, and if taxation is to be put forward upon that basis, then I suggest that there is all the more justice in declaring that the money should be paid to the Local Taxation Account in order to assist the counties.
This is a serious question, my Lords, and it is becoming more serious every day. Thirteen million pounds a year is spent on the roads of this country, of which £11,000,000 is raised by rates. The administration of these roads is at present in a chaotic condition. Authorities mend the roads just as they choose; there is no unified system. To take an instance, between London and Carlisle there are over 170 authorities who manage that stretch of road. What we ought really to do in this country—and no doubt His Majesty's Government will follow up the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject—is to have a national road authority to administer the main roads of the country. Everybody who has toured abroad knows the excellent condition of the roads in France, and this condition is solely due to the fact that they are managed by the Government as a national asset and as a national duty. I trust His Majesty's Government, if they have in view any further taxation of that sort, may come to the conclusion that a portion, if not the whole, of the money derived from

349
the vehicles that use the roads, and especially motor cars, may be devoted to local purposes—to the purposes of the improvement and maintenance of the roads; and I trust that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to give us some assurance on that point.
*LORD ALLENDALE: The noble Lord has raised a very interesting and a very important question, and he has incidentally raised the whole question of motor car traffic and the upkeep of roads. This question is very much involved, and I can only regret that in the few words that I have to say in reply to the noble Lord's question, I am afraid I shall not be able to give him what he will think a very satisfactory answer, because this question is so much mixed up with financial considerations which, as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, hardly come within the province of this House. I am able to say, however, that the Government have no present contemplation of any general legislation on the subject of motor cars, although they quite recognise that an Amendment in the law relating to motor cars is desirable in some directions. The noble Lord has given us some very interesting facts and figures on the question of motor cars and the upkeep of roads, the cost of which has no doubt increased to a very considerable extent since the advent of motors. But the main part of his question is really one, as I have already said, for the Treasury to deal with, referring as it does to matters of finance.
Now, what the noble Lord asks is practically if, when fresh legislation or fresh taxation is being considered, the recommendations of the Royal Commissions on Motor Cars and on London Traffic may be borne in mind, and he also asks that steps may be taken for establishing a national road authority for the management of the main roads of the country. I notice that in his remarks just now he used the expression "national road authority," but the suggestion of the Royal Commission to which he has referred—the Royal Commission of 1906—was not quite that there should be what he has termed a national road authority. Their sug-
350
gestion was that the money derived from the taxation of motor cars should be handed to some central department, and should be by them appropriated in part payment of the cost incurred by the local authorities in works having for their object the creation of more durable roads and the removal of dangers to traffic on the more important arteries of through communication. I think it will be seen, therefore, that it was not a national road authority such as the noble Lord has referred to, but a central department by whom the proceeds of licences should be distributed that was recommended. Such a department would, of course, come to exercise the same control over the main tenance of the roads as is now exercised by the various local authorities, while the actual management of the roads under the scheme proposed by the Royal Commission would remain with the existing authorities.
Then the noble Lord has also referred to other Royal Commissions and to a Departmental Committee which have already sat. The Royal Commission on London Traffic to which he referred, which sat in 1905, was by its terms of reference confined to the consideration of the traffic problems of London solely. It was, however, instructed to advise as to the desirability of establishing some tribunal to which schemes of railway and tramway construction should be referred, and it recommended the creation of a Traffic Board to deal with or advise upon all matters affecting traffic within the area of Greater London. The Report of that Commission does not, I think, bear very much upon the noble Lord's Question of to-day, but the Royal Commission on Local Taxation to which the noble Lord has also referred, did recommend, as the noble Lord has said, that a grant from the Exchequer should be made towards the maintenance of such roads as might be found on investigation by a "duly authorised tribunal" to be of national as well as of local importance. Then there was the Departmental Committee on Highway Authorities, 1903, which I think must be the one to which the noble Lord alluded, appointed by the Local Government Board. This Committee proposed a central Department to supervise the

351
maintenance of there national highways. But I cannot find that any of these Commissions, or this Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, recommended quite what he has suggested, viz., a national road authority to manage the main roads of the country, and the Government cannot give any promise for the establishment of any such authority. It would be, in effect, to create in this country roads maintained by the State similar to what are known as "Routes Nationales" in France; and this would tend to throw a very serious burden upon the Imperial funds, and would be, I venture to think, inconsistent with the policy of local government and decentralisation which has been adopted in this country, although of course, it must be admitted—and I frankly admit—that motor traffic is not merely local, but if I may use the expression, through traffic, and that considerable changes in locomotion throughout the country have taken place no doubt largely owing to the advent of motors. I may perhaps point out also—and this trenches on the question of finance—that the practice of earmarking specific heads of Imperial revenue for the purpose of grants in aid of local taxation, is opposed to the present policy of the Treasury. Chancellors of the Exchequer are all very grasping, I know, but in view of the increasing demands that are made upon the Exchequer, I do not know that Mr. Asquith is any more grasping than any of his predecessors, or than the noble Lord who generally sits on the front bench opposite (Viscount St. Aldwyn); but I strongly suspect, my Lords, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any contemplation at all of getting increased revenue from the taxation of motorcars—of which I have not the faintest notion—he will wish to have the disposal himself of any increased revenue which he may get, and not let it be intercepted for the purpose of grants-in-aid.
The noble Lord asks in his Question whether the Government will give any part of its increased taxation to local authorities for the upkeep of the roads. He must recognise, however—especially as he has sat in another place—that the whole question of subventions and
352
of the taxation of motor cars are matters which do not directly affect your Lordships, although as taxpayers I know perfectly well that all your Lordships must be individually interested in knowing what extra taxation may be imposed upon you in another place, and those of you who own motor cars will, I am sure, be very anxious to know whether you will have to pay a higher tax in respect of them during the coming year. But, as I have said, I cannot pretend to any knowledge of what the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are in this relation, and I am afraid we shall all have to wait patiently until he unfolds his Budget in a few weeks time.
Then, my Lords, there is the long-deferred and very urgent question of re-adjusting the burden of local taxation, which will have to be considered. The Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation has already been referred to by the noble Lord, and I suppose it may be taken for granted that when that very large question is dealt with, the suggestion of assisting from national sources the maintenance of arterial roads will be taken into very serious consideration, not only in connection with the motor-car traffic, but as part of a general and much wider scheme. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation did certainly make certain recommendations as regards giving assistance towards the maintenance of roads, but that was not particularly in respect to motor cars; in fact, I think it was—I will not say before the advent of motor cars, but before they had increased to the present enormous extent. But any recommendations made were made in respect of the relief of local rates.
My Lords, I am very sorry that I cannot make any more definite statement in reply to the noble Lord, because the whole question is so intimately bound up with the financial administration which, as I have already said, this House is not concerned with, and we also have the Budget still in front of us. I will, however, take care that the views which the noble Lord has expressed, and which I know are shared to a very large extent by noble Lords in this House and by others outside, shall be represented to the proper quarter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, owing to an engagement in the country, I hardly expected that I should be able to be present on this occasion, and consequently I rise to address your Lordships in a somewhat unprepared state on this question. First of all, I would say that in the few remarks which I propose to make, I am speaking entirely for myself. On a previous occasion I criticised to a certain extent the action of His Majesty's Government, and I also criticised the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu with regard to this question of the maintenance of roads for motor car traffic. The views I expressed then I hold now. At the same time I sympathise entirely as to the importance of the question raised by my noble friend. He is of course an authority on all matters connected with motor cars and the motorcar traffic on our roads. I am not, but I sympathise with him, because I think that no one can deny that at present, and more and more as the years go by, we are seeing the motorcar traffic gradually, but surely increasing on the roads, and we are seeing steadily, gradually, and surely the increase of the employment given to a vast number of men, not only in the conduct of these motors, but also in the construction of all sorts and kinds of motor cars. Therefore it is a question which I think my noble friend is perfectly justified in bringing forward, and which I am glad to hear from the noble Lord opposite, that His Majesty's Government will carefully consider. But having said so much, I am bound to agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite. I quite recognise that it is impossible for him to give any pledge as to what His Majesty's Government will do with regard to this, to my mind, very important question, because we must consider—and my noble friend opposite knows this full well, because he occupies a very prominent position in the County Council of Northumberland—that the whole question of road traffic is one of great importance to those living on the spot, and to the local authorities, and therefore they will look with a very considerable amount of anxiety at the course taken by His Majesty's Government when the whole question of local taxation, as
354
my noble friend has told us it will be, is gone into, and at the extent to which the rates are to be relieved or assisted.
My Lords, I myself have no hesitation in saying now, as I have said before—although I fear I shall be censured for doing so by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—that I think motor cars do not pay half enough taxation for the amount of benefit they receive in being permitted to run along the roads. I consider that the amount which a motor car pays for the privilege of being able to-run from John o' Groats to Land's End, and for having the roads kept in condition, is not adequate. I myself, as an owner of motor cars, would be only too glad to pay more, whether the tax is to be levied per horse-power or however the Government may decide, in order that I might feel that the roads were kept in order for me, and that I had a right to use those roads. I say again that at the present moment, to my mind, motor cars are certainly undertaxed; but as to how the question of taxation of motor cars is to be dealt with, I do not pretend to say. I remember that I said a year ago that I thought they ought to pay according to horse-power. I thought then that the very large fund which would result should be at the disposal of the Government. I still maintain that it should be at the disposal of the Government and not of the local authorities, for the purpose of maintaining the roads and of compensating those who are damaged by these motors rushing past them.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said that he did not see why motor cars, any more than objets d'art and other luxuries, should be taxed. I differ with him upon that, because motor cars are a cause of inconvenience to others, while objets d'art are not, and I consider that those who cause inconvenience to the public ought to pay for doing so. Therefore, I think that this is certainly a question which the Government ought to consider. In times past, when motor cars first originated, I think I may say that the drivers showed no consideration whatever for anyone. They rushed through the towns and villages regardless of any damage they did; they scared

355
men, women, and children, as well as horses and cattle on the roads, and in the fields, and I think the unpopularity of motor cars in the first instance was due entirely to that class of driver. But I am glad to think that the class of driver who is now employed is very different. He is forbidden by his employer to do anything, so far as he can avoid it, to cause inconvenience to the districts through which he passes, and I think that the British public consequently view the question of motor cars in quite a different spirit from what they did a few years ago.
I am bound to say I look with a certain amount of contempt upon police traps. I have always noticed that police traps are usually set in the safest part of the road, in those districts in which no harm could be done by going at a great speed—and yet it is at those very spots where no harm can be done, that there are policemen waiting to capture those drivers who are exceeding the legal speed. But where ought they to be? Not wasting their time in setting traps in those safe districts, but in the villages and towns where children are running about and risking their lives and limbs.
My Lords, I think this is a very big question to enter into, and I am very glad indeed that my noble friend has raised it. I certainly hope that when the time comes for raising this question of local taxation the views which I have put shortly and crudely before your Lordships may be taken into consideration, and that the whole system of motor car traffic along the roads, which is at the present time a very important question, and will become more and more important as the years go by, may be taken into consideration, and the matter fully discussed and considered before any definite conclusion is arrived at.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, the question which my noble friend has raised is one (and nobody, I think, appreciates that more than he does) of immense and almost endless ramifications. I was rather sorry that in the course of his observations he dwelt so entirely upon the damage done to
356
the roads by motor cars, and that he did not say a word about—at least so far as I followed his argument, he did not refer specifically to—the much greater damage done to roads by road engines as distinct from motor cars. I suppose that nobody who lives in the neighbourhood of a town can possibly fail to be aware that one road engine, in the course of a few hours, will do a far greater amount of damage than a very great number of motor cars, and also that there is a tendency now, on the part of railway companies, to take such traffic as they have heretofore still continued to place upon our fast disappearing canals off those canals and to put it upon road engines and send it along the roads. For example, in the neighbourhood of Bath and Bristol, the Midland Railway Company has taken its traffic off the Kennet and Avon Canal, and has put it upon the main roads in the counties of Somerset and Wilts and in the City of Bath (which is an independent road authority) which runs parallel to that canal, and those roads, which used to be some of the finest roads in the country, and were very popular, especially with the bicycling community, have now been almost entirely destroyed, and the cost of these roads to the county authorities has been enormously increased. That, of course, raises a question which is very germane to what has fallen from my noble friend, and which will undoubtedly have to be considered whenever this very large and complicated question is dealt with—I mean the law relating to extraordinary traffic. My noble friend knows—for he has given an almost life-long study to this question—that the law relating to extraordinary traffic is in a state of most extraordinary confusion. At a very early period of the appearance of this greatly increased traffic upon our roads, decisions were given—and I have no doubt they were perfectly sound as having been given by eminent Judges—that "extraordinary traffic" only meant traffic which was not ordinary traffic—that it was not "extraordinary" in the sense of being unusually great in the point, let us say, of the weight, or quantity, or quality, of the traffic itself. They decided that you had simply to ascertain the question whether it was part of the ordinary traffic of the district

357
or not. Then subsequently there were other decisions which rather qualified that doctrine, and quite recently, in regard to this very Midland Railway Company, in the neighbourhood of the city of Bath, there has been a decision given which no doubt is a very great encouragement to the road authorities. Now it stands to reason that if the road authorities are able to enforce claims for extraordinary traffic against companies which do this damage, and if they are able to recover a considerable amount of the increased cost—not, perhaps, that I am very hopeful about that—it would in some ways rather modify the present position, because it would remove a portion of the grievance which the local authorities have, as I think, far more against the owners of heavy traffic like the road engines than against the owners of motor cars, though no doubt the motor cars are far more numerous in themselves than the road engines.
Then, whenever this question comes up, I have no doubt the Government will also have to consider certain questions on which my noble friend touched, though not very fully. For example, my noble friend said, and said very truly, that one of the greatest evils of our present road system was the enormous number of authorities. I always regretted that the late Government, when they were passing that great measure, the Local Government Act of 1888, accepted an Amendment by which the county councils were able to divest themselves of a considerable portion of their authority and their duty, by contracting with minor authorities. Undoubtedly the enormous number of local road authorities is a very great evil. It will be great in any case, because you have all the county authorities—not only the geographical counties, but the administrative counties, which include all the great county boroughs—boroughs above 50,000 population. But if, in addition to that, a county council contracts with all the minor authorities in a county, or with some of them, you immediately intensify that evil twenty or thirty-fold, according to the circumstances of your county.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUnodded assent.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I am glad to see that my noble friend agrees with me. And the contracting clause to which I refer, is all the more dangerous because there is generally a certain amount of local popularity to be got by telling the minor authorities that you are going to contract with them. The unfortunate result has been that the less progressive counties in England have taken advantage of that clause, and have very largely divested themselves of the duty which Parliament placed upon them, and in that way have enormously increased the existing confusion and expense.
Although my noble friend spoke of two Commissions, I think as a matter of fact the second body was not a Commission but a Departmental Committee, and that Departmental Committee issued a very valuable Report. In that Report there were some specific recommendations upon this point—that the powers of the county councils to divest themselves of their duty in regard to road maintenance should be very seriously considered by the Government.
Then there is yet another matter, which I do not think my noble friend mentioned at all, which bears upon this question, namely, the extraordinarily weak position in which the county councils of England stand as compared with the county councils of Ireland, with regard to the expense of road improvements. I believe this is not very generally known: that the greatest local bodies that we have in England—the county councils—have no compulsory power for taking land for the improvement of roads. When the late Government were passing the Local Government (Ireland) Act through Parliament, they accepted a very useful Amendment. I am glad to say that, because just now I was criticising them in reference to an unfortunnate Amendment which they accepted in the English Act, but by general consent in the "House of Commons (and English Members took some part in the discussion—I myself ventured to do that somewhat dangerous thing, and it is a

359
thing which I have very seldom ventured upon doing, to discuss an Irish Bill in the House of Commons) a clause was accepted under which the Irish county councils were given that which the English county councils have not got, namely, a cheap and easy method of taking land by compulsion, when they cannot get it by agreement, for purposes of road improvement. Of course that is a right which has to be very carefully guarded, in order to prevent landowners being subject to any injustice. The machinery provided was partly administrative, partly judicial, but as I say this clause was accepted quite unanimously by the House of Commons and by your Lordships' House. If a similar provision were made with regard to England, I believe the county councils would be enabled, in regard to this matter of road maintenance and road improvement, to move with greater freedom, especially in the case of land near large towns, where in many cases roads seem to end in the neck of a bottle, and where there is a great tendency to ask the very highest price which can be got for the land. An alteration of the law in this respect would, I know from experience, be a very great advantage to the county councils.
I have ventured to mention all these subjects in order that I might fully justify the position which the Government take—that as these points all exist, and as there are those larger questions of local convenience on which my noble friend dwelt so very clearly in his speech, I do not think anybody can complain, if, bearing in mind the rather lengthy programme which the Government have before them, they do not, in this session at least, attempt to deal with this very difficult question.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The noble Lord who answered me on this question hardly, I think, grasped that what I asked him for was not so much information as to whether a higher tax on motor cars was to be put on in the ensuing Budget; what I rather invited the Government's attention to was the fact that whatever process they adopt for taxation the money should be handed over, as the noble Lord (Lord Fitzmaurice) has made out
360
so good a case for, to the local authorities for the purposes of the roads. The Departmental Committee to which I referred particularly advocated that there should be a central authority, which might be the Local Government Board or some other Department, to take over the work of the maintenance of the main roads. I did not go fully into the Royal Commission Report, because it would have taken too long. After what has fallen from noble Lords opposite, I am afraid that the subject will not receive the attention of the Government this session, but I hope that His Majesty's Government will bear it in mind should an opportunity arise at any time of doing anything to help forward this matter.
LORD ALLENDALE: I apologise to the noble Lord if I omitted to refer to the particular point to which he has just called attention, but I was rather regarding the whole question as one which is very much mixed up with these three Royal Commissions and the Departmental Committee. I am quite sure that all the recommendations of these various bodies will receive the careful consideration of whatever Government is in power at the time when this question comes to be dealt with.

INDIAN GOVERNORS AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
*LORD LAMINGTON,in asking whether His Majesty's Government would consider the advisability of amending the statute by which the Viceroy, the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and the Commander-in-Chief in India are unable to obtain leave to return home without resignation of their appointment, said: My Lords, the prohibition that forms the subject of my Question dates from an Act of 33 George III. I have read somewhere, but cannot now trace the reference, the origin of this prohibition. If I remember rightly, it was owing to the absence from India of some highly placed official for a period of two or more years without leave. However, the prohibition was finally embodied in an Act of 3 & 4 William IV., and it now reads as follows—
"That the return to Europe or the departure from India with intent to return to Europe of

361
any governor-general of India, governor, member of council, or commander-in-chief, shall be deemed in law a resignation and voidance of his office or employment."
That prohibition has been so far amended and qualified by an Act of 1861 as to allow members of the Council to obtain leave on medical certificate.
My Lords, I need hardly point out the great difference between the circumstances which obtain now and those which obtained in the year 1793, when a voyage to India occupied anything from a year to eighteen months, and even in the time of William IV., it might often have a duration of from six to nine months. In addition, there is now a weekly mail, and there is the telegraph incessantly going between the Government of India and the authorities at home. Therefore, there is really no comparison between the methods of communication which now exist and those which existed at the time these Acts were framed; and if this is such a very wise and important provision, it may well be asked why it is not found in any other Department or in any other service. It certainly does not exist in the case of any other offices held under the Crown, and it may safely be assumed that in no other country in the world does this disability extend to any official, and I do not imagine for a moment that anybody would say that if you were in these days framing a system of administration for the Indian Empire you would insert such a provision as this. I am myself far too profound a believer in the value of the opinion, the judgment, and the knowledge of the man on the spot to propose anything that would encourage him to take leave for his own recreation or amusement, and thereby possibly injure his authority and prestige. Nor, indeed, can I imagine that any occupant of these offices that are subject to this prohibition would be willing idly to absent himself from his post. The work is so interesting, the problems to be solved are so varied, so complex and so absorbing, and the distribution of officers and general system of patronage demands such constant and urgent attention, that I cannot conceive of any of these officials being anything but loth to sever himself, even temporarily, from the affairs of his
362
office. But, my Lords, there are inseparable accidents of our existence. Death and illness are always possibilities, and these upset your best-framed regulations; and in my opinion the failure to recognise them may only accentuate their possibilities for evil, and by not making allowance for these contingencies the continuity which it was the obvious intention of these Acts to preserve may be only the more impaired.
If I may do so, I would show this by my own experience, but I do so with extreme reluctance, and I would ask your Lordships to acquit me of any desire or intention of bringing forward my own misfortune as the basis of my argument. I only use it by way of illustration, and nothing more. Still less am I seeking to ventilate a grievance, because for the sympathy and goodwill that I received from the Secretary of State I can entertain nothing but the most profound gratitude—a gratitude equalled only by my admiration for the manner in which he discharged the affairs of his office. Therefore there is nothing personal about what I am going to say; it is merely used by me in illustration of my argument. Last year I was holding the post of Governor of Bombay, and owing to certain untoward circumstances in connection with ill-health, my return home was necessitated. Before returning, I asked the Secretary of State if it was not possible to allow of my resignation with a view to subsequent reappointment. I only asked for a short leave of absence—say eight or ten weeks, but the Secretary of State, after giving full consideration to my application, said he could not grant it, as he considered it would be contrary to the spirit of the Act. Well, my Lords, what happened? I left towards the end of July, and my successor did not arrive in India until nearly the middle of November; so that the interruption—the interval between the holding of the Governorship by myself and my successor—was an interval of fourteen or fifteen weeks, as compared with the eight or ten weeks for which I had asked. Furthermore, the occupant of the post was fresh to his duties as compared with myself. I do not think it can be gainsaid, therefore, that continuity of administration was not secured in that instance, and

363
that the spirit of the law would have been honoured rather in its breach than in its observance. I should not care how stringent were the conditions imposed upon any official who had to take leave—I should say that he must sacrifice his pay, that he should receive no allowance of passage money, and that there should be the strictest possible limitations of time imposed; but what I do contend is that the Government, or the Secretary of State, should not be debarred absolutely, helplessly, and hopelessly, from doing what might be considered advisable under such circumstances—that some discretion should be allowed in the matter of giving leave. Remember, this disability may operate very injuriously in preventing the Government obtaining the services of the men who may be best fitted to fill these posts. The point was mentioned by the late Lord Salisbury on an occasion which I will allude to later on. He said that "owing to the inability to obtain temporary leave or medical leave it was difficult to fill some of the offices specified in the schedule of a Bill which was then being brought forward;" and he added that "nobody who had had anything to do with the filling of those offices would doubt the accuracy of what he said." And I have had it on very good authority that one of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House has said that nothing would induce him to accept an office during the tenure of which he would be debarred from any possibility of returning home.
My Lords, that is one aspect of the case. Then there is another. The one I have mentioned deals rather with the removal of what to my mind constitutes a defect of the law, but there are those who hold strongly that it would be a decided gain were any one of these officials able to be summoned home for purposes of consultation and discussion by the Home Government. I need not dwell upon the advantages of personal discussion as compared with any amount of despatch or letter writing, but I may briefly state what has taken place in this connection. In 1887 it was thought desirable that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should leave his post of Commander-in-Chief in Bombay—a post which has been
364
since abolished—so as to be enabled to attend the Jubilee of her late Majesty Queen Victoria; and Sir John Gorst, who was then Under-Secretary of State for India in the House of Commons, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to enable His Royal Highness to come home, stated that it had been then contemplated by the Government that it might have been possible to have allowed His Royal Highness to resign with the intention of his being subsequently reappointed, but that it had been felt by the Government, then as now, that some would consider that such a course would constitute an evasion of the Act. Mr. Childers, in the course of the debate, said that he would be willing to support the Bill on the understanding that the Government as soon as possible introduced a Bill repealing this particular provision. Mr. W. H. Smith, the then Leader of the House of Commons, at once assented, and during his speech adverted strongly upon the advantages that would be obtained by the possibility of giving permission to any one of these officials to return home from time to time; and in 1891–1892 the noble Lord, Viscount Cross, introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House with these objects in view. That Bill both gave permission for any one of these officials to obtain leave on medical certificate, and also provided that on public grounds he might be summoned home at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Speaking for myself, I think that the conditions surrounding this concession were really almost too liberal, but that is a point into which I need not enter now. During the course of the debate, the late Lord Salisbury mentioned that he considered the present system was anomalous and unwise. That Bill passed through your Lordships' House. It then went to the House of Commons, where it was taken charge of by my noble friend Lord Curzon, but it never arrived at any further stage, owing to the general election supervening.
Now I come to another stage of this question. In 1902 I understand that during the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon a despatch was sent by the Government of India dealing with this question, and

365
I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to this question whether he would not allow that despatch to be laid upon the Table of this House, and also the reply made to it by the then Secretary of State. In speaking of the Bill of 1892 I ought to have mentioned that the Viceroy was not included amongst the officers that were put into the schedule.
My Lords, I think I have said enough to show that I am not myself recklessly proposing an innovation. It is a subject that has been approved of by most eminent statesmen, and it is also a subject that has met with the full approval of your Lordships' House. What I, however, most strenuously contend for is that this regulation, as it at present stands, is inadequate, and that it operates injuriously to the public interest, and therefore I press for some modification of it which will unfetter, in some degree, the Secretary of State so as to allow him to use his discretion. If it is thought that the discretion, if granted, might lead to laxity, then by all means hedge it round with every conceivable limitation, so as to safeguard it against abuse; but I do think, my Lords, that this is a subject which merits attention, and that the modification which I propose would certainly tend to the improvement of the public administration of the affairs of India.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to my action when I was Secretary of State for India. It is quite true that my attention was first called to this subject at the time of the Jubilee, and what the noble Lord has said is equally true, that it was desired, on public grounds, that the Duke of Connaught, who was then Commander-in-Chief of Bombay, should come home to attend the Jubilee. It was suggested to me at that time that I should allow him to resign his office, come home, and then be re-appointed. That I entirely declined to have anything at all to do with. I thought it would be a gross breach of the Act of Parliament and that it would be making a use of it which was never intended, and ought never to be allowed for a moment. So there was an end of that. Then there was no means of bringing him home except by a special
366
Act of Parliament, and what my noble friend has said on this point is equally true; a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, it passed and became law, and the Duke of Connaught came home. But during the course of the discussion in the House of Commons, Mr. Childers, who at that time appeared on behalf of the Opposition, so to speak, made almost a stipulation that if that Bill was allowed to pass it ought to be as a general Act—not for this particular Commander-in-Chief, but that it ought to be a general Act, and so discussed. That pledge was given, and the result was that in 1891 we brought forward a Bill in your Lordships' House to allow the Viceroy and the other Government officers in India—the Commander-in-Chief and the Governors of Bombay and Madras—to come home on public grounds. But great care was taken that that should not be abused, because in the Bill which I brought forward no action was to be taken except with the consent of the Secretary of State for India in Council; and there was the further safeguard that it had also to pass through the Viceroy and his Council in India before it could be acted upon. So that probably every safeguard that could be adopted was introduced into that Bill.
I agree with my noble friend that when the Act to which he has referred was passed, communication between India and England was a totally different thing from what it is now. At that time you had to go round by the Cape, and months and months would elapse. Now all that is changed. That Bill of 1891 did not go through, because it was crowded out. That is a thing which very often happens in sessions of Parliament in regard to Bills, some of which are good and some bad, and I daresay it is possible that in the present session a certain number of Bills may be crowded out. In 1892 it was brought in again. Lord Northbrook, who had a great experience, of course, in Indian affairs, objected to the Viceroy being included, and he gave very substantial reasons why he should not be included. He said that the Viceroy himself stood quite apart from anybody else—he was on a pinnacle—he was the great man—and the result was that I consented to strike the

367
Viceroy out of the schedule, and the Bill passed your Lordships' House with that omission. I am not quite certain whether anybody could imagine India without the presence of a Viceroy, and I think Lord Northbrook was right. The effect of bringing a Viceroy home for consultation, even on matters of great importance, would very likely have had a bad effect in India itself, and would to a certain extent have pulled down the Viceroy from the pinnacle upon which he stood, because the Viceroy is the Viceroy, and known as such all over the Indian continent. Well, that second Bill passed your Lordships' House with the exclusion of the Viceroy. If I remember rightly, Lord Northbrook also wanted to strike out the Commander-in-Chief, but your Lordships declined to do that, and the Bill retained the provision with regard to the Commander-in-Chief. My noble friend said perfectly truly that the Bill passed your Lordships' House, and was brought into the other House of Parliament, and it would no doubt have become law if it had not been for the dissolution of Parliament itself, and the consequent dissolution of the Government which brought it in.
There my connection with this subject stops. I quite agree that these great officers should not be called home except for very important reasons, and I think that the safeguards which were put into that Bill, requiring the sanction—in fact the initiation—of the Secretary of State in Council, and also the assent of the Viceroy and his Council in India, were safeguards which everybody must admit were very great, and such as to render any abuse impossible. There is no doubt that Lord Salisbury, who had been Secretary of State for India himself, and who was at that time Prime Minister, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, most warmly backed up the Bill which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships' House. He, at all events, knew as much about India as most people. I am still of the same opinion as I was then, and I think with what my noble friend brought forward as Lord Salisbury's view, and also his statement that the absolute inability, as the Act stood, of the holder of one of these great
368
offices to come home, however important the subject might be for which he was to be brought home, did at all events make an extra difficulty in finding men ready to take up these posts.
I have said now all that I mean to say; I leave the matter in your Lordships' hands. Whether my noble friend will be content with what he may hear from His Majesty's Government I do not know, nor do I know whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of bringing in any such Bill or not; but at all events I think we ought to be grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. As I say, I am still of the same opinion as I was as that time—that it would be wise with sufficient safeguards, for public purposes alone, and leaving out the Viceroy, to allow the other Indian officers to come home on leave.
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, perhaps as my name has been mentioned, and as I have necessarily had some experience of this subject, I may be allowed to say a word or two before the representative of the Government replies. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given us a sufficient history of what has passed in respect of the Bill of 1892, but the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, who made such a clear and, as it seemed to me, convincing statement of the case, alluded to events that passed while I was Viceroy. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that we did consider this question, and that a communication was addressed to the Secretary of State for India by my Council on the subject, by which I mean that the Government of India was unanimously in favour of the alteration of the law, and of the concession for which the noble Lord is now asking being made in respect of the offices to which he has alluded. For my own part, I have not the slightest objection, if the noble Lord who represents the Government thinks fit to lay that despatch on the table of the House. The subject is of such importance that I think the matter ought to be placed fully before your Lordships. May I say that with the main proposition—in fact the entire proposition—of the noble Lord, Lord

369
Lamington, I am in complete agreement. I have never been able to discover any valid reason why, alone in the official hierarchy of the Empire, these officers to whom he refers—the Viceroy of India, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Governors of Madras and Bombay—should be debarred, under any circumstances whatever, from going home on leave, however short. Let us remember that they are serving their country in a climate that is extremely trying, that their work is exceedingly laborious, and that the strain upon them might almost be described as overwhelming. And yet under no conditions whatever, either of public interest, or of ill-health, or of personal convenience, are they ever permitted to return even for a day to this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamington, has clearly pointed out to your Lordships that this practice is really a survival of an obsolete era—that it provided for a state of things which no longer exists, and that the extreme and increasing rapidity of steam communication, which renders it possible for an officer to leave India, return to England, and get back to India in the space of three months, really cuts away the ground from the Act in the form in which it was originally passed. The noble Lord alluded, if I may say so, with great good taste and reserve to his own position, and being very familiar with the circumstances of his case, I must say that it seemed to me exceedingly hard that because of the conditions to which he referred his tenure of office at Bombay, fraught as it was with great advantages to the people of that Presidency, should have been cut short. But I am familiar with other cases, and I may, perhaps, mention to your Lordships the case of a very high official of the Government of India in my day. I allude to the late Sir William Lockhart, with whom I had the honour of serving when he was Commander-in-Chief. Sir William Lockhart died at his post in India, and yet I have no doubt that his life might have been lengthened—it might conceivably even have been spared—had he been permitted to return to this country and to take medical advice here. The matter was one which he more than
370
once discussed with me, but he could not afford, in the position in which he was placed, to throw away the great office which he held. He was obliged, therefore, to remain in India, and he died, in the circumstances I have described, at his post.
My Lords, there is one other point to which I would ask leave to draw your attention, and that is the essential absurdity of the position in which we are placed by the terms of this obsolete Act. The noble Lord read out the conditions of the Act, which are that the occupants of the high offices in question must not leave India in order to return to Europe. That is the operative condition. Now your Lordships will see that there is nothing in this Act to prevent the Commander-in-Chief, for instance, in India from taking command in a campaign in South Africa. He might have headed the expedition which we sent for the relief of the Legations in Pekin. Similarly as regards the Viceroy: there is nothing in the Act to prevent the Viceroy from going, for purposes of health or otherwise, to Ceylon, Mauritius, or even Cairo. I was myself permitted, while in India, to pay an official visit to the Persian Gulf, which, as your Lordships know, lies a good way outside the borders of India. But the moment any one of these high officers leaves with the view of returning to England, the one place where it is conceivable that he may be wanted either in the public interest or in his own—then this disability falls upon him like an axe.
Both the noble Lords who have spoken, have alluded to the case of the Duke of Connaught in the year 1887, when, in order to escape the rigidity of the statute, a special Bill had to be passed through both Houses of Parliament to enable His Royal Highness to come home to attend the Jubilee of the Queen. But there is another case which has not been mentioned, which happened at an early stage in history and is perhaps forgotten, and that is the case of Lord Napier of Magdala. He was Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army, which at that time had a separate military existence. While holding that post he was appointed to the command of the Abyssinian Expedition. He went to Abyssinia; he

371
conducted the campaign, as we know, with success, and His Majesty's Government at that time desiring to consult him, he was actually brought to England on the absurd plea that he would be conducting his duties as Commander-in Chief of the Bombay Army here. That, of course, was a ludicrous evasion of the statute. Then I am not certain, in view of what has fallen from Lord Cross, that the statute was not evaded in my own case too, because when I came home in 1904, I could only obtain leave by resigning my office and being re-appointed when I went back—a very clumsy method, as it seems to me, of continuing a man in office for a longer period of years and giving him leave which he may not only desire, but require.
My Lords, the noble Lord has, I think, made clear to us the advantages of the change which he proposes. There is first the interest of the man himself—his health, which is liable to suffer—his private affairs, which may call for a brief visit to England. But I would prefer to rest it on the ground of the public interest. I remember the late Lord Salisbury speaking about the matter, and he laid the greatest stress upon the advantage which might accrue, in cases which are no doubt rare, but which still are likely to happen from time to time, in which the Government at home may require to consult here in England the Commander-in-Chief about some great military expedition, or to consult the Governor of Madras or the Governor of Bombay, or even the Viceroy himself. And if I may quote my own experience, I think that at a certain stage it would have been exceedingly advantageous to me if, for the space of a few weeks, I could have had the advantage of a private conversation with His Majesty's advisers at home.
As regards the drawbacks to the proposal, I must ask leave to differ from my noble friend Lord Cross, whom I served as Under-Secretary The noble Lord cut out the Viceroy from the Bill of 1892, accepting, as he told us just now, the reasoning of Lord Northbrook—the argument of Lord Northbrook being that the Viceroy was placed on such a pinnacle that it would be almost impossible to contemplate his being taken
372
away, and that some nameless, but serious, results would accrue to India if he were not there. But, my Lords, if the pinnacle has ceased to be occupied by the Viceroy, somebody else climbs up and stands there in his place. During my absence for six months, in 1904, the pinnacle was occupied, and, if I may be allowed to say so, occupied with great advantage and distinction, by Lord Ampthill, and whatever the circumstances under which the Viceroy might be called home the Viceroyalty would not be vacant through his absence. The most senior member of his Council, for instance, might for a few weeks or for a month or two, take his place. I venture to say from my own experience that the argument we have heard before, that the prestige of the Viceroy would be impaired, or that the efficiency or continuity of the Government would in any degree be affected, is quite illusory. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cross that if the privilege be conceded it ought to be fenced round with every manner of restriction. I would myself surround it with restrictions greater than those he proposed in the Bill of 1892. At that time he proposed leave of absence being granted for as long a period as six months. I think that in the despatch written by the Government of India in my day we proposed a maximum of only three months. We proposed that that leave should only be given once at the most in any term of office, that it should only be given upon the advice and with the consent both of the Governor-General in Council in India and of the Secretary of State in Council in England, and that it should only be given for one of three objects—public interest, ill-health, or important private concerns. So restricted, my Lords, I believe that the concession, if made, would be desidelly advantageous both to the individual and to the public in occasional cases, and that it would do no harm whatever either in India or in England; and if my noble friend, or any other noble Lord in this House, at any time puts the proposal forward in the shape of a Bill, I, for my part, will do my best to advocate it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will especially regret to-night the absence of the noble

373
Member the Leader of the House, who would have brought the weight of his authority to deal with this question. I can only say, on behalf of the Government and the India Office, that they are quite unable to agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord, and that they would not consent to introduce, or even to approve of, any legislation in this direction.
With regard to the Paper which the noble Lord mentioned, I will certainly mention the matter to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord will of course quite understand that I am unable to promise anything concerning it myself, but I will consult Mr. Morley on the subject. With regard to the Bill of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), I think it has not been sufficiently pointed out that he also put restrictions in another direction upon the home-coming of these various officers, because he made it quite plain that they could only come home for matters of public convenience, and that matters connected with their private affairs should not be considered a sufficient reason for their coming home.
The noble Lord who asked the Question laid stress, quite rightly, upon the increased advantages in the way of public travelling since the days when this prohibition was made law. He forgot also to remind your Lordships how much easier it is to consult officials in India by means of the telegraph in these days, and I think if he refers to the one, it is only fair that your Lordships should be reminded of the other. The fact of the matter is, my Lords, that in the opinion of the India Office, the Government of India is a system which is very nicely balanced and adjusted, and these will be considerable danger of those delicate arrangements being interfered with if it is altered in the direction which the noble Lord suggests. May I make a practical suggestion to the noble Lord (Lord Curzon of Kedleston), who represents India as well as Ireland in this House. Imagine that there was controversy on a matter of importance between the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. Let us imagine that the Commander-in-Chief was sent over to consult the Council of India at home. Would the noble Lord wish to
374
see the Viceroy hurrying after the Commander-in-Chief by the next mail boat? Does he think it would be very dignified if these officials, either singly or together, were to come back to England and were to consult the Secretary of State upon a matter upon which they might possibly be divided in opinion?
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That case, although an ingenious one, and not without a personal application, is a case which could not possibly arise under the proposal which I suggested. One of the conditions which we laid down in India was that either the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief should only come home, not merely with the consent of the Secretary of State in Council in London, but with the consent of the Governor-General in Council in India, and in the circumstances to which the noble Lord alludes, I can hardly imagine that that consent would be given.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is of course a matter of difference of opinion. At any rate, it would not be impossible, and I think the theory I have put forward is not entirely an impracticable one, although I am rather willing to agree with the noble Lord that it is quite likely that permission under those circumstances might have been refused to one of the parties to the case. But I think it is only right to point out to your Lordships that after all no very serious inconvenience has been felt in the past. Five years is not a very long period, and a continuous service for that time is not altogether unreasonable. It is scarcely fair to speak of India as if it could be compared with other posts or with other countries within the British Empire. India is an exceptional case. It is liable to sudden emergencies which are specially dangerous in a country without representative Government. The work there is specially responsible, and the offices to which reference has been made have really, I think, no parallel anywhere in any other part of the Empire. The responsibility is much more concentrated in the individual in those offices than in any others, and I am not sure, my Lords, that it would not be unfair to the Government of India to

375
consult either the Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief alone. There might be a tendency, if such a practice became common, to transfer the government of India in times of crisis from the Governor-General in Council to the Government and the Cabinet at home. The cases of emergency to which a reference has been made by the noble Lord are surely just those very cases when it is important that these officers should themselves be present in India. Then, my Lords, I think if leave is to be recognised on public grounds there would be considerable difficulty in drawing a line, because it would be possible that undesirable discussion might arise in connection with them, in the same way that if leave was asked for on medical grounds the Medical Board could scarcely refuse a certificate. And, my Lords, if the cause of the desire to return home were ill-health, resignation would probably be desirable. Extreme cases have been met, as was happily done in the case of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Curzon) by reappointments, and there are, I think, perhaps special objections in the case of the Viceroy, though a great deal of what I have said applies, in my opinion, with equal force to the other positions which have been mentioned. The position of the Acting Governor-General, with his hands tied, might be somewhat difficult, and even dangerous, especially in view of his special concern with the foreign relations of India. The opinion of the India Office is that the Governor-General, or the Viceroy, should have no temptation to separate his life interest from India during his tenure of the office, and that his authority should not be impaired by the sense that he might be able to come home at any time and to share, perhaps, part of his authority with the Secretary of State in England. Under those circumstances, my Lord, I can only repeat what I began by saying—namely, that the Secretary of State cannot under any circumstances give his approval to legislation on these lines.
*THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I did not come to the House with any intention of speaking on this subject, but I would like to state very briefly that I entirely
376
agree with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Lamington. I confess I heard with considerable disappointment the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that the Government were not prepared to consider this proposal. I do not base my support of the noble Lord's suggestion in any way upon the private interests of the individual; I base it entirely and wholly on public grounds and I think the public grounds for making a change in the Statute are extremely strong. The difficulties of governing India are notoriously increasing year by year, and it is therefore becoming more and more important to render these high appointments attractive, and to attract the best brains to fill them. Successive Governments have certainly been extremely fortunate in their nominations for the offices of Viceroy and Governors, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the stipulation that when a man is once appointed, he cannot return until the end of five years, does somewhat narrow the field of selection, and might quite conceivably act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise make most desirable occupants of these positions. It must be borne in mind that those who are competent to fill the positions in question are, if not in middle life, at all events not in their first youth, and there are generally private or family affairs which render it very difficult for such men to absent themselves for five years from this country. Moreover, although these appointments are highly honourable, they are very far from being lucrative. On the contrary, they involve heavy expenditure on the part of those who fill them, and therefore I say that anything that can be done to make these appointments attractive is very much to be desired.
Another point to which I should like to draw attention is that so far from there being any objection to these high officials leaving India, it appears to me that if they occasionally left India for a short visit to England it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the public service, because they would thus be enabled to consult with the Secretary of State and others here, and to keep in touch with English public life, which is liable to great

377
change in the course of the five years of their absence. This is all the more Important if the practice of peripatetic politicians going out to India to air their own views is to become general. I can only say that during the many years that I was in Egypt I found that it was of great advantage to myself—and I hope it was of some advantage to the country—to be able to come home for two or three months every year, and not only to see the officials, but also to get out of the local groove, and to be able to understand thoroughly the views held in this country about the affairs in which I was specially interested. May I add also, with all due deference to the noble Lord (Lord Cross) and my late distinguished relative, Lord Northbrook, that I do not accept the statement that the Viceroy ought to be excluded from the proposed amendment of the law any more than any of the other officials who have been mentioned. A third point is that I think if this suggestion were carried out it would tend towards continuity of policy in India. I should be very glad to see the Viceroys and Governors encouraged to stay more than five years. Remember what happens now. I am sure noble Lords who have themselves occupied these high positions in India will agree with me that it takes six months or more for them to get into their saddle, so to speak, and that during the last six months that they hold office they cannot do much. Therefore they have practically only four years' in which to work, and four years is a very short time in which to carry out an important measure in India, because such measures have to be carried out steadily and without hurry. Therefore, for my own part, I should very much like to see the Viceroy and the Governors of Madras and Bombay encouraged to accept a second term of office, because I feel sure that this would prove to be a very great advantage to the public service; but I am quite sure that they will never do so unless they are permitted to come home at times. For these reasons, my Lords, I regret that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Lord.
*LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I am extremely reluctant to express any
378
disagreement with my two noble friends wish whom I served contemporaneously in India, for we worked together on all matters in India with very pleasant harmony. But since I hold, and have always held, that the views expressed by those noble Lords upon the matter now under discussion are wrong, I should not think it fair to the solitary spokesman of the Government, who is at present faring odds of four to one, if I failed to state my opinion.
The grounds upon which this suggested change is urged are two-fold—firstly, the public interest, and secondly, the private interests of the individuals concerned. I do not think any case at all has been made out for the relaxation of the Statute on public grounds, and it will not have been unnoticed, I think, by your Lordships that the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), who spoke with such a weight of experience and authority on this matter, expressly said that he would only give the leave on public grounds. If any case has been made at all, in my humble opinion it has been made on the grounds of the personal interests of the individuals concerned. But with regard to the remarks which were made by the noble Earl (The Earl of Cromer), I would ask your Lordships whether the mere off-chance of coming home on some possible or potential matter of public importance in the course of five years could possibly affect the decision of a man who was asked to accept the position of Viceroy, and who was deterred from doing so by the thought of the long exile. There would only be the off-chance of coming home, even according to the stipulations of my noble friend, Lord Lamington, if some urgent public affairs, or some great domestic calamity, called for his presence. Personally—speaking with some experience of the offices both of Viceroy and of Governor—I cannot conceive any ordinary circumstances in which personal consultation, at the cost of the large delay of the journey home, would have any advantage over the present rapid and complete means of communication by post and telegraph; and again, if the Viceroy or the Governor did come

379
home, he could, as has been already pointed out, only give his personal opinion, and in any protracted negotiations with His Majesty's Ministers at home, he would be divorced from the opinion of his Council, and that, in my view, would be a dangerous constitutional innovation. Still more dangerous, I venture to think, would it be for the Commander-in-Chief to come home and give his opinions on those immensely important military questions which cannot possibly be separated from political questions, independently of those of the Viceroy, and of the Governor-General, in Council. It would be, in effect, an abrogation of those large constitutional principles which underlie the phrases so familiar to everyone who has had to do with India, "Governor-General in Council" and "Governor in Council." I can imagine circumstances in which it might be advisable, expedient, and useful if members or representatives of His Majesty's Government at home were to go out to India for the purposes of such consultation, and to see things with their own eyes on the spot, but I cannot conceive any circumstances in which it would really be useful for Viceroys or Governors to come home. If such-circumstances were to arise, they could, as has been pointed out, and as has been done on previous occasions, be met by special legislation.
As regards the personal grounds for the suggested alteration, I hold that if circumstances of domestic calamity, or business necessity, should arise such as to prevent a Viceroy or a Governor from giving the whole of his time, thought, and attention to his arduous and responsible charge, it is clearly right and desirable that he should resign his appointment. Viceroys in India, and Governors in a lesser degree, are in a position which seems to me analogous to that of commanders of armies in the field, and their position is at any rate analogous to that of a Minister of the Crown in this country. They are, so to speak, on active service; they are on duty, and on a duty which demands incessant attention from day to day and from hour to hour. It is no more possible for them, in my opinion, to leave their posts,
380
and to lose touch with the affairs which they are directing, than it is possible for a general to leave his Army in the face of the enemy, or for the Prime Minister of the country (and this is really the closest analogy) to go 7,000 miles away, out of the reach of King's Messengers and rapid communications. Your Lordships will agree with me that the latter is a contingency which would not be tolerated for one moment in this country. Comparisons with the Governments of the Colonies are, for obvious reasons with which I need not delay your Lordships, beside the point, but a specious comparison has been suggested by two noble Lords between the positions of the Viceroy, Governors, and Commander-in-Chief, and those of other members of the public service in India. But I venture to think, with all deference, that that comparison must break down on the slightest examination. It is obvious, in the first instance, that men who are appointed on political grounds, and for a certain definite term of five years, are in a different position from those whose services are non-political and are their life-long profession. It is precisely the same distinction which holds good in this country. Any member of the Civil Service, as all your Lordships know, can take his two months leave at any time, and completely sever himself from the cares and duties of the office to which he belongs, provided there is no unusual official inconvenience. But this is not the case with the Minister in charge of the Department. Even if the Minister goes away on a holiday, though it be abroad, he has to remain in constant touch with his office, and he cannot throw aside all care and responsibility. This state of things would not be possible in regard to Viceroys and Governors if 7,000 miles of sea were to separate them from their subordinate officials and from their duties. It is true that Secretaries of State have on occasion made long tours, and thus absented themselves from their offices, but those were cases in which the inconvenience was justified by the exigencies of Imperial affairs. But in that connection it must be remembered that under the theory of the Constitution there is only one Secretary of State, although the duties of that office

381
are divided among several Ministers of the Crown. If, therefore, a Secretary of State is absent from the country, there are always several of his colleagues in a similar position and vested with precisely similar and equal authority, to discharge his functions, and that without any rearrangement of offices or any extra cost to the State. But the thing which influences me most, in spite of the views of my noble friend (Lord Curzon), which on all subjects I regard with the greatest deference, is the bad effect that the temporary absence of the Viceroy or the Governor would undoubtedly have on public opinion in India. The difference between the position of the Viceroy and the Governors, and that of the officials of the Indian bureaucracy is one which is very keenly and very fully appreciated by the people of India, and to place those high dignitaries under similar regulations with regard to leave as the officials of the bureaucracy would tend to reduce them to the level of the permanent official, with a consequent loss, pro tanto, of their peculiar prestige and influence. As regards the feeling of the European officials themselves, there would be a similar and a no less marked effect. The Viceroy, and the Governors of the Presidencies, are there to set an example of devotion to duty which rises superior to any personal consideration. The members of the Civil Service themselves are not able to obtain leave on urgent private affairs unless they have earned that privilege by a definite term of service, and it is, therefore, often the case—it certainly was in my experience—that these men are obliged to stick to their posts in the face of very serious personal inconvenience, and even in circumstances of tragic domestic trouble. The Governor would not be in a position to exhort them to persist in this duty if he himself were able, with much less difficulty, to go home on private affairs when it happened to suit him.
These considerations, my Lords, seem to me to far outweigh any that have been advanced on the other side, and I rejoice sincerely that the Secretary of State does not intend to depart from the established policy of the India Office.
LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to inflict a long speech upon your Lordships, but with regard to this particular matter—which is one on which I have a certain amount of knowledge—I may be permitted to inform your Lordships that I quite agree with the views expressed by my noble friend (Lord Ampthill). Lord Cromer, who spoke from his knowledge of official life, made a great point of the fact that he considers that all these high officials should spend a longer period of their lives in their various official kingdoms. He thought that if the Governors of Bombay and Madras, the Viceroy, and the Commander-in-Chief could be allowed to extend their services for a longer period than five years it would be a very great advantage to the country, in that they would be able to bring to bear upon their various duties the experience and knowledge which take them now so long to accumulate, and which they have so short a time to exercise. There I think he is perfectly right, and if the term of office could be lengthened in the manner he proposes, I see no objection whatever to their coming back to England at stated intervals or for stated periods. The noble Earl himself was in Egypt for twenty-four years, and it is naturally impossible to suppose that anyone could remain absent for twenty-four years without ever returning to England. But as things are at present, those of us who are sent to India are only sent there for five years, and I think it is most important that during that time they should never relax their duties in any way, because the time at their disposal is so very short that even a visit of three months to England would cut very largely into it. Although somebody might be acting for them during that time the policy and the responsibility would cease to be their own, and would be somebody else's. It is perfectly true that during late years, since the Acts alluded to by Lord Lamington were passed, conditions have very much altered, but I think it should be remembered that the people of India themselves have not altered; the people themselves are very much what they were a hundred

383
or a thousand years ago, and the problems which the Government of the country have to face are very much the problems that were in existence a very long time ago. True, railways, the telegraphs, and various means of communication have been facilitated in a great many ways, but the feelings of the people are very much what they were, and the conditions which the Governors and those in authority have to face are very much now what they were a hundred years ago, and more. I need only just refer to the fact that I see the papers have announced, in the last few days, serious trouble as arising in a part of the country which Lord Ampthill and I know very well, in the South of India, and I think it would be a matter of extreme anxiety to the Governor of that Presidency if he were at this moment on a three months or six months leave to England. I think this sort of things point to the fact that it is most important that if you are only to go out for five years to India, you should spend the whole of your five years upon the spot as long as you have health and strength to carry out your work. I say this feelingly, because towards the end of the time I was in India circumstances arose at home which would have made it exceedingly convenient for me if I could possibly have come away; I found myself mixed up with litigation on a very serious matter in which my financial affairs were very closely involved, and from that point of view it was most Important for me to have come home if I possibly could have done so, and attended to my own private affairs. But on the whole I consider it very much better that a Governor, during the short time he is sent out to administer the affairs of a Presidency, should never be allowed for a single moment to turn away from the work of government with which he has been entrusted, or to relax the vigilance which he exercises over his Presidency. For these reasons, my Lords, I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of the Government.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I feel some embarrassment in rising after four noble Lords who have held the
384
office of Viceroy, but perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for one moment, because this matter was brought up before the late Government. Your Lordships must realise that there must be, in the minds of any Government considerable doubt, and it is quite impossible for us to speak with such certainty as Lord Ampthill on a subject of this character. It is impossible not to recognise that there are, or may be, great advantages to a Government in having occasional personal conferences with officials with whom they are in almost hourly correspondence in India. That must be so in military matters in the case of the Commander-in-Chief, and I am not sure that, even if no other change is proposed, it would not be desirable for the Commander-in-Chief, considering the great advances which have been made in military science, to come home occasionally to confer with the authorities here. Perhaps that may be considered a fitting question to be considered by the authorities by itself.
Then there is a second question, on which great stress was laid by Lord Cromer, who pointed out the enormous extent to which work has developed and increased in India during the last few years; and I do not doubt that to any man who takes up the appointment of Governor of Bombay or of Madras there is an immense strain in having to do that work for five years without a change. But, my Lords, I should not be acting fairly if I did not say that my conviction is that whatever restrictions you may place on the holiday which it is possible to obtain, whether you put it on the ground of convenience to the public, or of ill-health, or of urgent private affairs, in practice every Viceroy and every Governor of Bombay and Madras who goes out will have a holiday during the period of five years. Therefore I should treat the matter from the point of view that it is an appointment which admits of that vacation, and I should look at it as to whether that is or is not desirable.
My Lords, I will not trouble the House (it is really a question for the Government) with regard to the other appointments, but I have one special claim to

385
address your Lordships upon this subject—namely, that I am the only man alive who has had, as Secretary of State, to deal with two Viceroys at once—a Viceroy in India and a Viceroy in England—virtually though not actually a Viceroy—with whom His Majesty's Ministers were most anxious to consult upon all important topics. I think the position is not without difficulty. The greater the Viceroy, the more admirable his devotion to his duties while he is in India, the more certain it is that while he is away on a holiday, in whatever form it is taken, his opinion while away must be the governing factor in the policy to be pursued. You may send the Governor of Bombay or of Madras to Calcutta, thereby to some extent necessarily interfering with the progress of business in Bombay or Madras, but whatever happens during the period of his absence, even in a case such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Curzon—whose absence, owing to the special circumstances of the case, was far more prolonged than that which was contemplated under the present proposal—even tinder those circumstances it would be impossible, nothwithstanding the complete confidence that His Majesty's Government had in Lord Ampthill, that there should not be an immense amount of reduplication work, and that is the difficulty. The work is so severe that it would be a real advantage if a holiday could be taken; on the other hand it is so incessant that there is a difficulty in transferring it for a short period to somebody else. If I had to make a comparison, I should venture to suggest that the work of the Viceroy (and I think I could quote words of Lord Curzon which would bear me out) is in many respects more detached from that of other officials, more personal, and more incessant, than even that of Prime Minister of this country; and the more that is true, the more that work is concentrated, as it must be, in the Viceroy in India, the more difficult do we find it to conceive how it would be possible, say, for the Prime Minister of this country to go to India for three months during the term of his office. Those are the considerations which prevented the late Government from coming to a conclusion in favour of the suggested
386
change, although, as I stated at the outset, many considerations appeared to us to warrant some reconsideration of the present position.
LORD LAMINGTON: Everybody has assumed that the Viceroy and Governor are appointed for a term of five years; but as a matter of fact there is no limitation at all—they are appointed without any reference to the duration of their office, and therefore the prolongation of their office is a matter which presents no difficulty; it could be held for twenty years. With what the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) has just said about the complexity and the multitudinousness of the duties of the Viceroy I quite agree, and I am perfectly confident that no man, except under great stress of circumstances, would willingly leave his post.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is quite irregular.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): It is a little irregular for the noble Lord to reply before the debate has been replied to for the Government, but I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord.
With regard to the question of the term of the office, no doubt what the noble Lord has just said is true, as I know from the warrant I received; no term appears in that document; but five years is the accepted period for a Viceroy's appointment and for the other appointments with which we are dealing, and therefore I think we may take it that for practical purposes there are five years appointments.
My Lords, I feel that it is difficult to approach this matter altogether impersonally. Those of us who have had experience in India must naturally draw upon our experience; those who have not had experience in India cannot fail to speak without the experience which we think we possess. With regard to the officers named in the Question of the noble Lord, I should like to point out in the first place that they do not all stand on

387
exactly the same footing, except for one reason, and that I admit is an important one. I think that for the Governors of Madras and Bombay a solution might be found, but the reason I refer to is an important one, because it is an historical one, and that is the division of India into the three Presidencies of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. Had it not been for that, and if it was not necessary to retain that, I have sometimes thought that there was no reason why the provinces of Bombay and Madras should not be under the direction of Lieutenant-Governors, and in that case the difficulty of the noble Lord might have been obviated.
But, my Lords, the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief in my opinion stand alone—I think the expression has been used—and naturally for my part, I must speak specially with reference to the Viceroy, although I hold that the argument applies to the Commander-in-Chief mutatis mutandis. I wish to say at once that of course I can imagine certain circumstances which would create in any officer holding those positions an intense desire—an overwhelming desire—to return to Europe. It may proceed from health, or it may proceed from private reasons. But I cannot myself believe with the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, that the consideration of this point can have deterred many men who were willing to undertake the duties of these offices, and personally I am quite unable to concur in the demand for the relaxation of the rule which the noble Lord has advocated. I cannot help thinking that the arguments which are based upon the leave privileges of other members of the Service in India ignore the true cause of differentiation. It is quite true, of course, that the three months which now prevail suffice for a very short and rapid return to this country, and it is true also that men even in the highest ranks of the Indian Civil Service are able to avail themselves of these privileges. But even with regard to the Indian Civil Service I have my doubts—I had my doubts when I was in India—whether that system was altogether an advantage to the public service, whatever it might be to the individual. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord
388
Curzon, must have had some such experiences as I had. Time after time, when going through the country, I came upon men who were holding acting appointments, and who were not the men who were properly appointed to those particular posts; and I remember I said publicly before I left India that I thought there were grave dangers and grave inconveniences to the public service, which might have to be considered with reference to that particular state of affairs.
Now, my Lords, returning to the comparison of the Indian civil servant and the Viceroy, I would point out that the Indian civil servant is a man who has had long experience in India—as a man in the higher ranks of the service, at any rate—who has served in all parts of the country; and, though the senior members of them may, for that reason, be argued to be inured to the dangers of the climate, my belief is that very often the danger then comes upon them at a moment which they cannot foresee. On the other hand you have the Viceroy. He is fresh to India, and he has to serve there for a definite period of five years—with all respect to the noble Lord (Earl Cromer)—and he knows perfectly well what he is undertaking. I would point out also that he is not, like the ordinary civil servant, exposed to hot weather in the plains, but is, from the accustomed arrangements, able to transact his business during that period of danger in localities, which, in my opinion, are second to none in giving opportunities for hard work. My Lords, I venture to think that in those circumstances the application of the argument that because these privileges are given to the Indian civil servants, therefore they ought to be extended to the Viceroy, is not a complete one.
Then, my Lords, I should like to say a word with regard to what would happen supposing this change were carried out. We are to contemplate the Viceroy going on leave for three months, and we have been told by the noble Lord (Lord Curzon) this afternoon, that he would suggest, to fill the place of the Viceroy during that period, not a high official like the Governor of Madras, because—and naturally because—it is difficult to

389
suppose that one could summon the Governor of Madras for so short a period, but that he would rely upon the senior ordinary member of the Viceroy's Council. My Lords, I wish to speak with all respect—with affection, if I may—of the members of the Viceroy's Council, but they are not chosen for a succession like that, and I venture to think that it might perhaps not increase confidence in the Government, either here or in India, if the succession to the Viceroyalty, at the time that the Viceroy took leave, was to be left to the mere chance of who was the senior among the officers who were appointed for entirely different reasons.
LORD LAMINGTON: It used to be done—it used to be the rule.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I should like to put, as shortly as I can, why I think it would also be inconvenient for the Viceroy to be summoned home for consultation with the home Government. It has been said that the position of the Viceroy is unique, and I think it is so. The Viceroy is probably almost invariably strange to India when he gets there, and yet he is the head of a Government which is composed of men who have had long service in India, and who know it from top to bottom. On the other hand, he must at the same time be the representative there of the home Government. Now, my Lords, how is that provided for? It is provided for by the arrangement, I think, that the Viceroy, and the Viceroy alone of his Government, has the right of private correspondence with the Secretary of State. That is a well understood and perfectly recognised arrangement to which no objection is ever taken, but the Viceroy at that time is in close communication with his colleagues, and sees them every day, and of course enters freely with them into discussion of policies. My Lords, it appears to me that the transfer of the Viceroy to London would alter the whole conditions. The personal element in that case would overshadow everything, and I believe myself that it would be false in principle, and detrimental to the constitutional relations between the Viceroy and the Government of India.
390
My Lords, I do not think that I need say more to justify my adherence to the answer which the noble Lord (Earl Beauchamp) has given on behalf of the Secretary of State for India. After all, it appears to me that there is a very strong preponderance of opinion in support of continuing matters as they now stand. We have had many names quoted this afternoon, amongst them those of Lord Northbrook and of a former Leader of the House of Commons, Mr. W. H. Smith. We have had the noble Lord opposite, and the noble Lord who spoke below the gangway, and on the other side we have the two noble Lords now on the cross benches, and we have had mentioned the case of Lord Cromer, which, at any rate partly supported them.
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: And also Lord Salisbury.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I was going to mention that, with all deference to the noble Lord. With regard to that, we have had a statement from the noble Lord (Lord Cross) who said, in explaining his Bill of 1892, that it especially excluded the Viceroy, and at any rate only gave permission for a return from India for public reasons
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, the Bill did not exclude the Viceroy: it applied to all the officers, but in consequence of Lord Northbrook's contention in this House, Lord Cross, in order to meet him, withdrew the name of the Viceroy from the schedule; but the Bill as originally introduced and supported by Lord Salisbury included the Viceroy as well as the other officials.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I did not quite follow the exact sequence, but as a matter of fact the Bill as it passed this House did not include the name of the Viceroy.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.