Lords Sitting of 18 June 1918

Preamble
The Lord COTTESLOE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
SMITH ESTATE BELL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LAW AGENTS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MIDWIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to submit this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, and I will briefly indicate its main provisions. The Bill is an amendment of the English Act. The general Act has already been amended as regards Scotland, and, this spring, as regards Ireland. This proposal practically makes the law in England identical with that now prevailing in Scotland and in Ireland, subject to one or two small exceptions to which I will draw your Lordships' attention. Broadly speaking, one may say that this measure is founded upon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry which sat some years ago under the chairmanship and direction of Sir Almeric FitzRoy; but certain further amendments are proposed which are the fruits of experience gained since that Inquiry took place. If this Bill passes into law, the practice with regard to the registration and control of midwives will be identical in Scotland, Ireland, and England.
The first clause is taken from the Scottish and Irish Acts. It follows the model of the Medical Acts, and provides machinery
216
by which further changes in the constitution of the Board may be made by Order in Council. This proposal is obviously convenient, because as time goes on it is quite possible that small alterations in the constitution or powers may be proved necessary, and it seems hardly worth while to have to come to Parliament for an amending Statute upon each occasion. Your Lordships will observe that subsections (2) and (3) make it certain that no alteration can take place in the constitution without Parliament having a thoroughly adequate opportunity of expressing its views upon the subject.
Clause 2 is a financial clause. It amends Section 5 of the principal Act and deals with the apportionment of deficit balances. It is advocated by the Central Midwives Board. It is not in any way a serious charge on the local finances, but it is a good administrative improvement, as it removes from the most active authorities the penalties under which they have suffered up to now of being most heavily mulcted to meet the outlay of the Central Board. Clause 3 is purely technical. It absolves the secretary from personal attendance when any question arises before local tribunals. Clause 4, again, allows reasonable expenses—travelling expenses, I presume—to be paid for those who attend the meetings of the Board. With regard to Clause 5, I should point out that at the present moment the Privy Council receives the annual Report from the Central Board. It is a voluntary proceeding on their part, but it is considered right that it should be a statutory obligation to Parliament, and Clause 5 imposes upon the Board the duty of sending in their Report every year.
Clause 6 is an important clause. It amends and amplifies the existing provision about the suspension of midwives. The power to frame rules governing the conditions of suspension is vested in the Central Midwives Board, which is a representative body and on which full powers have been conferred to deal with these cases. Subsection (2) of this clause introduces for the first time a very desirable principle—namely, that compensation shall be payable to a woman who has been suspended from practice owing to no fault of her own. This provision already appears in the Scottish and Irish Acts, and it seems to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Clause 7 relates to the reimbursement of costs (for which no provision exists at the

217
present moment) to a woman who has been summoned to give evidence. It authorises the Board to reimburse or pay part of the expenses of a woman who has been summoned to appear before them in her own defence.
Clause 8 is a very valuable clause. At the present moment a woman who has been struck off the roll for carelessness, or incompetence, or bad conduct is not obliged to surrender her certificate, and there is nothing to prevent her from becoming a monthly nurse next day if she is minded to do so. Clause 8 provides that a woman who has been struck off the roll is obliged to surrender her certificate to the Board; and if the Board consider that the continued attendance by this woman upon other women would be fraught with public danger, they are empowered to prohibit her from taking any further professional part in maternity practice. I understand that importance is attached to this clause for the protection of public health. Clause 9 merely requires midwives to notify a change of address.
The next clause—Clause 10—is of some interest, and brings the English practice on a parity with the practice prevailing in Scotland and Ireland. At the present moment the authority in Scotland and Ireland (the county council) is empowered to employ a midwife who is qualified by an English certificate, but in England it is impossible to employ a midwife who is qualified by a Scottish certificate. This clause provides for reciprocal treatment in that respect; and, following precedents which already exist in the medical service, in time dental service, and, I think, also in the veterinary service, it is applicable to any other part of His Majesty's Dominions. Provision is taken in the latter part of subsection (1) of this clause to ensure that the standard of training and examination required in such other part of His Majesty's Dominions is equivalent to the standard adopted by the Board. The Privy Council determine any question of doubt which arises under this clause. Clause 11 provides that the local supervising authorities shall be free to make grants for the training, within or without their areas, of midwives.
Clause 12 is an amendment of substance. The Scottish and Irish Acts confer upon the local authority—that is, the county council—no power of delegation to smaller or subordinate authorities. In England that power exists, and the county council
218
is authorised to delegate to district councils its duties under the main Act. This clause provides that in future no such delegation of authority shall be permitted except by the consent of the Local Government Board. The fact is that delegation in this respect has not been as great a success as had been hoped. It is, in point of fact, a very narrow delegation, applying only in a very few cases. The results of this delegation have certainly not been encouraging, and it has therefore been decided that no further delegation shall take place except after inquiry by, and with the sanction of, the Local Government Board. I think I am correct in saying that the Local Government Board is entitled, under this clause, to revoke ally delegation of authority where it thinks the authority has not been adequately exercised.
Clause 13 is purely administrative, and is intended to ensure that the local supervising authority shall receive due notice when a woman's name is taken off the roll. Clause 14 entitles the local supervising authority to pay a medical practitioner a sufficient fee when called upon in cases of emergency. I understand that there are certain cases where the local medical practitioners cannot be called in, as they should be, because there is some doubt, often very well founded, as to whether they can receive their fee or not. This clause provides a simple machinery by which the medical man who is summoned in cases of emergency can be properly paid. Clause 15 is inserted with the concurrence of the General Medical Council. The Executive Committee meets more frequently than the English branch of the Council, and it is desirable for purposes of expedition that this should be done so as to prevent delay. This exhausts the outline of the clauses of the measure, and I commend it to the consideration of the House. Subject to your Lordships' convenience, I suggest that the Committee stage should be deferred until next week.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I am glad that there is to be a little interval for the consideration of this Bill before the Committee stage is taken. We are indebted to the noble Earl for the clear and extremely full exposition he has given of its contents, and any points that may

219
arise will, I am confident, be Committee points. I do not think, however, it would be right to pass over the way in which this Bill has been dealt with without some comment. The noble Earl said it was founded on the Report of a Committee of Inquiry held by the Local Government Board some years ago. The Bill was read a first time on Thursday; it was circulated on Saturday, and we are now asked to give it a Second Reading on Tuesday. I do not want to be unduly troublesome in war time, but I would point out that neither of the representatives of the Departments which are concerned with the measure are present in the House to move the Second Reading of the Bill. It stands in the name of the Leader of the House, the Lord President of the Council, in whose Department all these cases are chiefly managed; but, of course, the Local Government Board has a great deal to do with it, and I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who represents the Local Government Board, might have had something to say about it, or even taken charge of the Bill. I understand, privately, that there is some special reason for his not being here to-day.
I submit that it is extraordinary treatment of this House that a Bill, founded on the Report of a Committee which sat some years ago, introduced on Thursday and not circulated until Saturday, should be read a second time to-day (Tuesday) without it having been possible for any of us who are interested to consult people in the country as to its exact tenor and effect. This does not matter so much if there is going to be an interval before the Committee stage is taken, but I cannot understand why the Second Reading should have been taken to-day. There can he no possible hurry, and having regard to the congestion of business in another place I shall be extremely surprised if the Bill is taken there before next October. I do not believe there will be much controversy on it except in regard to Committee matters; but I have nothing more to say on that point, on the understanding that a proper period will be given for us to consider the large number of amendments which are being made in the existing law.
So far as I can gather from the statement of the noble Earl, I believe the amendments made by the Bill are in effect improvements and a move in the right direction. Personally I am doubtful whether the prohibition of delegation goes far enough, but
220
that, of course, is a purely English matter. It does not exist in Scotland, and those who are interested in this matter in England must take the lead on that question. I am glad that the Bill has been introduced, and I hope that at least ten days or a fortnight will be given to us before the Committee stage is taken.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, I cannot pretend to be altogether surprised at the protest which my noble friend above the gangway made with reference to a certain unreality in cur proceedings of which he considers, and I think that perhaps your Lordships may consider, that the conduct of this Bill is a tolerably vivid instance. It has so often been my fate, sitting where my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal is now, to be taunted with having reduced the proceedings of your Lordships' House to an unreality by our legislation, that perhaps I may be forgiven if I express the quite serious opinion that there never has been a time—Parliament Act or anything else—when the proceedings of your Lordships' House have been so unreal and so little considered. I do not know whether by His Majesty's Government, but I am afraid by another place, as they are at this moment. No doubt that circumstance is mitigated by the fact that our proceedings uniformly remain absolutely unreported, and therefore unless people will take the trouble to study the debates in Hansard—and I beg leave to say that there have been in the course of the last session or two some exceedingly weighty, important, and interesting debates in your Lordships' House—and read there the report of what takes place, our proceedings here might almost as well not occur.
As to this particular Bill, the matter is of interest to me because I was twice Lord President. This particular subject of midwives falls, as my noble friend stated, within the department of the Privy Council, and I have had in the past many dealings with it. I congratulate His Majesty's Government and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill on the introduction of the measure, which I am sure, in its main lines, will prove to be extremely useful in consolidating and elucidating the law on this subject. The only point on which I have received, as an outsider, a number of strongly-worded protests is one which was mentioned by my noble friend, but, as he says, it does not apply to Scotland and

221
therefore did not specially interest him—namely, Clause 12, subsection (1), on the subject of delegation. Apparently the bodies who are specially concerned with this subject—the Central Midwives Board, and certainly the Institute of Midwives—take a strong view that His Majesty's Government, having tackled this subject, ought to have gone further and forbidden delegation altogether. As the noble Earl said, the experiment of delegating powers to district councils has not been in the main successful. The point is no doubt worthy of close inquiry, because the opinion of all of us in a matter of this kind is on general grounds rather in favour of decentralisation than of excessive centralisation; but if it really is the case that the attempt to work through the small local authorities has not in this particular matter been successful—and not being successful in a matter of this kind means, it must be remembered, being positively disastrous—I think it is a serious question whether it would not have been better to take the bull by the horns and stop delegation altogether. However, the matter will no doubt be carefully considered before the Committee stage, and we shall have the opportunity of further inquiry and discussion either with the Department or with the different bodies interested in the subject. It will then be seen whether any noble Lord desires to put down an Amendment on this matter, or, indeed, on other matters in the Bill. In the meantime I have no doubt that the House will desire to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I rise, not to repeat what two of my noble friends have just said, but to suggest to the Government that after what has been stated to your Lordships they should give us ample time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. The same sort of representations had reached me as have reached my noble friends Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the Leader of the Opposition. The request which was made to me was that there should be ample time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and the reason this request was put forward was that the Bill had come upon those interested in the subject as an absolute surprise, which does not mean that the Bill is in any way objectionable. On the contrary, it appears on the whole a very good Bill. It is not only that the Bill has come suddenly upon
222
your Lordships, but also upon the Central Midwives Board, who were not even told that such a Bill was intended. No doubt there is nothing sinister in that omission, but it is an additional reason why there should be ample time between the Second. Reading and the Committee stage. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a fortnight.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, I am sorry if any of your Lordships should think that we are trying to get this Bill through with indecent haste, but the fact that it has been long in coming to maturity was, I think, sufficient justification for not wasting any more time. As for my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh telling the House that he does not understand the Bill, the very idea of that is preposterous. He, I believe, is the father of legislation on all these matters. He dealt with the subject five-and-twenty years ago; in fact, he dealt with the very first Bill that was ever introduced on this subject, and he knows the contents of this Bill by intuition. He of all Peers has no grievance whatever in the matter being brought before your Lordships' House at short notice. But there is no wish whatever to press it unduly. It is desired to get a Second Reading this week in order that we might prepare for the Committee stage, and I would suggest, if it meets with your Lordships' convenience, to put it down for Committee on Thursday of next week. If during the early part of next week it becomes obvious that Thursday is too soon to take it, then I suggest that it should be again postponed. That would bring it, perhaps, to this day fortnight.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYshould wish the Committee stage put down for this day fortnight, if the noble Fad will agree.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI agree.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPERANNUATION CF TEACHERS.
LORD LAMBOURNE LORD LAMBOURNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Education have prepared a measure for dealing with the superannuation of teachers in secondary schools, and whether it is the intention of the Government to carry such a measure this session.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no excuse to your Lordships for bringing forward this Question at the present time. I have put it on the Paper in order to give the Government an opportunity of explaining their views on the subject. Your Lordships are well aware of the extraordinary interest created in the country on the subject of the Education Bill, which is approved by most people and by the House of Commons. I wish to take this opportunity of pointing out to your Lordships that in one matter education is certainly like trade. In trade capital and labour must go hand in hand, for if they do not disaster ensues. In similar fashion, teachers and pupils must act together or disaster will follow. It is of no use to bring forward an Education Bill, however good it may be, unless you are also able to provide at the same time an adequate supply of teachers thoroughly competent to carry out the requirements of the education which it is intended to give.
As far as I understand this question of a superannuation scheme for teachers, it stands at present in this way. In the spring of 1917 there was a scheme for secondary and technical teachers, which was shaped on the lines of one that already existed for teachers in grant-earning Universities. For some reason or other these proposals were never brought before the House and never really matured. But now there is an idea prevalent among the teaching profession, and among many others, that the Department has prepared a new set of proposals, more comprehensive and more favourable to the teachers than the former one, and that they are anxious to pass them through Parliament as nearly as possible along with the Education Bill. For that, of course, there is an excellent reason. To use a phrase very much employed at the present time, the "atmosphere" for education is extremely favourable. Mr. Fisher, the President of the Board of Education, in the course of an interview with a representative of one of the newspapers about a fortnight ago, spoke of an improvement in the pension system as promised, and he gave this promise as an example of the efforts that the Department was making in order to meet the difficulty of obtaining an adequate supply of competent teachers. By this I understand that the President clearly promises that there should be a very strong inducement to the right class of men and women to enter the teaching profession.
224
In that I think he is undoubtedly right, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with him.
At present—it is hardly credible—there is no general scheme at all except for elementary teachers and for certain University teachers; for secondary and technical teachers there is no provision. There is, it is true, a small number of isolated schemes instituted by local authorities and governing bodies, but there is no superannuation scheme applied to the country as a whole. Apart from the question of the inducement affecting the future supply of teachers, a good superannuation scheme, as we can easily understand, makes for efficiency, because it is possible under it to procure the retirement of teachers at a reasonable ago without putting them to positive hardship, which really in some cases, more especially at the present time, amounts to starvation, because they find they cannot retire without any possible means of subsistence. Moreover, a national scheme of superannuation will help the organisation of education by making it possible for teachers to move from one school to another without loss of their prospects.
The teaching profession, I believe, understand—or perhaps "hope" would be the better term—that the Board now intend to propose an excellent scheme, which will do more than any other conceivable measure to encourage the recruitment that is so anxiously desired for the teaching profession; and they are, I believe, very anxious indeed that these proposals should be brought before Parliament in the closest possible connection with the Education Bill. As people are ready and anxious to accept the proposals of the Education Bill it is therefore necessary—and it is the best chance that the secondary teachers can have—that the proposals for their superannuation should be brought forward at the present time.
I have put this Question on the Paper in the hope that the Government may see fit to outline their proposals before your Lordships. This would do a great deal to relieve the anxiety which is very prevalent among the teaching profession—a profession that has suffered very much from neglect in the past. Only this morning I took up my daily newspaper and found that a headmaster with an unbroken record of forty-five years has to retire at the age of sixty-five, and a grateful country has rewarded him for his work with a pension

225
of £44 a year. That is the case of an elementary teacher, but at the same time it shows the line that has been taken with these unfortunate men in the past. I trust that His Majesty's Government may be able to assure the profession that they will not, be treated with that neglect in the future.
VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, I think it is an excellent thing that the noble Lord should have brought up this subject. It is a question, as he said, of far-reaching importance. No progress will be made with the reform of the system of education in this country unless a very great addition is secured to the body of teachers. There has been a great deal of grumbling lately, because Mr. Fisher has put off the coming into operation of the continuation school part of his scheme. I do not share the current apprehensions on the subject, because I am quite certain that if he brought this part of the scheme into force immediately it would be a dead letter for want of teachers. What we need above everything else is to induce people to join the teaching profession, and they will not do so until you treat them decently. There is no class worse remunerated for valuable labour than teachers. The profession requires to be put upon quite a different footing, and until it is put on quite a different footing it is hopeless to expect that there can be any real progress with the reform of teaching.
What the noble Lord asks for is certainly not anything very extravagant. He spoke of the Universities in this connection, and he used a phrase which, I own, makes me rather shudder, because it is new—but it is true. He spoke of the grant-earning Universities. What he meant was that under the operation of the Treasury Committee grants are being given for efficiency to the Universities who choose to come, forward and ask for them. Hitherto the old Universities have kept rather clear of grants, possibly for considerations of sentiment, and for fear of the State getting something like a control. But the new Universities have come in and very substantial grants have been made. Of these grants something has been reserved, and I think it is a very important reservation, for the purpose of doing the very thing which is the subject of the noble Lord's Question—providing a superannuation fund. That can be done very economically and cheaply. It is done in the case of the
226
Universities in conjunction with private insurance companies of approved standing. In the case of elementary teachers, there is a regular State system. But in the case of secondary teachers it seems to me you might adopt either one or the other. The University system is quite good.
But the noble Lord is not laying stress on the question of whether the matter is to assume the shape given to it in connection with Universities or the shape given to it in connection with elementary teachers. What he wants is that a scheme for deaing with the superannuation of teachers in secondary schools should be prepared and introduced. I think there is a very great deal in that. There are few things in connection with their remuneration that the teachers lay more stress upon than provision for old age, and it is one of the cheapest things to do in the whole matter of reforming remuneration. I hope very much that the effect of the appeal made by the noble Lord will be to bring us an intimation from the Government that they really have under contemplation the introduction of something of this kind in connection with their scheme of education reform.
LORD SOUTHWARKMy Lords, after the speeches which have been made by my noble friends it is not necessary for me to say much, but I have been so much impressed with the urgency of this matter that I rise to express the hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will be able to give a favourable answer. There can be no doubt that this Question is one of urgency and importance. We know that after the war it will be necessary to keep going the commercial side of education. There is at present a deficiency of teachers, and the cause of this deficiency is that a teacher sees nothing in front of him, under the present system, but starvation. As the noble Lord said just now, we are not here this afternoon to suggest what the scheme shall be. We hope that it will be a good scheme. But we want to see what the scheme of the Government is, and to impress upon the Government the urgency and importance of the matter.
THE EARL OF LYTTONMy Lords, I fully sympathise with the views expressed by the three noble Lords who have spoken, and I desire to assure the House, on behalf of the Board of Education, that the hardships to which attention has been called,

227
and the importance of the establishment of a system of superannuation allowances for teachers, are matters which are fully realised by His Majesty's Government. They have now been under consideration for some time, and a Bill has been prepared which it is hoped may be introduced in the course of this session.
The noble Lord who asked this Question said quite rightly that the success of the Education Bill now before Parliament can be very materially assisted by the passage of a Bill on this subject; and, as the noble and learned Viscount said, nothing can go so far to ensure the success of that Bill as a measure which will improve the status of the teachers—in fact, unless the status of the teachers is improved it will be impossible for the Bill to be a success. It is hoped that this Bill may be passed into law this session. It is proposed to include in the Bill a provision, not only for the improvement of the superannuation system for elementary school teachers, but also for full-time teachers in all State-aided educational institutions in England and Wales other than University institutions. The Board of Education fully appreciate the hardships suffered by many teachers in secondary and other State-aided schools owing to the absence of any uniform system of superannuation, and to the fact that many schools make no provision whatever for the superannuation of their teachers, and that a teacher who migrates from one school where superannuation is in force to a school which has no such system loses his pension rights under the scheme in force at the other school, to which scheme he has in many cases contributed. The establishment of a superannuation system applicable to all State-aided institutions in England and Wales is, in the opinion of the Board of Education, essential for placing the teaching profession on a satisfactory basis. The noble Lord will realise that the matter is one of great complexity owing to the variety of types of institution in which the teachers are employed; but I can assure him that the difficulties are being grappled with as quickly as possible.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I understand that it is seriously intended to press forward the Bill this session, and that it is practically drafted?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I understand that it is drafted, and it is hoped that it will pass into law this session.
LORD LAMBOURNE: The Government will press it?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: That is certainly their wish and intention.

SIR SUBRAMANIYA AIYAR'S LETTER.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a letter alleged to have been addressed by Sir S. Subramaniya Aiyar, K.C.I.E., late Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, to President Wilson attributing to the British Government in India misrule, oppression, the grant of exorbitant salaries, the refusal of education, the sapping of the wealth of India, the imposition of crushing taxation, the imprisonment of thousands of people, and the deaths of civilian prisoners from loathsome diseases; and, if so, whether they propose to take any steps in condemnation of the same; and, if they have not had their attention called to it, whether they will make inquiries.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question has been deferred, at the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Curzon, for so long that answers have been given in another place which practically dispose of any obscurity there may be in it; but I shall take the liberty, thanks to the elasticity which is accorded to Questions in this House, of offering a few remarks upon the reply of the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has stigmatised this letter as "disgraceful and improper"; but, notwithstanding that, the Government of India has decided to take no further notice of it than the reproval which has been described by the Secretary of State—namely, that "they express their surprise and regret at the letter"; yet, "in view of Sir S. Subramaniya Aiyar's age, health, and past services, they do not propose to take any further action, but warn him not to do it again." In the meantime the Secretary of State does not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Government of India. I take leave to deprecate that inaction. This person is an ex-Judge of the High Court of Madras. He is a pensioner; and it seems rather odd that he should, in his letter, take exception to exorbitant salaries and large allowances when he is drawing a very handsome

229
pension, towards which, I imagine, he has not contributed as an Indian Civil Servant would have contributed.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a comment in the Madras Mail,—
"We merely wish to draw attention to the existence of the Defence of India Act, which makes it criminal to spread false reports or reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm, or to prejudice His Majesty's relations with Foreign Powers, or to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects."
This ex-Judge of the High Court of Madras, who ought to be learned in the law, has disregarded the law according to the opinion of the Madras Mail, and, at any rate in the opinion of the Secretary of State, has behaved "disgracefully and improperly." As I have said, he is a pensioner, but the Government of India do not propose to take any further action than this mild reproval; therefore the Indian taxpayer is to continue to contribute to a pension which is probably handsome. Now, I have known of a case—and I dare say the noble Earl has known of others—where an Indian Civil Servant, who during a very long service had been contributing to the pension he was to receive, has been mulcted of a portion of his pension because he has, in the opinion of the Government of India, behaved improperly. That is the penalty which is meted out to an Englishman if he misbehaves in India. But apparently the Government of India do not think it necessary to penalise an Indian who, although he is a lawyer, although he ignores the law, behaves "disgracefully and improperly."
I deprecate this inaction because I am certain that it will be a discouragement to the loyal and law-abiding subjects of His Majesty in India; and I have very little doubt that those who follow and support Mrs. Besant, and others who entertain opinions similar to hers, will claim this reply of the Secretary of State as a triumph for their policy. The British Raj may be vilified and the law may be disregarded by a lawyer, and the only action that is taken by the Government of India is something like what one would say to a little child—namely, that he is a naughty old man and is not to do it again. So much for the Government of India and its inaction.
But the Viceroy exercises other authorities than those in participation with his
230
colleagues. He is Grand Master of the Indian Empire, and this individual is a Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire; and if the Viceroy contemplates giving some commendation to a member of that Order, what it amounts to is this, that in his opinion the Knights of the Order ought to be prepared for all time to accept this individual—who has, as the Secretary of State says, behaved disgracefully—to accept him during his life as a comrade and brother of the Order. If this man has behaved disgracefully he has certainly disgraced his knighthood, and if the Viceroy contemplates taking no action in the matter—not submitting any proposal to the Sovereign—all I can say is that I should imagine that there are other members of the Order besides myself who resent that we should be compelled to accept the comradeship of a man who has been breaking, the law in the way I have described, and who has acted disgracefully. As my noble friend knows quite well, and a great deal better than I do, if this man disobeyed any of the rules of his caste—I do not know what his caste is—certainly if it is an honourable caste, he would be compelled to do some penance. This man has offended, according to the Secretary of State, against the honourable and chivalrous rules of his Order—in other words, of his caste—and I hope sincerely that the Viceroy may regard it as a duty to his Sovereign and to his comrades of the Order to take some notice of it.
VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, before the noble Earl answers, there are one or two observations which I should like to make. My noble friend opposite has proposed, in the case of Sir Subramaniya Aiyar, that his pension should be taken away or reduced, and that his name should be removed from the Order of K.C.I.E. to which he belongs. Now, there is no doubt that the letter in question was a very foolish and very improper one, and it has been stigmatised as such in unmistakable terms by the Secretary of State. No doubt it was very wrong to write such a letter as that to the head of a foreign State. On the other hand, these things are done in politics all over the world, and I am not sure that things of the same kind have not been done in this country. Among ourselves they have certainly been done, and done with perfect freedom, with no penal clause, however strong may be the stigma of public opinion attaching to them

231
What is the situation? The situation is that the Government, on August 20 last, announced a policy. The Government which the noble Earl opposite represents here announced a policy of the extension freely and progressively of responsible Government in India, and involved in that was an attempt to bring classes together who have been so very hotly divided upon many points. It is desirable while this is under discussion, as it is likely to be for some time to come, that as far as possible bitterness and action which can provoke violent reaction should be abolished. The learned Judge whose name is associated with what has been done is a very well-known man in India. He is retired Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and has to my knowledge rendered very distinguished services on the Bench. As to his pension, that perhaps he regards as part of the contract into which he entered when he undertook to serve the Government of Madras as a Judge.
LORD HARRIS: What about good behaviour?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Every Judge is appointed on those terms, but you cannot remove him except for grave misconduct—for what is, in effect, a breach of some very binding public rule. A retired Judge has perfect freedom to take part in politics—if he expresses himself decently, if you like—and you would take away his pension only for gravest matters coming within the Criminal Law. To remove him from the Order to which he belongs is again to make a declaration of war which I think is at this moment highly inexpedient in India. To my mind the most material circumstance of all is that the Viceroy advised the Government not to take action, and in those circumstances I should be very sorry if the Government were to depart in any way from the line taken by their representatives in the other House of Parliament. However reprehensible it is, and however bad, violent action is not calculated to make things any better but probably a good deal worse.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in the regrettable absence of the Under-Secretary of State for India I will reply on behalf of the India Office to my noble friend, and I think I shall be able,
232
in what I have to say, to throw some further light upon the incident to which he has referred. The worst parts of the language of the retired Judge are contained in the quotation which appears in the Question as put upon the Paper by my noble friend. As regards that language, all of your Lordships will agree that it is, to use the adjectives which my noble friend quoted from the Secretary of State, disgraceful and improper in the extreme. I think that the noble and learned Viscount opposite did not by any means err on the side of severity in the manner in which he spoke of that language. I think, indeed, he might have spoken rather more strongly than he did. These statements undoubtedly contain a series of outrageous calumnies against British government in India—calumnies which would be culpable if they emanated from any man, but which, coming from a person of the age, experience, and authority of this ex-Judge, no one can possibly be found to excuse. It is quite true, as my noble friend Lord Harris pointed out, that the author of these remarks was a Judge of the High Court of Madras for twelve years and ended by being Acting Chief Justice, and that he received as recognition of his long, and up to this point meritorious, career the high honour of a Knight Commandership of the Indian Empire.
Now, what are the actual facts connected with this deplorable publication? This old man—he is now in very advanced years; I think nearer eighty than seventy—retired in the year 1907. He then fell under the influence of Mrs. Besant, who is very active in her operations in the Presidency of Madras, and under that influence he became President or Honorary President of the Indian Home Rule League. This letter by the retired Judge, although it came to our cognisance in England only a few weeks ago, was written as far back as June 4, 1917. I have the whole letter here, a portion of which only has appeared in the Press in this country. The first part of the letter contained a plea, couched in not improper language, for Home Rule in India; the latter part consisted of a eulogy of the services of Indian soldiers in France and other theatres of war; but in the middle part of the letter occurred the passage which appears in the Question of my noble friend, and which no language could be too strong, in my judgment, to condemn.

233
The writer of this letter, which was addressed to President Wilson, entrusted it to an American gentleman and his wife travelling in India who were known as lecturers and authors in their own country, to be handed to President Wilson on their return to the United States. It was communicated at Washington to the British' Embassy, by whom it was transmitted to the Foreign Office here. It was passed on by them to the Secretary of State for India, who was as much astonished at this incident as could be any member of your Lordships' House, and who took it out with him to India. The Secretary of State, I think quite properly, did not want himself to be responsible for bringing about the publication of the letter, which had not then appeared in any form in print; still less did he want to advertise the culpable folly of its author. Accordingly when he went, in the discharge of his mission, to Madras in company with the Viceroy, they sent for the writer of the letter—this is an incident which was, of course, not known to my noble friend—and administered to him a severe reprimand. That was, I think, either at the end of last year or in the early part of this year.
At a later date—in May of the present year—the letter appeared in the Indian Press, and from there it was communicated to journals in this country. The noble Lord probably saw it, as I did, for the first time in the columns of The Time. How it got into the Indian Press, who communicated it, we do not know. There is some reason, I am told, to believe that it got in the first place into the American Press and may have been copied from there into the Press in India. Now, my Lords, when we first saw the publication, while there could be no two opinions as to its character, the question naturally arose whether this act was to be treated with the extreme severity which no doubt the language in itself merited, or whether it was to be regarded rather as a melancholy aberration on the part of an old man who had in the course of a long career rendered considerable service to the State, who is now in advanced years, in the enjoyment only of feeble health, and whose utterances on a matter of this sort, I believe, are devoid of any influence and can carry no conceivable weight with any respectable class of his fellow-countrymen.
This was a question which, feeling it difficult ourselves to resolve without more
234
local knowledge than we possessed, we naturally referred to the Government of India. They replied in the general terms which were quoted by nay noble friend—namely, that they were addressing the Judge, through the Government of Madras, informing him that his action in writing to President Wilson in the manner he had done was regarded with regret and surprise by them, but that in view of his great age, failing health, and past judicial services they did not propose to take any further notice of his action. At the same time, the old man was warned that any repetition of such conduct could not be passed over by the Government of India. The noble Lord is dissatisfied with that notice. He thinks it was insufficient for the circumstances of the case. I believe that there were—and I think I can easily show to the House that there are—good subsidiary reasons for taking the line that the Viceroy and his colleagues did.
In the first place, there was no direct evidence, as I pointed out just now, that the retired Judge was himself responsible for the publication. Again, as I have also pointed out, the letter had already been made the subject of a severe personal reprimand by the Viceroy and the Secretary of State. Further, although I would not wish to lay too much stress upon this, it must be remembered that there had been an interval of nearly a year between the original writing of the letter and its publication, whether accidental or not, in India and in this country. There is another consideration which is always present in the minds of the Government when they are dealing with eases of this sort, and that is the inexpediency of doing anything which may convert a person relatively harmless into a political martyr, and may arouse political agitation at a time when such a thing is extremely undesirable.
The noble Lord raised the question of the pension enjoyed by this person, and of his membership of a great and distinguished Order. As regards the pension, the Statutory Rules for High Court Judges in India do not provide for the withdrawal of pension; and it was felt by the Government of India that the forfeiture of his Knight Commandership of the Indian Empire, which would furnish him with an advertisement that the Government of India were not at all anxious to give, would strike an unfortunate and discordant note in the midst of the energetic and loyal war

235
effort in which the Government of India had invited the people of that country to take part, and to which they are responding with so much alacrity and success. These were the reasons, my Lords, that led the Viceroy and his colleagues in India to stop short at the action which I have already described. It is regarded as adequate by the Secretary of State for India. In a matter of this sort, knowing both ends of the scale, I should be very reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the Viceroy or his colleagues, and I am disposed to concur with the Secretary of State in thinking that the action which has been taken is, in all the circumstances of the case, sufficient and adequate.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris always takes so moderate, and, if he will allow me to say so, so reasonable a view of Indian administration that a Motion of this kind, brought forward by him, must necessarily engage the attention of your Lordships' House, but I am bound to say that in this instance the answer which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has given does satisfy the reason of those who consider the question. There can, of course, be only one opinion about the language used by this old ex-Judge, whom I remember, in my time as Secretary of State for India, as having a high reputation as a member of the Madras Bench, and as being regarded as a distinguished local figure, what we should call in this country a somewhat extreme politician, although not extreme in the Indian sense where the term is used somewhat differently from what it is here.
I am not quite sure that I agree with my noble and learned friend behind me that at a time when a great policy of the amendment of the Constitution is impending you ought therefore to pass over language or actions with which at any other time you might deal severely. I confess that this particular argument never appealed to me in connection with India or with Ireland. But I do think that in dealing with utterances of this kind the one main point which the Government has to bear in mind is what the effect of the language is likely to be in view of the state of the country and of the authority of the person who uses it. In this instance, having regard to all the conditions, and to the fact that the old ex-Judge is of an age which would be regarded as advanced here but is in India very advanced indeed, I can not believe it can be supposed that any real
236
encouragement is given to sedition by such language as this. It can, I think, be passed over with something of a shrug of regret that a public servant of some distinction, possibly suffering from some decay of mind, has become imbued with these ideas, which, we know, are the commonplaces of ordinary Indian disaffection, and I think probably that the Government of India and the Secretary of State are wise to leave the matter there.
I do not believe that either by attaching part of the pension of Sir S. Subramaniya Aiyar, or by removing him from the Order, any genuine purpose would be served. As the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has said, some people might be tempted to regard him as a martyr to liberal ideas; and I cannot think that those who belong to that high and esteemed Order can feel that the Order is seriously affected by the presence of the ex-Judge in its ranks. In all the circumstances I am therefore disposed to believe that the Government of India and the Secretary of State have taken the more sensible course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, as we have an important discussion to-morrow I think it would be well that the Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Bill, down for Second Reading on that day in the, name of Lord Goschen, and the Horse Breeding Bill, which also stands in the name of the noble Viscount, should be postponed until a later date, and I propose to put them down for Tuesday of next week.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of June 13.]
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
HAMILTON ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for Wednesday next.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Committee to meet on Wednesday next.
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

    LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    V. Falmouth,

    L Ribblesdale (Chairman),

    L. Ashbourne,

    L. Gisborough,

    L. Queenborough;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 25th instant next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the
    238
    Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
    [From Minutes of judicial Sitting on June 14.]
    The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bill have not been complied with:
    Lancaster Corporation.
    The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
(Petitions for additional Provision.)
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday next.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before six o'clock.