Lords Sitting of 17 May 1927

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock. The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

BURY ESTATE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th of March last, "That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 3rd of May next," be dispensed with, and that leave be given to Ralph Frederic Bury to present a Petition for leave to introduce a Bill "to vary the trusts powers and provisions of two several settlements, both dated the seventeenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, and executed on the marriage of Ralph Frederick Bury and Violet Esmé Bentley."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Petition, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, read and referred to two Judges of the High Court of Justice of England.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords this Bill was promoted in place by the Imperial War Graves Commission. It was introduced by Mr. Harry Gosling, a member of the Commission, and it enjoyed the unique distinction that it was backed by three Prime Ministers, past or present—by Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Baldwin. The House of Commons is not the only place where past Prime Ministers are to be found; and, if it were the practice in this House to follow the same procedure as was adopted in the House of Commons, I venture to think there would have been no difficulty in obtaining the support for this Bill of three noble Lords, past Prime members of this House.
It may be asked why it should be necessary to promote a Bill in Parliament before the War Graves Commission can proceed to erect a memorial in honour of the officers and men of the mercantile marine who fell in the War. The explanation is this. Much difficulty was experienced in finding a suitable site in London. So great were the difficulties that at one time it was thought that it might be necessary to erect the memorial in some other part of the country. I think that that would have been very regrettable. London is the first port of the Empire, and the Port of London is frequented more than any other port of the world by officers and men of the mercantile marine. Fortunately, a very suitable Site has now been found in the garden of Trinity Square, Tower Hill. But here, too, there were difficulties. There are many individuals and public bodies interested in the garden of Trinity Square; for instance, there are the trustees who control the garden. The most important of them are the Tower of London, Trinity House, and the Port of London Authority. These bodies, together with others interested in the amenities of the garden, held meetings, and arrived unanimously at a decision to offer no objection to the proposal. Other bodies interested in the garden are His Majesty's Commissioners for Crown

267
Lands, the Office of Works, and the Borough Council of Stepney, all of whom have expressed their acquiescence in the proposal. There remained the Underground Railway Companies, whose tunnel passes under the garden, and, as your Lordships will have observed, their interests are protected by a clause in the Bill.
Although there are so many different bodies connected with and interested in the garden, there is no one person and no one body who has the power legally to authorise the erection of the memorial there: hence this Bill. The memorial has been designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens and it provides that the names of all the officers and men of the mercantile marine who fell during the War and have no known graves should be inscribed on the memorial, in the same way as the names of officers and men of the Royal Navy have been inscribed on memorials which have been erected at Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham. The memorial will be 64 ft. in length following the boundary of the garden. It will extend only about 25 feet inside the garden so that the amenities of the garden are not affected. All the difficulties standing in the way of the erection of a memorial, therefore, have been removed and the Commission is waiting to proceed with the work for the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I am certain that no recommendation is necessary from me to your Lordships of the object of this Bill. I am sure that it will meet with universal support. Nevertheless, perhaps I may be allowed to give expression to one or two reflections that have occurred to me.
It is now just ten years since the enemy's submarine campaign was at its height. My recollection of those days is so vivid that I find it difficult to believe that so long a time has passed since I used to go down to the Port of London to see what effect the campaign was having upon our shipping. So far as numbers were concerned they were, of course, greatly reduced, but the surprising thing was to find that there were any ships there at all when one considered the dangers and difficulties that beset every ship that attempted to enter or leave the Port. They were strange-looking ships, camouflaged and
268
some of them, but by no means all, armed for defence, but what I think struck the imagination most was the knowledge that all these ships were manned by officers and crews, many of whom had already been torpedoed, some of them more than once, and not one of whom so far as I was able to learn—and I made it my business to enquire—ever refused to go to sea again. They followed their daily avocation silently, unseen, without any of the glamour that sometimes surrounded those who took a more active part in the struggle and often with no means of defence against a venomous and secret enemy.
In the pursuit of their daily avocation, so essential to the very existence of the Empire—without it indeed we must either have starved or surrendered—they faced sudden death from submarine and mine; they were shot whilst struggling in the water; they were cast adrift in open boats, and 15,000 of them perished. Of these 15,000, 3,000 have been commemorated elsewhere. There remain 12,000 with no known grave other than the sea. If your Lordships pass this Bill a memorial will be erected in their honour on a site more appropriate perhaps than could be found anywhere else in the country. On Tower Hill, where nearly all those who are accustomed to go down to the sea in ships pass sooner or later, overlooking the first Port of the Empire, within a stone's throw of the London docks, within sound of the ships' syrens, there will be inscribed the names of those 12,000 brave men as a perpetual reminder to all who go by of the sacrifice they made for the Empire in time of peril. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it would not be fitting that I should allow the eloquent words with which my noble friend has moved the Second Reading of this Bill to pass without stating on behalf of His Majesty's Government how deeply we concur with his Motion and with the sentiments which he has expressed in its support. It would not have been possible that amidst the many heroic deeds which took place in the War the deeds of these men alone should not receive their due memorial. It is a

269
matter of great satisfaction, indeed a matter of great gratitude to all of us, that as we pass through our country we see these memorials of the heroes of the War in every village. But it would not have been possible to leave out the great mercantile marine. After all, they took almost as great risks as the combatant members of His Majesty's Navy. They were essential to the conduct of the War. They were essential to the preservation of the life of the community. I cannot pretend to emulate the burning words in which my noble friend has described their deeds, but I agree with him that no more fitting place could be found for a memorial of them than the site which has been selected, near the most historic spot in London, overlooking the Port of London, where, as he said, these members of the mercantile marine passed to and fro upon their message of heroism and, very likely, upon their journey to death. We are very grateful to my noble friend for moving the Second Reading of this Bill and I need not say that I am sure it will receive the unanimous support of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

INDIAN CHURCH BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the Bill to which I invite the consideration of Parliament is of an unusual character. It is an ecclesiastical Bill and the religious body with whose affairs it deals is the Anglican community in India. The initiative which has produced this Bill did not proceed from Government, but from the responsible authority of the Anglican Church in India, acting, it is understood, with the entire approval of the highest Anglican authorities in this country, and the reasons which prompted them to recommend this change have been fully explained during the past three years in the Provincial Council and the diocesan councils of the Church of England in India and the National Assembly in this country. They have been the subject of a very general discussion both in the Press in India and at home.
270
The Church authorities are the authoritative exponents of these reasons, but since Government must of necessity take its share in the proposed change it becomes my duty to attempt some brief exposition of them. The Church of England in India does not, as things are to-day, govern itself, but it is in the eyes of the law merely a portion of the Church of England, separated from the rest by six thousand miles. The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England applies to it even though it is completely unrepresented in this country in the National Assembly and the Houses of Convocation. The position of the Church of England in India is this because of its origins; because, to go back a century, English people, or their descendants—numbering well under 100,000 at that period—formed the overwhelming majority of the Church of England in India, and that majority contained a very large number of men and women whose residence in India was only temporary. To-day, however, the total number of adherents in India to the Anglican Communion is over half a million, with the number still increasing. Of those half million roughly one-fifth are British, the balance being represented by Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians.
It is urged by those who have supported this Measure that the time has come when this Indian Church should be free to organise itself and to develop along its own lines as a voluntary society legally entitled to manage its own affairs on the basis of what is termed "consensual compact," a phrase which I did not invent but can understand, and to take its place in that world-wide communion of federated Churches to which the Anglican Churches in the self-governing Dominions, Japan and China already belong. If it be asked what is the main legal impediment to the Church of England in India itself giving effect to its wishes, the answer is to be found in certain sections of that part of the Government of India Act, Part X, which is headed "Ecclesiastical Establishment."
To mention only Section 115 of the Act, it will be seen from it that the Bishops of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay exercise within their respective dioceses such episcopal functions and such ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the superintendence and good government of the ministers of the

271
Church of England therein as His Majesty may by Letters Patent direct, and, further, that the Bishop of Calcutta is the Metropolitan Bishop in India, "subject nevertheless"—to quote the words of the subsection—"to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury." The Church of England in India cannot become self-governing unless this section, as well as some others, to which I need not perhaps make reference, are repealed. Neither can it do so if the Letters Patent of the three Bishops remain in full force, since they contain instructions that the Bishops should administer their offices according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England. The Church authorities were therefore obliged to come to Government to effect the necessary changes in the law.
Besides the legal question, there is an administrative and financial one, arising out of the fact that, from the earliest times, the East India Company used regularly to supply chaplains and churches for its servants in the East. The Charter granted to the New Company by William III in 1698 definitely established this practice, and as it is of considerable historical interest a few lines of it may here be, quoted:
"And We do hereby further will and appoint, That the said Company hereby established, and their Successors, shall constantly maintain a Minister and Schoolmaster in the Island of St. Helena, when the said Island shall come into the Hands or Possession of the same Company, and also One Minister in every Garrison and superior Factory, which the same Company or their Successors shall have in the said East-Indies, or other the Parts within the Limits aforesaid; and shall also in such Garrison and Factories respectively provide or set apart a decent and convenient Place for Divine Service only; and shall also take a Chaplain on board every Ship which shall be sent by the same Company to the said East-Indies, or other the Parts within the Limits aforesaid, which shall be of the Burthen of Five Hundred Tons or upwards, for such Voyage; the Salary of which Chaplain shall commence from the Time that such Ship shall depart from England; And moreover, that no such Minister shall be sent by the same Company to the said East-Indies, or other the Parts within the Limits aforesaid, until he shall have been first approved of or by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of London for the Time being; all of which said Ministers to be sent shall be entertained from Time to Time with all due Respect."
It is in continuation of this practice that Government maintains to-day an estab-
272
lishment, as it is termed, of Anglican chaplains paid from Indian Revenues, of which the sanctioned strength, after a recent reduction due to the smaller number of British troops in India and considerations of economy, is 138.
These chaplains minister both to the civil and military populations within their charges, but roughly 98 are intended primarily for ministration to troops and 40 for civil duties with other British-born servants of the Crown in India. Besides supplying these chaplains, Government has continued to maintain, and to-day maintains, a number of churches in various parts of India. Therefore on this account also—the provision by Government of chaplains and churches—it was necessary that the Church authorities should invite the co-operation of Government, since the Church in India would be unable to fulfil its historical obligations towards the military and official Anglican community if at the moment of attaining self-government it were deprived of the financial and other assistance which had always been received from Government. Lord Reading's Government very fully appreciated this fact, and they disclaimed in the clearest possible terms any intention to make the aspirations of the Church of England in India to become self-governing the occasion for discontinuing or curtailing their expenditure on that Church. That was a wise and statesmanlike attitude, and one which might be expected to commend itself not merely to Indian Christians but to Indians generally, having regard to the appreciation which Indians are known to attach to the religious, as distinct from the material, side of life.
From the first, Government for their own part were anxious not simply to be spectators of a development so interesting, but to render any reasonable assistance within their power to further the change denoted by the Indian Church Measure. The only point as to which they felt it necessary to become assured was that the change towards self-government did really commend itself to the Anglican community. That assurance they received when it became known that the Provincial Council and every diocesan council of the Anglican Church in India had signified their approval of the policy, and that responsible authorities in this country, including, it need hardly

273
he said, his Grace the most reverend Primate—by whose advice on such a matter I must be so largely guided—believed that this policy was right.
The principle of a self-governing Church being once accepted, the legislation by which it is proposed to give effect to it is two-fold; and, of course, it in no wise purports to "establish," in any special sense of the term, the Anglican Church India, that land of so many religions. There is, first of all, a draft Measure which it is hoped to pass under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, commonly called the Enabling Act. This mainly concerns the self-government of the Indian Church, with provisions enabling it to bring into being its "General Council" and written "constitution" after a date when the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India is dissolved. This date will actually be such day not less than two years or more than three years after the coming into operation of the Measure as the Governor-General of India in Council, at the request of the General Council of the self-governing Church, shall fix. The draft Measure was introduced to the National Assembly by order of the House of Bishops on the 2nd March last; it will come before Parliament in due course in the same way as any other Measure under the Enabling Act, but in order that it may be available for the immediate information of Parliament it has been separately presented as a Command Paper.
Secondly, in addition to the draft Measure, there is the Parliamentary Bill now under consideration. The Bill is a necessary counterpart supplementary to the draft Measure, and Clause 2, in particular, will deserve notice, since it repeals, from the date of severance, certain sections of the Government of India Act, including the subsection already quoted, as to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The clause also clears the way for the future appointment of Bishops in accordance with the constitution of the self-governing Church, instead of after a procedure necessitating a submission to the Crown. These are important objects of the Bill, but it deals also with certain special interests of Government, the formal protection of which Govern-
274
ment is bound to secure, however clear may be the intention of the Church authorities in India themselves of their own motion to recognise and provide for them in the written "constitution" to be adopted by the self-governing Indian Church.
One of these special interests of Government is that, when the Church of England as such ceases to exist in India, British-born servants of the Crown, including the British Army, should not be deprived of the Church of England services to which they have been accustomed—in other words, that the chaplains paid for by Government, and the churches maintained or repaired by Government, should continue to be available for the purpose for which they were intended. Another is that the Government chaplains themselves, while they may reasonably be required, as they are at present required, to receive a licence from the Bishop of their diocese—a point as to which his Grace the most rev. Primate was naturally specially consulted—should be ensured equitable treatment. The third special interest is that the needs of the British troops in India should be met no less satisfactorily than heretofore; and the fourth is that, in regard to property, the beneficiaries of trusts should be protected in their rights.
The difficulty that presented itself was how to reconcile the safeguarding of all these special interests of Government with the freedom of a self-governing Church, and the manner in which it is proposed to deal with and overcome it is to be gathered from the Bill, read with the draft Indian Church Statutory Rules, included in the Command Paper, which will be issued under Clause 5 of the Bill by the Government of India, with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council and with the concurrence of the Bishop of Calcutta. These draft Rules have been elaborated after the fullest consideration with the Church authorities and personal consultation with the Metropolitan and the Bishop of Bombay. They are intended and are believed to represent a complete and balanced scheme, though it is not of course desired to exclude any necessary minor amendments that might be decided upon before the Rules are actually issued or any changes or modifications which

275
time may show to be necessary after their issue has taken place.
It will be seen from Clause 9 of the Bill that the existing practice of appointing Government chaplains and maintaining churches at Government expense will not be affected by it, and, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the special interests to which reference has been made are fully safeguarded by the arrangements contemplated. That the British-born servants of the Crown in India, including the British Army, will not be deprived of the Church of England services to which they are accustomed is made clear by several of the draft Rules, for example by Rule 15, which lays down that the Maintained Churches, a list of which is to be kept up under the Bill, "shall be available for the services of the Church of England as contained in any Book of Common Prayer from time to time authorised in England."
As regards the Government chaplains, they are ensured equitable treatment in regard to such matters as the refusal of a licence, posting to their stations, proceedings before an Ecclesiastical Court, and so on. They were represented on the Provincial Council and the diocesan councils in India which gave approval to a draft Measure, and there is every reason to believe that as a body they will identify themselves naturally with the new arrangements if the draft Measure is passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England and endorsed by Parliament. As regards the needs of the British troops in India, they are dealt with fully in the draft Bill and Rules, and the assent of the Army Council has been obtained to the legislation. The Bill also makes suitable arrangements in regard to the rather complicated question of Church property, and secures that the beneficiaries of trusts should be protected in their rights.
Every confidence is felt by those most competent to give me advice on such matters that the draft Rules will be worked after issue smoothly and in full harmony by Government and the Indian Church, but by way of caution provision is made in the draft Rules themselves for arbitration in stated circumstances by his Grace the Primate or some person appointed by him, or, if he should fail to make such appointment, a person
276
appointed by the Government of India and the Bishop of Calcutta; and draft Rule 29 even contemplates the Archbishop's intervention in the manner, and with the consequences, therein described. Draft Rule 30 provides that Government may make special arrangements with the aid of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the military Maintained Churches, if it gives five years' notice at any time to the Bishop of Calcutta. Finally, the Bill provides, by Clause 4, that if the Indian Church at any time ceases to be in communion with the Church of England, Government shall be at liberty to resume complete control of all or any of the Maintained Churches. This is an extreme instance of the caution which has actuated Government, so that no contingency, however improbable it may be in the judgment of the Church authorities, should be unprovided for.
In regard to the whole matter of this legislation the attitude of Government has been from the first that it ought to receive their support if there was general agreement, reasonably understood, of all the authorities and persons who were concerned. The words "reasonably understood" are a qualification which I found it necessary to introduce, since absolute agreement in any religious matter of this kind is scarcely to be expected, and no doubt it does honour to men's consciences that such should be the case, but general agreement reasonably understood is held to have been attained, and His Majesty's Government commend the legislation to Parliament in the belief not merely that it is fully justified on its merits, but that Government would incur reproach if it blocked the way to a reform as to which the Anglican community—in India and in this country, Indians and Europeans—appear with few dissentients to be substantially agreed.
I need add only one observation. The Measure cannot engage the attention of the Church Assembly until July, but I have been assured by many persons qualified on behalf of the Church to give me advice upon this matter, and by others fully equipped with the practice and customs of your Lordships, that this is no sufficient reason for postponing the opportunity of our Parliamentary consideration of this matter and of eliciting the advice and opinions of your Lordships. Unless therefore your Lordships, which I do not

277
anticipate, took a different view, I should propose to the House that the Bill should pass in its ordinary course through all its stages in your Lordships' House, and it is hoped that if a peaceful lull should happily occur in the proceedings of another place, it may be possible that in the autumn the Measure may be there dealt with. I fear I have taken too much of your Lordships' time, but the Bill with which I have been dealing is one of great historical and spiritual interest, and I commend it to your Lordships' consideration. I move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, owing to the rather peculiar conditions which, as the noble Earl has just explained, surround the introduction, of this Bill—the peculiarity is indicated in the words of the Preamble—it may be right that I should at once, and in immediate supplement of the words of the noble Earl, explain a little more fully what from the Church standpoint is required and show perhaps what is the actual character of the change that this Bill proposes. It is a little different from what it might appear to be to an uninformed reader at a first glance at the printed Measure. The Bill speaks of the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India and an observer ignorant of the facts might interpret that as meaning something of the nature of a breach between the Home Church and the Indian Church. It is very important therefore to point out at once that instead of that the very contrary is the case. The change we want to bring about is one which will in the larger sense consolidate and make more natural the position of the Church in India as a part of the Anglican Communion throughout the world of which the Church of England is the home title and indeed is the popular designation in many parts of the King's Dominions overseas.
It can hardly be necessary for me to remind your Lordships that we are all impressed by the fact of the immense changes which have taken place in the constitution and the character of the whole of the Anglican Communion since
278
the days when the Church of England in India was constituted ecclesiastically and legally about a century ago. The Church of England, if we use the popular term, or if we speak more accurately the Anglican Communion, is now, of course, a great federal body divided into more or less independent and yet federated parts throughout the world. In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa and elsewhere Provinces, under an arrangement which was unknown to the Church a century ago, have come into being. The unity is complete and it is harmonious. And in addition to what has happened in our own Dominions the great Anglican Church in the United States, known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, has its own life and organisation, united in the very closest fellowship with the Church of England here at home. The Archbishopric of Canterbury is by common consent regarded as the centre of that vast organisation and in the overseas provinces I have referred to, although the Archbishop of Canterbury possesses no jurisdiction whatever, his Primacy in the large sense of the word is recognised.
It is seen in an object lesson which recurs at intervals. Once in every ten years every Bishop throughout the Communion, whether belonging to what we describe as our Colonies and Dominions overseas, or to the Church of the United States, or to the great missionary regions quite outside His Majesty's Dominions or the jurisdiction of the United States, the mission fields of the world, are invited to London. The number is large. On the last occasion, in 1920, 250 Bishops attended and in all probability the number may be greater still when, three years hence, another such gathering takes place. The attendance at these conferences marks the close fellowship which exists and which in practice presents no features of difficulty, although the ecclesiastical independence of the various Provinces is quite universally recognised.
One branch only of our Church, the Province of India and Ceylon under the headship of its Metropolitan, the Bishop of Calcutta, is at present hampered by legislative enactments which have never been changed and which are now in many respects out of date. By certain clauses of the Government of India Act and by the wording of the Letters Patent given to some of the Bishops of the older sees

279
in India who are nominated by the Crown, the Church of England in India is constituted simply as an extension of the Church of England into India and consequently the Church of England in India is technically at this moment bound by the laws and regulations of the Church of England; although, as the noble and learned Earl has just pointed out, it has no representation in the Church of England's legislative assemblies and the special conditions of India are by no means necessarily considered when we at home have handled or amended the Church of England laws. It would have been very difficult to do so. This results in real confusion. It is not a mere technical matter; it results in practical confusion.
For example, certain Bishops in India are told by their Letters Patent to administer "the Ecclesiastical Law of England," but they cannot do it. In present conditions the Ecclesiastical Law of England is quite inapplicable to many Indian facts. May I take two simple but rather patent examples. We have altered our rules in many respects as regards English parishes and the way of control and the matter of jurisdiction and many other things in the parish life, and the rules as thus altered are entirely out of touch with administrative details in India, although they professedly, too, are governed by the same existing Ecclesiastical Law. Or again, 100 years ago there was constituted in India a court of appeal for ecclesiastical causes. It was called the Court of Commissioners Delegate, but an insoluble problem would be presented did occasion arise for calling that court into action because at this moment it could not be assembled as most, if not all, of the officials who officio constituted the court have ceased to exist. There are no such persons. That kind of thing is an anomaly which ought not to continue to stand upon the record either of the Church at home or of the constitution of the Church of England in India.
There are many other respects in which the Church rules—enforceable if you like, certainly definitely prescribed at home—are technically inapplicable in India. That applies to questions of marriage. The hours within which a marriage can be celebrated in this country are inapplicable in India owing to climatic
280
reasons. It is desired that the hours should be different, and they are in practice made different; but, technically, that is a breach of the law. Or again, the condition of residence on the part of the parties to a marriage cannot be applied in India, with the constant locomotion of those concerned, in the same way as it is applicable in England. Those are prosaic and commonplace, but palpable, examples of the need of some re-statement and reconstruction of the existing law.
But there are more important things than that. The immense increase in the number of members of the Church of England in India necessitates now the appointment, if the work is to be properly done, of many more Bishops than were needed a hundred years ago, but we cannot legally divide the older dioceses because their boundaries are fixed by legal enactment, and it would require legal enactment technically to alter those boundaries, and place them in the position by which the holders of the office which governs within those areas are at present regulated. We meet that difficulty by the Bishops of Calcutta and Madras giving commissions to certain Bishops to administer portions of their wide dioceses and to do it, not as suffragans but as independent diocesan Bishops, with diocesan organisation. But that arrangement, though essential for meeting our difficulties, is extra-legal, and is not technically recognised by the Government. It is an anomalous condition which ought to come to an end as speedily as possible. It would be quite easy to multiply examples of the sort of difficulties which exist, but I do not think it is necessary.
The Bill now before your Lordships meets these difficulties by breaking through the existing legal complications and restrictions. Besides these things there are a great many more ecclesiastical details as regards Church administration which require complete remodelling if they are to correspond with modern conditions, largely changed during the century which has passed since the Church was legally established in India. To expound those details would not be difficult but it would be, I think, out of place at this stage in our proceedings with regard to the Bill. It may quite naturally be asked why, if a

281
change is so necessary, it was not made many years ago, and the answer is that apart from other considerations it was impossible to expect from Parliament sitting here in Westminster the time that would have been required for dealing in detail with ecclesiastical problems which would have required and do require now detailed, minute ecclesiastical consideration.
Eight years ago we passed here, to my great satisfaction, the Act popularly known as the Enabling Act and Parliament, though its ultimate sanction was retained and is potent to-day, was relieved of the claim upon its time for details of purely ecclesiastical legislation. These are now transacted in the National Church Assembly and ultimately, of course, submitted en bloc to Parliament. Accordingly we have in that Assembly a Measure already provided. It lies now upon the Table of your Lordships' House as a separate Paper. It was introduced into the National Assembly of the Church of England a couple of months ago or more and it came before us on the unanimous—I would ask your Lordships to note this—unanimous request of the whole Indian episcopacy who drew up the draft form which they would like the Measure to assume and submitted it to us in England for our consideration in detail. The Assembly has not yet gone over the details, but it has considered carefully the Petition and the draft Measure which was placed upon it.
Last February, as I think the noble Earl said, the Assembly passed unanimously a Resolution—not a very common thing—and it was in these terms:—
"That the Assembly, impressed by the weight and importance of the Petition presented by the Indian Bishops, is prepared to give consideration to a Measure framed upon the lines of the draft Measure referred to in that Petition."
Wisely, the Assembly did not commit itself to accept all the proposals, but practically it has gone through them and no objections were raised, at the outset at all events, to anything that it contains. Unless I am very widely mistaken we shall pass that Measure through the Assembly without the slightest difficulty and I believe it will be passed, in all probability, unanimously. I do not wish to dogmatise, but I think
282
it will certainly be passed through the Assembly without the slightest difficulty when the Assembly meets at the beginning of July. It may be asked why we could not wait until then to go forward with the Bill now on the Table. It does matter greatly that this thing should go forward, and if you were to wait until after the Assembly has done what it is quite certain to do in July, it would be practically impossible to go forward until next Session of Parliament with the Bill which ought to run concurrently with the Measure.
The Bill and the Measure take two aspects of the same question—the legal one and the technical ecclesiastical details, which, while I will not say they are quite unsuited for any Parliamentary discussion, would require a very great deal of Parliamentary time if they were to be fully discussed. They are absolutely suited for the consideration of the Assembly, which will go through in detail the Measure as drafted in India and presented unanimously to us and considered at this moment in prima facie form by the Assembly as one which ought to go forward. I do not enter into the details of the Measure. So far as they bear upon the clauses of the Bill they can be referred to and explained in Committee. What I imagine your Lordships desire to-day is to be satisfied that the change proposed is necessary, and that it will not be detrimental to the members of the Church of England or, to put it otherwise, to British members of the Indian Church, or to English men and women resident in India who desire that they should retain the privileges and the services to which they have been accustomed.
We have to take great care that no detriment comes to those interests and those desires, and the very utmost care has been taken to safeguard that principle. The really fundamental change which has occurred—the noble Earl has already referred to it—is the immense access of membership to the Church in India from among the people of India itself. That is constantly forgotten in England, or under-rated in its magnitude. In the year 1813, more than a century ago, when the legislation took place, the total members of the Church were about 73,000. Of that number 10,000 or thereabouts were natives of India. At the

283
Census taken a few years ago the members of the Church, instead of being 73,000, were, in round figures, 533,000. Of this total about 108,000 were British, 37,000 Anglo-Indians and—I beg your Lordships to notice this—not less than 387,000 were Indian Christians. The change is gigantic. The number of the Indian Christians is to-day increasing very rapidly. A few years have passed since the Census and I am assured that the Indian Christians to-day number fully 400,000. To put it in another way, of the Church in India 72·6 per cent. are now Indian, 20·4 European and 7 per cent. Anglo-Indian.
It will be obvious to everyone that this entirely changes the situation and that the work of the Church becomes different in many respects from what it used to be. We retain and desire to retain to the full the standards of doctrine which have throughout been ours both in England and in India, and emphatically we desire to retain for the benefit of English churchmen in India the services they have been accustomed to and the ministry of the chaplains appointed by the Secretary of State and licensed by the Bishops of India. The Church of India takes over the Prayer Book of the Church of England. It will be the Service Book of the Church of India. I do not believe there is the smallest fear that after the change has taken place any British member of the Church of England will find himself or herself deprived of any existing rights. It is specifically enacted that they cannot be so deprived. The details of this will be made obvious to any of your Lordships who will study the Rules that are laid upon the Table, and if discussion arises in Committee any point There can be explained. It would be, I am sure, burdensome to detail them now.
The Assembly's Measure and the Bill are now before you. The Assembly's Measure is not yet for your consideration, though ultimately it will have to be assented to by this House should the Assembly pass it, as is certain. Taking them together, they provide safeguards of every kind, and in the last resort Should anything be done by the Church in India—and there are such foreshadowings on the part of a very few people—which seems to sever it from full communion and fellowship with the Church of England at home, appeal can, and indeed must, be made to the Archbishop of
284
Canterbury, who is called upon to say whether or not such severance has taken place. If it be found that it has taken place, the Government have power to resume possession of the churches and to secure that the services carried on in them are such as the English congregations desire. That is provided, and rightly provided, but it is to suppose a state of matters the occurrence of which I believe to be absolutely out of the question.
I have given to your Lordships an outline of the matter as it presents itself from our Church standpoint and in supplement to what the Secretary of State has put before you as regards legal conditions and rights of property. In the old Act, as the Earl of Birkenhead reminded you, the Metropolitan of India was by a strange phrase placed under the "general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury." It is an odd phrase as regards an individual. What those words could have been made to mean had the question ever arisen in practice we do not know, for the power, whatever it be, has never been exercised. Anyhow, it will now come to an end. The Indian Church, if this Bill and the Measure which accompanies it pass, will become autonomous in the same sense as is the Church in Canada, or Australia, or South Africa. Within it the Government will still have patronage, so to speak, of the chaplaincies, and the Bishop cannot refuse a licence to a duly nominated chaplain except upon grounds which would justify a Bishop in England in refusing institution to a benefice. The Government have repeatedly stated that the Measure will make no difference in their usage and policy as regards chaplains. I say once more that the rights of what we may call English worshippers are carefully safeguarded, while the Church will have the power, and indeed the obligation, to consider also in the freer conditions under which it will move the needs of what are now the vast majority of its members, the Indian Christians.
I very earnestly hope that this Bill may be passed speedily into law. I am absolutely sure that it is right—right for the Church at home and in India, right for our Anglican Communion as a whole in its general administrative life, and right, abundantly right., for the people of India as well as for the English who are resi-

285
dent there. I look forward myself with hope and expectation to a strengthening thereby of the Church's life in India and to preparation for the day when the advance of Christianity in India may put to shame even the great advance which is taking place to-day. I ask your Lordships with hope and confidence to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am entirely in accord with what has been said by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill and also with what has been said by his Grace the Archbishop. I had some knowledge in former days about these matters and I think it is from every point of view desirable that a Bill of this kind should be introduced, a Bill which, in effect, carries out disestablishment, as we should call it, or the separation of State and Church in India. I want, however, to say a word on a particular point. The statutory forms and Rules which have been referred to bath by the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate are all such as could be and must be dealt with in an ordinary Act of Parliament, dealing as it would have to deal with the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1910: I think that is the date. In regard to all other cases where similar questions have arisen they have been dealt with in the same way either by Acts of Parliament or Ordinances, both as regards conditions of disestablishment and also as regards the maintenance of these various churches as part of the Anglican Church or the Church of England. For instance, in 1845 in Ceylon, the Ordinance passed at that date carries out all the purposes which are now proposed to be carried out by this Act of Parliament.
But at that time, of course, there was no Enabling Act and the point which I think requires further consideration is this: Has the Enabling Act really anything to do with the conditions of the Chinch of England in India? I was present at all the discussions which took place in the preliminary stages of the Enabling Bill but it never occurred to me that it did not contain the same territorial limit as applies to all Acts of Parliament, unless there is something in the text or something special which gives an extra-territorial authority. When I was still a member of the Church
286
Assembly—and indeed Chairman, as I was, of the House of Laity—this very point was submitted to me. Of course I could do no more than express my own opinion, but that was a very decided one, that when a Church such as the Church in India is disestablished it should be entirely independent of any power which could be exercised over it by the Enabling Act and should be a voluntary association. That has been the case, I think, whenever a Church has been disestablished.
I do not want to give any decisive opinion upon this point, although the noble Earl referred to it, but your Lordships will be aware that the point is of great general importance. It is a point which will have to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Committee, because the Ecclesiastical Committee have to give their views as to the expediency of a Measure and especially its relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. The question here is: Are His Majesty's subjects in India subject to the provisions of the Enabling Act? I should have thought certainly not. They have no representation in the Assembly, which comes from our parochial councils and our diocesan conferences so far as the laity are concerned. The Bishops, of course, will be an independent body, entirely independent from the Bishops here. So will the clergy be in every way entirely independent of the clergy here. I do not mean to suggest that there will be any breach of continuity, but what I do suggest is that the Enabling Act has not interfered, and was not intended to interfere, with complete liberty on all those matters to which the most rev. Primate has referred as regards future arrangements in this particular Church. I do not desire to do more than to indicate the doubt which I feel and which will have to be solved by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
So far as the Bill is concerned it is complete in itself. It will leave the Church in India in the position of a voluntary association, which, to my mind, is the right relationship. It ought to have absolute freedom, and there is no risk of breaking communion with the Anglican Church in this country, as the most rev. Primate has shown in the case of other Churches which were constituted or disestablished

287
long before the Enabling Act was passed. As the noble Earl will know, the general principle is that an Act only operates within what was the United Kingdom, because Wales is already outside for this purpose and Scotland was never included. I hope that this matter will be very closely considered from the point of view of freedom. I regard complete freedom of organisation as a great blessing for a religious body and I do not like the idea that it can be interfered with, either in the first instance or at any later stage, by another organisation on which it is not represented and before which it has no power of expressing its view. I heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill, and hope that it may pass into law, subject to the view of the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the particular matter to which I have called attention.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt any noble Lord who wishes to speak, but perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the point that the noble and learned Lord has raised. I agree that it is just debatable—I do not think that I share his impression—whether the ambit of the Act covers a case of this kind. I think that I take a different view from the noble and learned Lord, but, after all, a very competent Committee has to decide upon this matter, and my only reason for not troubling your Lordships with it was that it is in very good hands.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am sure that Your Lordships will have listened with enormous interest to the full statements of the noble Earl and of the most rev. Primate and that there will be no question regarding the substance of the Bill. But, having been trained in assemblies perhaps less liberal in their procedure than your Lordships' House, I have been thrown into some consternation by the proposal to recite in the Preamble of this Bill that something has happened which has not happened and to refer to a Measure as having been passed which, as the most rev. Primate has told us, has not even been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee or the National Assembly. I should like to put it to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether it is in accordance with the traditions of this House, and whether it is expedient that it should
288
be a tradition of this House, that we should pass Acts referring to Measures which have not been passed and as to which we have no absolute demonstration that they will be passed, but only an assurance from a very good authority that he believes that they will be passed. My point is clear and is quite a small one. I wish to put it to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in these matters it does not do to be too technical. The real object is to get the business through, so long as we are quite sure of the agreement and the knowledge of both Houses of Parliament, and I would like to remind the noble Lord that the Measure itself is subject to the control of Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: Not to alteration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It does not pass except with the consent of Parliament, and therefore your Lordships' House retains in its power complete control as to what the Measure will ultimately be. I do not think that any difficulty will arise but, if the noble Lord presses me, I will take care to consider the matter carefully before the Bill passes out of your Lordships' hands.
LORD OLIVIER: Before the Bill passes, I think it should be considered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill I would venture to state that it is an agreed Bill which has the full consent of the parties concerned. The Bill aims at putting in statutory form an agreement which was arrived at by the Imperial Conference of 1927. This Bill is necessary to consolidate with certain amending clauses the previous law on this subject and to bring together agreements for Pacific cables that are spread over something like thirty years. Your Lordships will be

289
aware that the scheme for the Pacific cable was considered as early as 1879. The first cable was opened in 1902. At the outset it was not a successful enterprise and some £700,000 was lost before the cable began to pay. In 1914 and onwards the venture became a successful one, and by 1924 there were £2,000,000 undivided profits. The question of duplicating the line has been clamant since 1920 and, although matters were delayed on account of certain disagreements with other partners, it was decided to proceed with the cable in 1925 and, as your Lordships will be aware, the second duplicating line was opened this year. The cost of £2,750,000 was defrayed out of the profits made and a certain residue in hand.
This Bill is a very simple one. It deals in the first place with the board of management, with the method of election, representation, and salaries. It also provides for the disposal of profits and for the procedure to be adopted in the case of loss. These points are covered in the three Schedules. This matter has been considered in conjunction with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who have given their consent to the Bill in the form in which it now stands. I would urge upon your Lordships not only that it should be passed in its present form but that it should be passed without delay. Some of the financial clauses refer to the year 1927, and the Bill should really have been passéd before Easter and the beginning of the new financial year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lovat.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can give me some explanation of subsection (2) of Clause 8. That subsection says:
"The Board shall, so long as they undertake work in connection with telegraphic communication in the West Indies, have power to provide and supply to the West Indies a news service similar to the news service supplied by telegraph companies at the commencement of the Pacific Cable Act, 1924."
I should like to know if that subsection empowers the Governments working the Pacific cable to interfere with private enterprise.
LORD LOVAT: I can answer the noble Lord's question in a word. This sub-
290
section leaves the matter in exactly the same position as under the provision of the old Act, which, I need hardly remind the House, was inserted on the noble Lord's Motion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to call attention to certain statements made by members of His Majesty's Government regarding the obligation to ratify International Labour Conventions; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion deals with a problem of great importance. The Government have taken up a position in the matter, as I shall indicate to your Lordships, which is, in my submission, quite untenable. The point at issue turns upon the degree of obligation which rests upon a country the Government of which have signified by vote their agreement with an International Labour Convention, at Geneva or elsewhere as the case may be. I think it will be remembered that in the recent debate upon the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill, which has now become an Act, we complained strongly from this side of the House that the Convention which was agreed to by Great Britain at Geneva in 1921 had not been ratified. The Government instead of ratifying the Convention and prohibiting the use of lead paint for interior work only enacted in the Bill of last year that the use of lead paint as regards interior work should be regulated. That is a totally different matter, and in the opinion of those best qualified to judge regulation will be of little or no use in stopping the terrible sufferings coming from lead paint poisoning. However, I am not going into that matter to-day in any detail. I only mention it as part of the case which I wish to put before your Lordships.
I must emphasise, however, that it is surely indefensible for this country, or any bother country, actually to propose the terms of an agreement which becomes a Convention and then for the country which took the initiative in proposing the terms and bringing about the agreement to refuse itself to ratify that which

291
it proposed. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that Sir Thomas Legge, the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories at the Home Office, felt so keenly what had been done, or rather not been done, by the Government that he resigned his position in the Government service. The Government had no adequate defence to offer, but in the debate which took place in this House on February 23 last, with a view to trying to help matters, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, intervened with a contention that the only obligation undertaken was to bring the recommendation or Draft Convention before Parliament and Lord Desborough, and also Captain King, speaking for the Government in another place, said in effect the same thing. I have the quotations here, but I need not trouble your Lordships with them in detail, beyond referring to some words of Lord Desborough, uttered on November 18 last, when the Lead Paint (Protection Against Poisoning) Bill was being discussed.
In seeking to defend the Government for not having ratified the Convention, which was really brought about, as I have said, at their instance, he used these words:—
"There is nothing signed and there is no question, therefore, of going back on a signature. No engagement whatever is entered into."
That is an astonishing statement. It is quite true that in the procedure at Geneva there is nothing signed, but there is a vote, and are we to assume that there is sanctity in a signature and no sanctity in a vote? Any such position is quite untenable. Why, every day in this country enormous financial and commercial transactions are effected simply by word of mouth, which is never repudiated, save in the case, which is very rare, of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding.
Let me look at the matter in more detail, although it is not necessary I should detain the House at any great length. I begin by pointing out that even as defined in these statements by the noble Viscount opposite and Lord Desborough, this country has not done its duty. So far as the Lead Paint Convention is concerned the Government has not brought the recommendation or Draft Convention before Parliament, and neither did the Conservative Government of 1923. In 1923 a Motion dealing with
292
several Conventions was brought before Parliament, and in the course of his speech on that occasion Sir Montague Barlow included certain observations about the Lead Paint Convention. His statement, however, in relation to that Convention was inconclusive, although it seemed pretty clear that even already the Conservative Government did not want to ratify the 1921 Convention. In any event, it cannot be contended that the Government brought before Parliament the recommendation or Draft Convention, because what was put before Parliament in 1923 certainly did not amount to that.
Now we come to the present Government, the second Baldwin Government. They have not carried out the duty of bringing the recommendation or Draft Convention before Parliament. On the contrary, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill of last year, which they recommended to Parliament, was precisely the opposite of what was agreed to at Geneva. That cannot be denied. Therefore I submit that the duty laid down under Article 405, and quoted by the noble Viscount opposite and other Government speakers on this matter, has not been carried out. Let me consider what was the position taken up by the Government on February 23. I think it is not putting it wrongly to say that the position comes to this, that even if the recommendation or Draft Convention of 1921 had been laid before Parliament a Government is perfectly at liberty to advise Parliament to do exactly the opposite. That is what this Government did. That is what it comes to. In short, you may have an International Labour Convention at Geneva, weeks of discussion and negotiation, a large number of countries represented (in this case about thirty and in one case forty), various delegates meeting at great expense and devoting much and valuable time, agreement may be reached, all the countries present may vote for that agreement—and that in this case is practically what has happened—and yet we are told there is no real obligation to ratify, no obligation upon this country to honour its vote, we are told by Lord Desborough.
All the Government has to do, according to the noble Viscount opposite, is to bring the recommendation before Parliament. As I have pointed out, that has

293
not been done, but even if it had been done the Government, according to the theory laid down by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, is not under any obligation to support the recommendation or Draft Convention for which its delegate voted. In the debate on February 23 my noble and learned Leader, Lord Haldane, intervened and said: "Why does not the Government make a recommendation? That is what we complain of." Then the noble Viscount opposite used these remarkable words: He said:
"The Government are entitled to present and have presented to Parliament their views on the subject. It is for Parliament to judge whether their views are right and also to take whatever action it likes."
This is an extraordinary way of putting it. It suggests that on an issue like this there is a perfectly free vote: the Whips are taken off and the Conservative members vote without allegiance to the Government; but, the facts are quite different.
In a matter like this the supporters of a Government will, with possibly one or two exceptions, vote for the Government policy. Of course they will, because, if they do not, the Government will be defeated, and it will resign if it has a majority, if it is a majority Government, and the present is a majority Government. It has a majority of about two hundred in another place, and a majority of about seventy to one in your Lordships' House. The idea that Parliament is free to vote as it likes quite independently of the Government, and of the consequences to the Government of its votes, is something quite new in Parliamentary history, and it is opposed to the facts. It really will not do to suggest that the majority of Parliament in a matter like this will vote in any other way than that which the Government of the day recommends, provided it is a majority Government. So I say, and I say emphatically, that the obligation of a Government in respect of a recommendation or Draft Convention for which its delegate or delegates have voted at Geneva is not discharged by bringing the Convention or recommendation before Parliament and then advising Parliament to do exactly the opposite—for that is what this Government did in this case. It is only discharged by bringing the Convention before Parliament and advising Parliament to vote for it. That is the point at issue.
I put this Motion down because I am really very anxious to get a more satisfactory statement from the Government in regard to the obligation to ratify International Labour Conventions. When it is said that a vote for a Draft Convention is not constitutionally binding until the Convention has been ratified by Parliament, that is true. But, of course, there is a moral obligation upon the Government to honour the vote given by its delegates, unless possibly circumstances alter very materially after the vote has been given. In the case of the lead paint issue I have on two separate occasions at great length and in great detail demonstrated to your Lordships that nothing of sufficient importance has occurred since 1921 to justify the Government of Great Britain in going back upon the vote which its delegates gave in 1921. I am not, to-day, going again through those matters, but the position which I have taken up really remains unshaken, and no real attempt has been made by the Government to controvert what I have said. I have pointed out in regard to this Lead Paint Convention, which is a good illustration for my purpose, that even so influential a supporter of the Government in another place as Major Hills, in a very impressive letter in The Times, said that the Government might be technically free not to ratify, morally it was not free.
Then I should like, in support of the case which I am submitting, to quote a few words from the White Paper, Command Paper No. 2465 of 1925. This is the Report by the British Government delegates to the Minister of Labour in that Year with regard to the International Labour Conference. On page 8 these words appear, and they have added weight owing to the fact that one of the delegates whose signature is at the end of this White Paper was Mr. Betterton himself, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour. These words were used in reference to workmen's compensation for industrial accidents:—
"While the effect of these amendments, as the British Government delegates recognised, was to eliminate the greater part of the more obnoxious features in the Draft convention, there remained various points of difficulty which appeared to them to require further consideration and inquiry and, no opportunity having been given for a thorough examination of the obligations involved, they felt it impossible to undertake

295
any responsibility in regard to the Convention on behalf of the Government. They could not, therefore, vote in favour of the Draft Convention."
Those words show that Mr. Betterton and his colleagues did not vote for the Convention because of the obligation which a vote imposes. I do not think there can be any dispute about that. That is the clear sense of the words which I have quoted.
Then again, let me point out that the British Government has, from the very start of these International Labour Conventions, admitted that the Conventions are serious matters involving obligations, because the voting power of the International Labour Conference is two Government votes to one employer and one worker. That balance was a British proposal. Its specific purpose was to prevent the decisions of the Conference from being mere pious resolutions, owing to Conventions being adopted contrary to the wishes of Governments. Therefore, as I say, it has from the start been not merely admitted, but laid down, that these Conventions are serious matters, and that they do involve obligations.
The noble Viscount opposite intervened in the speech to which I have referred, and he made the point—and it has been made two or three times in the course of these debates—that after all the procedure under the International Labour Office for the ratification of Conventions is different from the procedure under the League itself. That is true. But that is not a good point for the noble Viscount to make: it really is a point against him rather than a point for him, the truth being that the procedure in regard to the ratification of International Labour Conventions is much more definite and precise than in the case of the ratification of a League Treaty or Convention. As your Lordships are aware, there is really no precise procedure under the Covenant at all. But here there is a definite procedure laid down under Article 405, and so forth. Therefore, I submit that that point does not help the noble Viscount in the least; it rather has the reverse effect.
The point I wish to put to the noble Viscount quite definitely is this: What degree of obligation does he consider attaches to a vote given at Geneva in favour of an International Labour Con-
296
vention? The position which the noble Viscount and other Ministers have taken really comes to this, when it is analysed, that there is no obligation in the last resort to do anything except to make a speech about the matter in Parliament. According to the theory laid down by the noble Viscount on February 23, that speech, when it is made, can be dead against the Convention in favour of which the vote of the Government has been given at Geneva. The only obligation, according to this theory, is to lay the matter before Parliament, and in so doing the Government is quite free to recommend precisely the opposite to that for which its own delegates have voted at Geneva. I cannot think that that really represents the view of the Government. I should be sorry to think it did. And therefore I have felt it my duty to put down this Motion in order to get, as I hope I may do, a more satisfactory statement from the Government.
I am extremely concerned, and a great many other people are extremely concerned, about recent events, and about the position in which this vital matter of the ratification of International Labour Conventions now stands. I say, and say deliberately, that if the Government view stated on February 23 were to be the last word on the subject, then it will not be very long before no more International Labour Conventions will be agreed to at Geneva, or anywhere else. Countries will say and properly say: "What is the good of sending delegates to Geneva, what is the good of having all this anxious discussion and negotiation, finally ending in an agreement—what is the good of it all, if after agreement is voted the vote really carries no obligation at all?" I say clearly that things cannot go on like this and that before long these International Labour Conventions, with all their enormous potentialities for raising the standard of the workers in almost all parts of the civilised world, will cease to be held and this great instrument for good will have proved to be of no effect.
Unfortunately, the responsibility for that state of things if it comes about will rest largely with the Government. I know the noble Viscount does not like things like that to be said, but I do not think the argument he used in the last debate is one which ought to carry

297
any weight. The argument he used against my noble friend Lord Parmoor was that he was talking against his own country. It may be all very well to argue like that in some places, but I do not think you can pay any attention to it in this House. We want the facts and I say the truth is that the present position in regard to this matter is in large measure due to the action of this country under the present Conservative Government. That is a simple statement of fact. This matter of the Lead Paint Convention does not stand alone. There is also the Washington Convention. I am not going into that to-day. There have been debates here and in another place upon it. My noble friend Lord Parmoor brought it up here only a few days ago. Certainly, until recently, the position in regard to that has been profoundly unsatisfactory. I do not say it is satisfactory now, but it has been profoundly unsatisfactory. The attitude of the Government and the record of the Government in regard to that was too much even for The Times. The Times criticised it, and the debate which took place in another place on that Convention was one of the most damaging debates which has ever taken place in regard to the action of any Government. Words to that effect were used by one of their own supporters in another place in describing, what had occurred.
Finally, there is one consideration which I think is of supreme importance arising out of this whole question of ratification—I am afraid I must put it non-ratification—of International Labour Conventions and that is the adverse effect which the breakdown of the hope and expectation in regard to International Labour Conventions would be bound to have upon the future of the League itself. I am hopeful that that is a point which will appeal strongly to the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cecil of Chelwood). I am afraid it is only too clear that if a vote for an International Labour Convention is treated as of little or no account, then also the signature to a League Treaty will come to be regarded lightly. Indeed, if International Labour Conventions cease to be held—and it may come to that—and, if under the procedure which I have described there is a definite system of ratification laid down for votes given for International Labour
298
Conventions and those votes are not being honoured and are treated as of little or no account, then you have struck a blow at the sanctity of League Treaties. Thus you furnish an almost unanswerable excuse for not ratifying them and treating signatures to them lightly also. I have already emphasised that the procedure for ratification of League Treaties and Conventions has never been laid down as in the case of Labour Conventions. I submit that the issues are of great gravity and they might have very grave results if no more satisfactory reply is given than we have had hitherto in regard to this matter. I very much hope that the Government and the noble Viscount Opposite will give a reassuring reply which will be encouraging to those who believe that the International Labour Conventions offer the best hope of raising the standard of life of the workers almost throughout the civilised world. I beg to move.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a question which I think all your Lordships will agree is one of some importance and has built on what he conceives to have been the conduct of His Majesty's Government anticipations of a very grave and serious character. I hope before I conclude the very few observations that I am going to make that shall be able to convince him that he takes altogether a too gloomy and melancholy view of what has occurred. There are really two points, quite separate, to be considered. There is the question of what is the strict Treaty obligation of the Government in respect of a Convention which is adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the International Labour Office, and there is the second quite distinct question—which has nothing really to do with the first, as I think I shall show your Lordships by looking at the Treaty—what is the moral obligation that rests upon any Government whose representative has accepted either by his signature or by public and official statement a particular view which afterwards the Government for various reasons is not prepared fully to endorse? Those are two quite separate questions.
I do not propose to go into the particular cases and the noble Lord, I hope, will forgive me if I do not once again

299
discuss the exact iniquity or propriety of the Government's action with regard to the Lead Paint Convention or even with regard to the Washington Hours Convention. I understand him to raise the question in a much more general way than that and I propose, if I may, to confine myself to a reply on the general aspects of the question. In order to make plain the observations which I desire to make, may I remind the House how the matter really stands with regard to these Labour Conventions? Under the normal practice of International Conventions quite a number of steps have to be taken before you get to the stage of ratification. Normally there is a considerable negotiation. It may take place by the ordinary diplomatic channels, it may take place at Geneva in the discussions in the Assembly or the Council of the League. That is the first stage.
Secondly, you have a Conference called to consider the possibility of entering into—I am talking of the normal procedure apart from the Labour Conventions—a Convention, or it may be a designated meeting of the Assembly of the League, at which the actual Convention that is proposed to be agreed upon shall be discussed and if possible accepted, and that Conference or Assembly does not generally meet until the prior negotiations have shown there is a reasonable prospect of agreement. If that conference stage is successful, there comes a third stage—namely, the signature of the Convention, and that, of course, is a very formal official act by the representative of the Government who is specially empowered to affix his signature to the Convention. Then, after all those stages, comes the ratification of the Convention, which is the formal act by which the Government agree to be internationally bound by this particular Convention and, necessarily, after all these stages have been taken the Government have had plenty of time to consider the matter. They have had the whole thing brought before them, first on the preliminary discussions, then in the Conference, and then before the signature has taken place, and therefore they may be supposed to have made up their minds, and generally have made up their minds, to ratify the Convention in its final form and the ratification is almost always a formal stage.
300
But in these Labour Conventions matters are different, because in order to facilitate the making of them a very special procedure was adopted at Versailles. The preliminary negotiations and Conference and signature were all telescoped together into one proceeding—namely, the proceeding at the Conference, I think it is called, of the Labour Bureau or the Labour Office, and the vote of that Conference—supposing there is a two-thirds majority in favour of the Convention—brings the Convention to the same stage as it would have been brought by the negotiations, Conference and signature under the ordinary procedure.
LORD PARMOOR: It must go to the Bureau before the Conference.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is so. In that sense that takes the place of preliminary negotiations and the Conference takes the place of the special Assembly or special Conference and signature. The point is that you do not have to sign these Conventions. The mere vote of a two-thirds majority, as far as the international aspect of these Conventions is concerned, has the same effect as if signature has taken place. It is quite plain that under that procedure ratification becomes a much more important stage. The Government have not had the opportunity really of considering the Conventions at all in their final stage. They have not the opportunity of considering the Conventions agreed upon in the Labour Office until they have been actually adopted. They are brought before the Conference, discussed, changed and modified, and it is only after that that the Government have any opportunity of considering them. Therefore ratification is necessarily a much more substantial stage than it is in the case of an ordinary Convention.
This becomes the more obvious when it is considered that, as far as the Treaty is concerned, a Government that has voted against the Convention is in precisely the same position as a Government that has voted in its favour. The obligations under the Treaty as far as ratification is concerned rest upon all the Governments who were present whether they have voted for or against the final draft, if it has been passed by a two-thirds majority. With regard to Labour Con-

301
ventions all that depends on Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles. The important clause in that Article is this:—
"Each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference. …"
or at a later period, if necessary—
"bring the recommendation or Draft Convention"—
that is what they undertake to do, the absolute undertaking whether they had voted against it or for it—
"before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action."
I admit that "the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies" is rather a vague phrase. It may mean the ratifying authority, it may mean not only the ratifying authority but the legislative authority if legislation is required to bring the Convention into force, as in these cases it usually would be. But in any case they undertake to bring it before the competent authority and they have to do it whether they voted for it or against it.
I think if one looks at it from that point of view, one must admit that it cannot be a Treaty obligation—I am coming to the moral obligation later—if they voted against it that they should none the less recommend that Parliament should pass it. They voted against it, they did their best to prevent its being enacted, and it cannot be true that they are forced to recommend it to their Parliament. The obligation is to present it to Parliament, if Parliament is the proper authority, or it may be to present it only to the Cabinet if we take the view that it is only the ratifying authority to which it has to be presented. But, whatever authority is meant by the words competent authority, they have to present it and give that authority full opportunity of accepting or rejecting, but they are not bound, as far as the Treaty is concerned, to do more than that.
EARL RUSSELL: Where legislation is required it must surely be the legislative authority.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have always taken that view myself, and therefore I will not argue with the noble Earl whether it is so or not. But what
302
ever view you take—and for the purpose of my present argument it does not matter which authority it is—the obligation is to present it. That is made quite clear, because the Article says in a paragraph further on:—
"If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the Draft Convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon the Member."
So it is quite plain that what is meant is that the matter must be presented to the competent authority as far as the Treaty is concerned, and that is the whole of the obligation which rests upon the Member.
That is the contention I was trying to support in February this year, I think, when the matter was being discussed between Lord Parmoor and myself across the Table. I had not then in my mind, and I was not then considering, the question of moral obligation which I think is important but is really quite distinct from the question of the obligation under the Treaty. I have stated the Treaty position as I understand it. What about the moral obligation? Here, I quite agree that the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so, is on much stronger ground. He says it is not right that a Government at home should ignore altogether the action which its representative has taken in an International Assembly and treat his vote as representing the Government as of no account at all. I should agree with that most fully. I think it a very unfortunate thing, personally, when it becomes necessary not only in this case but in any case for a Government to take a different view from that which is taken by its representative in an International Assembly.
It happened more or less in the case of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. The representative of the British Government, who happened to be myself, took a view in 1923 in favour of that Treaty. It is quite true that I guarded myself very strictly by saying that I was only undertaking to bring it before my Government and that I was not pretending to bind the Government. What happened in fact when it did come before the Government? The Labour Government—perfectly legitimately from their point of view, though, as I individually think, very mistakenly—

303
rejected it. They were quite obviously entitled to do so. The same thing happened with regard to the Protocol in the next year. The noble Lord who represented the Labour Government more or less undertook to accept the Protocol, but when it came to be considered a change of Government had taken place, as your Lordships will recollect. The Government did not agree with him and decided that they could not accept the Protocol. They rejected it.
I am not going into the question whether in these two cases, or in similar cases, they were right or wrong. They may have been perfectly right in both cases, but, of course, I quite admit, and I am sure the Government of the day would admit, that it is in itself an unfortunate thing. It gives an impression of infirmity of purpose and vacillation. No one who has had, as I have, to discuss similar topics before international Assemblies since these events took place can have failed to feel that the unfortunate circumstance of a measure that has been accepted by the representatives of this country in an international Assembly being afterwards rejected, it may be quite rightly, by the Government at home does to some extent weaken the position of the British representatives who are discussing similar matters before international Assemblies. It is obvious that it does. I think that these things are inevitable, unless you are to say that the British Government is always to be bound absolutely by everything that its representative does abroad. I am not able to say that. I think that each case must be judged on its merits.
I really have nothing more to say on this point than that which was said by my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour as long ago as 1925. He was challenged on this very point—not on the question of the date, but merely on the moral obligation arising from the British representative having voted in favour of a Labour Convention. He said:—
"I say for myself—and here I agree entirely with my right hon. friend—"
that was Mr. Fisher, I think—
"that if a Convention is adopted at Geneva by the country it ought to be on the understanding that the Government of the country intends to ratify and will do its very hest to ratify it, but that it should consider itself absolutely bound without some loophole, I think he will himself recognise is not practical politics."
304
I dare say that the phraseology might be improved, but in substance it seems to me to be the true view. Undoubtedly there is a moral obligation to support that which the representative of this country has done abroad, but it is not an absolute obligation. It is a moral obligation subject to this consideration: that the Government, when they have on their own responsibility to consider it, must say what on the whole they think is in the interests of the country. They must not merely say that because their representative has given a certain vote abroad, although they now think that it would be deleterious to the country, they are the none the less going to support his view in defiance of what they consider right and judicious in the matter. I must say that this seems to me to be the common sense of the matter.
The noble Lord opposite suggests that the effect of any such doctrine as I have tried to put before your Lordships would be that the vote carries no obligation. I do not think that this is true. I am sure that I do not intend it to be so, and I do not think that it has been so in the past. I do not think that it is in the least true to say that British Governments have ignored altogether the obligation imposed upon them by the action of their representatives.
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I understood the noble Lord to say that.
LORD ARNOLD: I said that this Government's record was a bad one.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Even so far as this Government is concerned, it is not so. This Government has accepted by far the greater number of Conventions that have been accepted at Geneva.
LORD ARNOLD: Not the Labour ones.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord suggests that this Government is entirely responsible. I am not saying whether what was done about the Hours Convention was right or wrong, but he forgets that this Convention was agreed upon in 1920.
LORD PARMOOR: In 1921.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think I am right in saying that it was agreed in 1920, but I may be wrong. At

305
any rate, whenever it was agreed upon, there has since been a Coalition Government, for which I at any rate have no responsibility, there have been a Conservative Government, a Labour Government and another Conservative Government. To say that this Government is responsible for all that has taken place since 1920 seems to me a most fantastic statement.
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is what I understood the noble Lord to say.
LORD ARNOLD: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord certainly made a great attack upon the attitude of the present Government with regard to the Hours Convention.
LORD ARNOLD: So have many of their own supporters.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It may be that there is a difference of opinion as to what ought to have been done about the Hours Convention. I quite recognise that. But to say that the present Government is solely responsible is absurd. As to the Lead Paint Bill, I am not going into that now. It has been discussed very fully and it is the only one as to which any charge is brought against the Government. There are two other Conventions which this Government or previous Governments have rejected or have not ratified, on technical grounds that everybody admits were, perfectly adequate and proper.
What are the actual facts in regard to the British Government? Since the Labour Office came into being they have agreed upon 23 Conventions. Three of these were agreed upon so recently that the period for ratification has not yet come to an end. That leaves 20, and of these two were voted against by the British Government and two were not voted upon. That brings it down to 16, and of these 16 they have ratified 12 and have failed to ratify only four. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think it is ridiculous to say that these figures show that the British Government have treated their obligations to Geneva as of no importance. The case becomes still stronger if you compare our record
306
with that of other Governments. I do not want to say a word to prejudice them, but I have here a list showing in the case of each country the number of Conventions voted for by the Government delegations that have not so far been ratified. It is a very long list, but I take some of the principal countries. In the case of Germany, 11 Conventions were voted for but not ratified; in the case of France there were 12 in the case of Italy, 9; and in the case of Great Britain the comparable figure is 4.
It seems to me that in these circumstances the noble Lord takes altogether too gloomy a view of what has occurred. In substance I do not disagree with him that there does rest upon the Government a moral obligation to support, if possible, the vote of its representative at Geneva. That moral obligation must depend to some extent on the circumstances in which the vote was given, and it must also depend upon the honest and considered view of the Government as to what is necessary for the good of the country. Subject to this, I think that the Government must do what it thinks right, and I cannot admit for a moment that there is anything in the record of the British Government of which it needs to be ashamed.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, I should be the last person to complain of the noble Lord returning to what has become a well-worn theme in this House. I can tell him at once that he will have the gratitude of the International Labour organisation for raising these matters in debate, because the International Labour Office complains most that it is working in the dark. What it most desires is to have public discussion and Parliamentary criticism, and, so far as the noble Lord enables it to secure that discussion in this House, I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of the International Labour organisation in saying that it will appreciate his efforts. On the other hand, I think, if I may say so, that he goes much too far in his exaltation of dogma and in his insistence upon cast-iron regulations. What has been proved in the history of the International Labour organisation is that what it most requires is practical elasticity and general understanding.
The noble Lord spoke as if that was not recognised by the International

307
Labour Office. On the contrary, they have now remodelled the procedure of the International Labour organisation on those lines. As the noble Lord knows, the present procedure is laid down in Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles. Before a subject is submitted for discussion at the International Labour Conference, a resolution has to be adopted in regard to it by the governing body. Then there is a long inquiry by means of questionnaires, and consideration within itself, before the Draft Convention is submitted to the Conference, which is, so to speak, the Parliamentary incarnation of the League on the industrial side. After the Second Reading discussion these Conventions are referred to Commissions, as they are called abroad, and then a Draft Convention is brought up at the end of the Conference and may or may not be adopted by the two-thirds majority. In working that was found to produce a great deal of confusion, or rather, perhaps I might put it, of neglect on the part of the authorities to whom the Convention stands referred. They need not necessarily have been aware of the form that the Convention was to take, or been able to instruct their delegates as to how exactly they were to vote in regard to it. That very thing happened in regard to the White Lead Convention to which the noble Lord has several times alluded. I was in the chair at that Conference, and well recollect it. Sir Montague Barlow, the British representative, who was then Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, himself agreed only subject to the reservation that he had not got the assent of his Government. I had his assurance on the point.
LORD ARNOLD: Those are not the words he used.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I prefer that assurance to the secondhand testimony of the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so.
LORD ARNOLD: Those are not the words he used.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: He said he was voting in his individual capacity, and he agreed in that sense. That seems to me to carry still further the argument used by the noble Viscount in front of me. But the result has been that the organisation has thought it wise to remodel its own
308
procedure. In future in the first year a proposal under discussion by way of Convention will not be finally adopted and in draft form will stand referred back to the competent authorities mentioned in the Treaty of Peace. Then, of course, the Governments concerned may be able to formulate their views more exactly, or, if necessary, to suggest amendments, which can be debated in the next session, and will form part of the Convention when submitted to the Conference. Surely, as the noble Viscount says, that is an admission that the procedure was not elastic enough, and that certain amendments had to be made in order that it might work more smoothly. I cannot conceive anything wiser or more expedient. The noble Lord opposite interrupted the noble Viscount when he dealt with the question of Parliamentary assent. He knows as well as any of us that in many of the countries concerned the assent of Parliamentary action is not necessarily needed: Conventions can be carried out by administrative action and by way of official Order. That varies with the constitutional arrangements of the country concerned. The main point that I want to urge is this: considering that a new procedure has been adopted, the disadvantages which were inevitable under the unduly rigid articles of the Treaty as they have been applied are not likely to occur again. It is of no use, I think, belittling the work of the Conference or of the Office, having that in view.
I repeat that had it not been for the steady sympathy and support of this country throughout its whole existence it is very doubtful whether the international Labour Office would be in existence to-day. In every way we have contributed to uphold it, and I am bound to say that on all the Commissions that sat there during the sessions which I have spent at Geneva the British representatives have played a very worthy part, and as often as not have been nominated to the chairs of the Committees. That is a proof of the confidence which is reposed in them by their fellow delegates. By all means let us debate these matters, but the noble Lord himself will see that he is not called upon to defend arrangements that have already been abandoned, but rather to point out the necessity which existed for allowing latitude,

309
if necessary, for amendment of the functions under which contracts were entered into and approved at the Sessions of the International Labour Conference.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not for a moment desire to controvert what the noble Viscount has just said in regard to amendments in procedure in connection with this International Labour Conference at Geneva. On the contrary, I think my noble friend Lord Arnold, as well as myself, would only be too willing to welcome any alteration in procedure which might improve the condition and authority of these International Labour Conference suggestions, after experience has been gained as to the working of the system. Also I desire to recognise the importance of the opinion of the noble Viscount, because, as we know, he has on more than one important occasion—I think on three occasions—himself been the Chairman of the Conference. May I bring the debate back to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood? I think that the answer which he gave to Lord Arnold was certainly not satisfactory. We are glad to see the noble Viscount again in the House, particularly on occasions of tins kind. I know how much the House often is indebted to his advice upon these matters, but there are one or two points in the statement which he made this afternoon to which I take exception.
In the first place he brought back to my memory the objection which he took himself to dealing with ratification of Conventions in the Assembly in the same way as ratifications of Conventions adopted by the National Labour Office. I am still of opinion that the view which I expressed was accurate, but that does not matter. He expressed an entirely different view. He said you must not have regard to the procedure in the Assembly when you are dealing with the ratification of a Convention of the independent Labour Office. The noble Viscount pointed out that on two important occasions the views expressed by this country to the Assembly were altered with an alteration of Government. I do not quite agree with the way in which he put it, but that does not matter.
310
What I want to ask the noble Viscount is this: Having regard to that risk—which is not an advantage, of course, to international meetings—might we not consider the much less political character of the representatives sent to the Assembly at Geneva by some of the other countries? Take France for example. The representatives of France are not changed every time there is a change of Government. Several of them, to my knowledge and to the knowledge of the noble Viscount, have been there for a large number of years, quite irrespective of the particular Government in power. I do hope that this matter will be very carefully considered. It is a very important matter. It gives an influence both to continuity and to knowledge which you cannot get if you change the complexion of your representation each time there is a change in the political Party Government in our country. That is a point which wants great consideration. But I do not think that it has much to do with the matter which was raised by the noble Lord. Nor do I wish to question what the noble Viscount has said. I agree that there, too, continuity is of great importance; it gives a status and a consideration, an influence and an authority which you really cannot get in any other way
Now let me deal with the particular point which the noble Lord raised. In reference to that I think that in substance the noble Viscount agrees with what the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said. He perhaps puts it in somewhat different language, but in substance there is agreement, and it is very important that on these international questions we should, if possible, get agreement on both sides of the House. I am one of those who think that political Party conflicts are carried to an extreme in this country, but at any rate in international matters it is as well, as far as we can, to understand one another, and, if we can, to agree with one another.
What were the two points which the noble Viscount took? There is no difference between him and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, that the Treaty obligation comes from the two-thirds majority, and, as the noble Viscount has said, supposing that your representative has not been in the two-thirds majority, there is no moral

311
obligation upon the Government of this country to carry out what the Conference has decided. That is quite clear. But that was not the point of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. His point was this. Supposing your representative did vote in favour—and even, as the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, has said, after communication and further consideration, and when the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out—is there not something of a moral obligation upon the competent authority, which would be the Government of this country for the time being, to proceed to ratification? Do not let us get troubled about the competent authority point. I believe in every country the competent authority for ratification is the Government.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Oh no, it is very often the Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: Well, the Parliament, as here, gives its assent, but Parliament is not generally the ratifying authority. However, I will not go into that discussion. My view of what is meant by the competent authority is that it is the ratifying authority, and the ratifying authority in this country is undoubtedly the Government. Parliament has not got the ratifying authority. Parliament considers the matter, and it is very unusual to ratify without Parliamentary assent; but, as a matter of fact, ratification is a question for the Executive, and not for the Legislature. What does the noble Viscount say? He says that in such a case there is a moral obligation, and he goes further and thinks that the moral obligation is a wide one—that it is a moral obligation which ought to be observed unless you leave a loophole for what he calls exceptional cases. That is really going the whole length of the argument of Lord Arnold. The loophole in exceptional cases, of course, must not be extended to a reconsideration of a matter which has already been adopted, and to which the representatives of this country have already given their assent. I do not think any one would suggest that that is right. If you get all those considerations concurring then there is a very strong moral obligation on this country to go forward to ratification. I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, would for a moment differ from that. And the more the noble Viscount
312
presses the view of improved machinery, improved mechanism and procedure, the stronger does he make the case, because he takes away the possibility—I will not say the probability—of what might be called a snatch vote or a snatch idea in a particular case. Therefore I welcome what has been said.
Reference has been made to the number of these International Labour Conventions ratified in this country and in other countries. I had the statistics the other day, and stated them; I do not wish to go into them again. But take one important illustration—the Hours Convention. I do not quite know how it stands now, but, as it did stand, all these important countries—Germany, Italy, France, among others—ratified subject to this, that their ratification would not become binding unless and until this country had also ratified. I do not want to go into matters of controversy, but that was the form of their ratification. Personally, I am grateful for the discussion which has taken place, and I think that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has been amply justified, and to a large extent accepted in what the noble Viscount has said.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, there are exceptions to every rule. First of all, let me bring before your Lordships, with reference to this lead paint question, the instance of the Forth Bridge. When they finish painting the Forth Bridge at one end it is time enough to think about painting the other end. I have crossed that bridge very often, and I have seen the workmen washing their hands with soap and water, which is provided, before they begin to eat their luncheon. I will give another instance. I am an early riser, and at present Claridge's Hotel is being painted with the very strongest lead paint. The workmen who are doing that are allowed to go to the washing basins down below, before they take their food, and I have been down there myself and have seen these men washing their hands most carefully before they eat their early morning breakfast. Those are two exceptions that I wish to mention. There are facilities to workmen to wash their hands, and if they wash their hands properly, as they ought to do, they will not suffer from lead paint poisoning with their food.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, because these matters, I think it will be agreed, are of great importance, and probably will not be raised again in your Lordships' House for some time. Before I come to them, perhaps I might be permitted to say in reply to the noble Earl who has just spoken that the views which he has expressed as to the salutary effect of washing the hands are not shared by Sir Thomas Legge, who probably knows much more about this matter than anybody else in this country. He has pointed out all the regulations which would be essential in order to make it reasonably certain—and even then there would be much doubt—that no harm would come from lead paint if they were all conformed to, but there are so many that they would not be carried out. Therefore the regulations—which, after all, are more for interior work than exterior work—are, I am afraid, likely to prove of little or no avail to prevent suffering from lead paint poisoning.
I would like to say at once that I am truly grateful to the noble Viscount. I consider his speech was a great advance, if he will allow me to say so, on the previous position taken up by certain members of the Government and is in pleasant contrast to some of the statements that have been made. For that I thank him very much. He has stressed strongly that there is, generally speaking, a very great moral obligation in regard to a vote given at Geneva for an International Labour Convention, and that is all to the good. Taking two or three of the points in detail, which I think are of sufficient importance, I would like to point out first, with regard to the competent authority, that whatever the position may be in respect to the ratification of League Treaties or League Conventions, I think it is perfectly clear that in reference to International Labour Conventions the competent authority which was intended must, at any rate in the vast majority of cases, be Parliament, because most of these Conventions require legislation. Indeed, the noble Viscount himself did not take up the position that it was not an obligation upon the Government to put the recommendation before Parliament. He said he had some doubt what the words meant.
314
I think it has become increasingly recognised that Parliament is the body, intended and that is being recognised in all countries where there is a Parliament. That was the intention in regard to the special Commission on the, Peace Conference and, so far as this Government are concerned, their own speakers, particularly in reference to the Lead Paint Bill, have on more than one occasion indicated in fact that the competent authority was Parliament. It seems to me that otherwise the matter really is reduced almost to absurdity; for it surely cannot be laid down that the delegates are to come back and merely report to the Governments who send them what has happened. That, it seems to me, would come to little or nothing. The noble Viscount, in quoting from Article 405 said that if on a recommendation no action is taken then the obligation is at an end, or words to that effect. I think what was intended there was that if, on a recommendation, the maority of Parliament, having been advised by their own Government to do that for which the delegates voted, should reject the recommendation there is then no further obligation. I think it must mean that: otherwise it seems to me you are getting into a position almost of absurdity. The clear intention was that in the ordinary case the Convention would be held at Geneva, the recommendation would come back to the home Government, the home Government would advise Parliament to ratify in the ordinary course, and there would be an end.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I am sure he agrees with me. This is a very important matter and we must not get wrong about it. The Treaty obligation, whatever it is, rests on those who take part in the Conference, whether they voted for or whether they voted against the Convention. I think that is quite clear, as long as there is a two-third majority in favour of the Convention.
LORD ARNOLD: That is so, but that is not the point with which I was dealing. Strange though it may appear, it may be held there is an obligation on a country whose delegates actually voted against the Convention of still bringing it before Parliament. I understood the noble Viscount to argue that in case

315
a country voted for the Convention, and the matter was brought before Parliament and was defeated, even after recommendation of the Government, that then nothing more would be done—that nothing more would be done if a Convention has been adopted and the country definitely refuses to ratify it. That is not my case. My case is that the Government has recommended Parliament to do precisely the opposite to that for which its delegates voted.
In regard to the records of other countries the noble and learned Lord behind me, Lord Parmoor, has spoken about them, and I do not want to go into the figures now. After all, in Great Britain, we have rather prided ourselves upon the fact that we are more or less the pioneers in these movements for raising the standard of life and, therefore, our record should be better than that of other countries. It may be better than the record of some countries, but there are, I believe, one or two countries whose record is better than ours. I do not want to go into those matters again. I do think the record lately in regard to the two very important Conventions which have been mainly at issue has been anything but satisfactory. As regards the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which the noble Viscount quoted more than once, of course the procedure there is a different one. That is a League matter: it is not under the International Labour Office procedure and, therefore, the analogy with anything that I have said is not really a complete one.
I now come in conclusion to the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham. He said that Sir Montague Barlow had made certain qualifications. I have dealt with that at great length before. It is true that at the time when he gave his vote Sir Montague Barlow said he did so on the basis of the compromise being a satisfactory one acceptable to all. Those are the words he used. It would take me a long time to go through that matter again. I have done it twice and have never been replied to. I pointed out that it was a general qualification and that Sir Montague Barlow, at the same time that he gave the vote, made a speech most enthusiastically in favour of the Convention, that when he came back to this country he attended a dinner at the
316
Savoy Hotel where he was again most enthusiastic, and that there was no question there of any qualification or of any possibility or likelihood of non-ratification. When Sir Montague Barlow himself came into the House of Commons in 1923 for the long discussion on this matter he did refer to that qualification, I admit, but he did not turn the Convention down; on the contrary, his main basis in regard to the qualification was the Norman Committee. But the Norman Committee, whatever else it said, did really recommend ratification. It cannot now be brought up that that seriously affects the vote which Sir Montague Barlow gave in 1921. To do the Government justice they have not on the last two or three occasions on which this matter has been debated brought up the qualification. They have realised there was no substance in it and have said nothing about it. It has been left to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Burnham) to bring it up.
Finally, I would say this. Surely a vote is a vote. You cannot do business at Geneva or anywhere else by the qualification of a vote. That is the main point. Whatever the noble Viscount may say, it does not alter the fact that the proposal was made by this country itself. That is where I think the seriousness of the position in regard to lead paint is so strongly emphasised. It will not avail a Member of Parliament when an Election comes to explain upon the platform in regard to a certain vote he had given that he had much doubt about it and that he should not really be held responsible for the vote. I am trying to get a better realisation of the sanctity of the votes given at Geneva and it is because I think that has been achieved to a considerable extent to-day that I thank the noble Viscount. In the circumstances I will not press for Papers. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres

317
Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th February last. It has been arranged that in August and September next manŒuvres will be carried out by way of training—not regular manŒuvres but training between Divisions. It will be necessary to put the ManŒuvres Act into force in South Oxfordshire for the First and Second Aldershot Divisions and in East Kent for the Fourth Division. The draft Order has been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House for the requisite time, and if your Lordships agree to the Motion which I venture to lay before you it will be submitted
318
to His Majesty in Council as soon as possible after His Majesty's reply to the Address has been received.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military ManŒuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th February last.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at Seven o'Clock.