Lords Sitting of 5 February 1936

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD.
Hugh Montague Baron Trenchard, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., D.S.O., having been created Viscount Trenchard of Wolfeton in the County of Dorset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Harold Ernest, Lord Bishop of Newcastle—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD GLENRAVEL.
Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Baronet, K.B.E., having been created Baron Glenravel of Kensington in the County of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Knutsford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EAST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name in respect of the East Lothian County Council Bill, and that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (EX TENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
WATER RESOURCES AND SUPPLIES.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have passed the following Resolution: That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on measures for the better conservation and organisation of water resources and supplies in England and Wales; and to desire the concurrence of this House.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Firearms Act, 1920, and the Firearms Act, 1934, and in connection therewith to amend subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Ad, 1933; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Faversham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Shops Act, 1912, to provide for its application to the lending of books for reward, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE MARQUESS OF READING.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I think before we pass to the other business on the Paper it will be in accordance with your Lordships' wish that we should turn aside to
426
say a few words by way of tribute to one, Lord Reading, who played so important a part in many spheres of government and who held so important a place in the public life of the country. The career of Lord Reading was a remarkable one, not least because, in an especially true sense, he was the sole architect of it. He started with few of the advantages that have helped other men in the winning of their place in the life of the nation, and had indeed little advantage other than the great advantage of his own character and his own qualities. So endowed, he was not slow, as many of your Lordships who were distinguished in the same profession would avow, to win for himself great eminence at the Bar, where, I suppose, he held a place that in some ways was unique. That position at the Bar, your Lordships will remember, he crowned in due course by occupying in turn the positions of Attorney-General and, finally, of Lord Chief Justice.
Then, when he had reached an age at which most men would have felt they had established the right to leisure, the War came, bringing for him, as, of course, for many others, new claims and new opportunities. He was largely responsible for the wise guiding of the financial policy of this country at the beginning of the War, and what was then done, and wisely done, owed much to his sagacity and to his knowledge. In pursuance of the same task he was sent on more than one special Mission to the United States, the difficulty and delicacy of which are not perhaps always so clearly remembered to-day as they were evident at the time he undertook them. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that by what he was able to contribute to the discharge of these Missions he laid this country and the Allies under a very heavy debt of gratitude. There followed for him five very strenuous years in the post of His Majesty's Viceroy in India, years that happened to coincide with exceptional difficulties—difficulties political, difficulties economic and difficulties financial. We here in this House during the last few years have had some direct contact with those difficulties from a distance, but he dealt with them at first hand, and I can indeed speak from my own personal knowledge of how great in his day those difficulties were. He showed

427
in his treatment of them, I think, how it was possible to combine great patience and great powers of conciliation on the one hand with, on the other, a determination to discharge his duty for the securing of justice and order in the country for which he was made responsible. And that great and wise interest in India Lord Reading never lost.
Those of us who were on the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament considering the Bill that became an Act last year remember how assiduous, in spite of many other claims, he was in his attendance on the work of that Committee, and that Committee itself only succeeded, for him, the manifold and great demands made by the previous Round-Table Conferences on which he had played so leading a part. Whether what he did secured the agreement of all men in the State or not, all must agree that he had played a very vital and formative part in the Round-Table Conference by the contribution that he there made to the work of drawing the future Constitution of India. Many of your Lordships will remember the last speech that he made in this House on that subject when he was suffering under grave physical disability, but none the less felt that it was his duty to place your Lordships in possession of his considered view on that subject.
Such a record as that is plain evidence of quite outstanding gifts. In this House, of which we remember he was Leader for a time after he had joined the National Government in 1931, we were accustomed to his regular presence when any business, important or less important, was under consideration. We were accustomed to the great courtesy and great fairness that he brought to all our public debates. He was of course, as in a sense we all are, a Party politician, but I think he never liked controversy for controversy's sake. He never conducted any controversy with us, it seemed, with any desire but, by means of controversy, to reach the truth. He exhibited constantly a great power of understanding of the case of the side to which he was opposed, and from that, as I myself always felt, flowed the great power of persuasiveness that he was fortunate enough to enjoy. Along with the great intellectual power that we admired and the power that he possessed of marshalling the facts in his argument,
428
he seemed to many of us to be singularly free of the danger that besets us all when we are convinced of the truth, or at least the desirability, of any case—the temptation to evade or to shut our eyes to awkward, unpalatable facts. Lord Reading never made that mistake. He faced all the facts. He was conscious that the facts would remain as they were, and he was o accordingly singularly prudent in reaching a decision; but once he had reached a decision, having weighed all the difficulties, he was equally firm in adhering to it. And few men, I think, had greater capacity than he for seeing all round a question before reaching a final decision.
I have said a word of him as a great lawyer, and it is obviously impossible for me to appraise the contribution that he made in that sphere of our national life. Nor is it within my power or my duty to weigh the services that he rendered to the political Party of which he was so distinguished a member. But I am quite certain that no cause to which he gave his allegiance could possibly have had a more persuasive advocate or a more loyal supporter. Many had occasion to know during these last years how ungrudingly he devoted all his time and all his labour to the cause of his Jewish co-religionists, and they are not likely to forget how much they owed to his unflinching support in difficult days. By them, I suppose, his loss will be felt as the loss of a great representative of the Jewish race and the Jewish cause. By many of us—I would wish if I might to include myself in that number—his loss will be felt as that of a generous friend and a wise counsellor; and by this House and by the State at large his loss will be felt as that of a devoted and most distinguished public servant.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is my privilege on behalf of my noble friends to associate myself and them with the tribute which has been paid by the Leader of the House to a valued colleague and a man who had become distinguished in many departments of the nation's life. It may be that only members of his own profession can properly estimate his place as an advocate and as a lawyer and as a Judge. My own knowledge of him is limited to his work as a Party Leader, and in that regard may I express the special sympathy of my noble friends and myself to the members of the

429
Liberal Party which he led with such distinction. But it is as Party Leader and as statesman and as Viceroy that members of the general public, including myself, mostly knew him.
I was privileged to work with him closely for more than two years at the Round-Table Conference and in the Indian Joint Select Committee to which reference has been made. It was a Committee in which the quality of a man's mind was tested to the full and where the value of his judgment was very quickly appraised. I think I am right in saying on behalf of all his colleagues that our daily experience of him revealed his close knowledge of India, his wise counsel and, above all, his deep sympathy with the aspirations of the Indian people. I am personally quite impartial in my judgment of Lord Reading, for only in a very few instances did he support proposals that were made by my colleagues and myself on that Committee, but I knew that his hesitations about what we proposed were not concerned with fundamental objections out were based upon questions of extent and expediency. We wanted more of what he wanted than he thought it expedient at that time to concede. His own people had a rightful pride in the position that he had attained among his fellow citizens. They had joy in the general esteem in which he was held and that justified their love of, and loyalty to, the principles of our English State, in which racial discrimination is neither admired nor practiced.
How can we account for a career so striking as that of Lord Reading? My Lords, we can very rarely estimate with reasonable accuracy the extent to which even in our own lives the elements of luck and opportunity account for our small successes, but I personally believe it to be true that when these incalculable hazards have been allowed for the achievements of must men who have risen to eminence in public affairs represent not merely a lucky turn of fortune's fickle wheel but also, and perhaps predominantly, native gifts carefully developed and wisely used. I feel that what makes a career such as that of the late Lord Reading, to whom we are to-day paying tribute, is in the main just industry polished until it shines. We shall miss him as a colleague in this House and my noble friends and myself join most
430
carnestly in the tribute that has been paid to him.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, it is to be regretted that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, is unable to pay that tribute to the memory of his colleague and our friend the late Marquess of Reading that he hoped to be able to pay this afternoon. It is not easy to dwell on the magnitude of the services Lord Reading rendered to the Empire, or to Great Britain, or even to this House. It is difficult for me to dissociate from the manifold achievements of Lord Reading his self as a man. The variety of positions which he occupied is almost without parallel in the history of this country, and the qualities which he possessed—some of them at any rate—are unique and, if I may repeat the description, almost without parallel.
His phenomenal success at the Bar has been referred to by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. From 1898 to 1910 his conduct of cases and his success at the Bar were quite phenomenal and left the world wondering. In 1904 he entered the House of Commons and for a third of a century he was recognised as a statesman of very great value. As Law Officer of the Crown and as Lord Chief Justice he did invaluable work, and throughout this period he showed himself to be a pre-eminent statesman. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House alluded to his interest in India. As Viceroy it was his one great object to try to remove all causes of discontent. The abolition of the Excise Duty on cotton and the reduction of the Salt Duty were instances of how he tried to show that he was a real friend of the Indian peoples. He once said to me: "My difficulties in India were greatly enhanced because of my training. I was trained to deal with questions collectively and to regard precedent. When I went to India I had to face the individual responsibility of taking innumerable decisions of very great moment." I believe that success attended his efforts in that country, and I am very glad that Viscount Halifax has paid a tribute to the excellence of the work which he accomplished. As art Ambassador his term of service was very short, but again I think he showed that lie possessed almost unrivalled qualities as a diplomat. As a financier his help

431
was invaluable at Washington and throughout the period of the War.
He had ambition, and I think he was ready to accept power and place. His achievements are inscribed upon the archives of our history. It is not upon them, however, that I desire to dwell this afternoon but rather upon the great nobility of his character. He had, as has already been said, a passionate attachment to his own faith. He was loyal to, his race. He loathed and hated persecution, intolerance and suffering and did everything he could to mitigate any of those things. He was influenced by strong emotion, and yet those of us who knew him intimately realised that whilst he might show indignation he never lost his temper or his self-control. He was one of the most rapid thinkers I have ever met. No matter how complicated the subject he saw it in all its bearings. He seized with alacrity the main point and he came to a wise decision, surmounted difficulties and achieved a solution of the problem. In speech he was endowed with great fluency and a resonant voice. He was never abusive in the words that he used, and was never vindictive. On the contrary, he was always sympathetic, conciliatory and helpful, and easily approached, even by the very humblest of those who sought his aid.
But I think his greatest characteristic was his devotion to duty. His health suffered, as was apparent to many of us in this House, in consequence of his constant attendance at our sittings. Whenever any question of duty arose he never considered his own health, whether the duty was political, or industrial, or was laid upon him as Warden of the Cinque Ports. He attended to his engagements in spite of personal inconvenience. He had a great charm of manner, he was very patient, and he was full of tact, but the great gift that he possessed was that of being able to make warm friendships. That was due to the lovable nature with which he was endowed. He secured the affection and respect of everyone with whom he came in contact. On these Benches we shall miss him. We feel that the world is richer by -his life, and we shall all retain a vivid and happy memory of the example of unselfish devotion to duty which he set to everyone in this House. I cannot sit down, my Lords, without expressing, as I believe I can express, on behalf of those
432
whom I have the privilege of addressing, the deepest sympathy with Lady Reading and the members of his family in their overwhelming sorrow.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY ELECTRIC SERVICES.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE had given Notice that he would call attention to the present electric service on the Southern Railway, and especially to that between London and Hastings and between Brighton and Hastings, and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is brought forward chiefly in the interests of the people of Hastings, St. Leonards and Bexhill. Since I put it on the Paper I have had the benefit of a communication from the representatives of Lord Olivier, who sits on the other side of the House. His part of the country, Mid-Sussex, has equally strong objections to the Southern Railway. As your Lordships know, within recent months the Southern Railway have electrified their line between Hastings and London (Victoria). We were all led to expect that when this was accomplished we in the south of Sussex would have the great benefit of a much-improved train service. These hopes, I regret to say, have not been fulfilled. In the first place, all the trains run from Hastings to London now go right out of their way to Eastbourne and then conic up to London. They are very slow trains. They take an hour to get to Haywards Heath and a further hour to get to Victoria. If conditions are not all good, they take over two hours for that journey.
Our chief grievance is against a two-coach service of electric trains which the Southern Railway has put on in the south. It runs weekdays and Sundays between Hastings and Brighton—two little coaches. It stops at every station and halt between Hastings and Eastbourne, and the same train then stops at every station and halt between Eastbourne and Brighton. It takes anything from one hour and a quarter to one hour and twenty minutes to get to Brighton. There is no lavatory accommodation whatsoever upon the train, either in the third class or in the first. I have written frequently to the superintendent of the line and have had an

433
interview with his assistant. I have pointed out that Bexhill and St. Leonards and Hastings contain many old and infirm people as well as women and young children, and that they use the trains. I asked him: "Why is it that we had full lavatory facilities on every train that went to Brighton or anywhere else in the steam days, and now, because you have electric trains, we have them no longer? "He answered: "Oh, well, if anybody doesn't feel well, he can get out of the train at one of the stations." I ask you, my Lords! Here is a train taking an hour and a quarter. Supposing an old lady travels on it with two children, and that one of them is ill; is she to get out on a winter afternoon, with rain and wind beating on her, at a wayside station, to run about looking for accommodation that ought to be provided in the train?
Recently I have been in Brittany. I have travelled there considerably, both by ordinary trains and by auto-railcars. All these trains and cars were provided with lavatory facilities. I come back to this country and travel on the Southern Railway, and the only feeling I have is one of disgust, and pity for the people who have to put up with such a train. I have had a long interview with Mr. England, the assistant manager of the line, and lie promised to bring up the objections, which he quite saw, before his directors, but so far nothing has been done. I have therefore brought this Motion forward in the hope that something may be done and that it may be made compulsory for every railway to provide lavatory accommodation on every train making over an hour's journey.
If your Lordships will excuse my reading it, this is what Lord Olivier says. He complains very decidedly about the train service in his part of the country. Speaking of an interview I had with two friends of his yesterday, they say that they much doubt the wisdom of giving the Southern Railway a free hand to spend the Government grant as they like; it should be given subject to certain conditions. They suggest that trains leaving and arriving at the six London termini should be re-arranged and coordinated, so that each terminus can be used to its full capacity. Four pairs of metals, for fast and slow traffic, should be constructed forthwith between London and Brighton; and a similar improvement should be undertaken on the Mid-
434
Sussex line as soon as the traffic demands it. Certain trains on the Mid-Sussex line should terminate at Waterloo instead of London Bridge. They also ask for a guarantee that the over-all times of at least four down and four up trains between London, Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Chichester shall not exceed 1 hour 30 minutes. I apologise for reading that, but it is what the representatives of Lord Olivier have put before me. It is astonishing that a railway of that kind, dealing with places which are known to contain invalids of both sexes, old people and young children, should put on a train service with two coaches such as I have described. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will find some means of bringing pressure to bear on the Southern Railway to improve matters. I beg to move.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, as no other noble Lord apparently desires to address your Lordships, I might perhaps as a senior director of the Southern Railway make a few remarks on what this House has just heard from the noble Lord. Perhaps I might begin with suggesting that the question which seems most to agitate him, that of lavatory accommodation on local trains, seems hardly one which deserves the dignity of a debate in Parliament; but putting that aside, and merely saying that it might be more suitable to bring such matters before an annual general meeting of the Railway or even to discuss it with some official of the company concerned, I will make a few observations to-night with regard to what Lord Kilmaine has said. As I understand it, his two chief complaints are that a steam journey in his neighbourhood, Bexhill, Brighton and Hastings, takes if anything longer now than it did, which is not untrue for good reasons with regard to certain trains. The other complaint which he makes is in respect of what we have heard about lavatory accommodation.
First, as regards the speed and management of trains in that district, I would point out that there are considerably more than twice as many trains under electrification than under steam. The number of services between Brighton and Bexhill has been considerably more than doubled under electric operations. It has also to be borne in mind that in all

435
local services—they are distinct from express services—it has not been the custom of any railway in Great Britain, so far as I know, to supply lavatory accommodation where the trains have to run only for travellers of short distances and stop frequently at stations.
LORD KILMAINE: The noble Lord talks about short distances. Is he aware that it takes one and a quarter hours to travel from Brighton to Hastings and that the trains only stop at stations for about one minute or less?
LORD ROCKLEY: I do not know whether the noble Lord would suggest that such lavatory accommodation ought to be supplied, for instance, on every train on the Metropolitan and. District Railways. On such trains it is far more important to have ample seating accommodation. The general opinion of railway management is that in all such cases it is better to provide ample seating accommodation for short distance trains than this accommodation of the sort which the noble Lord desires. After all, in these matters experience is a guide. Further, if we are to go into a wider question, such as that which I think Lord Olivier has suggested to him, I hope he will bear in mind the interests of some of the railway deferred shareholders who have been paid nothing for some years owing to the extreme difficulty of making the railway services pay. What I think is most essential is the question of broad policy rather than the minor matters such as have been brought before the House.
I should have wished that all the things which our critics desire could be supplied if they were reasonable, but I am sure that the House and the noble Lord must recognise that the railways have had a very difficult time recently. They are always being pressed for increased facilities, more stations and other requirements, and the more those requests are endeavoured to be acceded to, the more difficult it becomes, in view of competition, to provide adequate facilities. I hope that some of the things which the noble Lord desires may in time, if thought of real public advantage, be given, but I am sure that in the interests of the shareholders and I need hardly say also in the interests of the public and nation quite as much, we cannot go in for these small improvements (if they be improvements)
436
when so many large issues are at stake. I do not know that I can say much more on this Motion. I have tried to point out the lines of broad policy in railway management, and if those are administered and judged by experts I do not think there should be much to complain of.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, it is with the greatest regret that I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. It appears to me to be full of the ordinary excuses which I have been listening to for the whole of my life from railway officials. He might have taken every word straight from the mouth of his General Manager. I will not say more on that, but it really does fill me with regret to see that administrators who have such a company in their hands cannot rise and grasp the fact that the public are disgusted with the total lack of trouble that the officials under them take to carry out the interests of the public. Railway officials are totally indifferent to the interests of the public. They care nothing whatever except about themselves.
LORD ROCKLEY: If the noble Lord's belief is anything of this character, I can only say that his own mind is in the deepest possible fog.
LORD MONKSWELL: I disagree with the noble Lord. Take, for instance, the question of punctuality. That is utterly ignored by the railway officials, and I shall be very much interested if the noble Lord, or one of the Southern Railway Committee whom I see sitting on the Benches opposite, can tell us a little about that. What have they done about punctuality? I hear of the most extra ordinary things that are going on. I happen to have the advantage of having studied railways all my life, and I know intimately a great number of railway officials, not only in this country but in other countries. Indeed, I think I am safe in saying that I know more about railways than the whole of the Southern Railway directors sitting here to-day.
I think the sort of line that railway officials take may be well illustrated by the fact, which I believe is perfectly true, that one of the Southern Railway officials has lately, in public, given vent to the view that railway dividends have now dwindled so much that it is unnecessary to consider that railway shareholders

437
have any longer any interest in their holdings. I was told the man's name, but I will not add anything more about it at present. That is the sort of line that these people take. I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning, that there does not seem to be the slightest conception in the minds of railway directors or officials of taking, or indeed the slightest desire to take, any real steps in the interests of the public, and I very much associate myself with everything said by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, this is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has complained of the Southern Railway.
LORD MONKSWELL: It is the first time I have ever got an answer.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Your Lords-Ships at times have had to be very patient with the noble Lord, but I think I am right in saying that elsewhere railway shareholders have not been quite so patient. The noble Lord says first of all that railway directors and railway officials have absolutely no regard for the comfort or the interests of the public, and on the other side he quotes a rather vague statement by somebody unknown that they have equally no regard for the shareholders' interests. He backs up the request of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmaine, for a doubling of the line to Brighton, which would be an extremely expensive and unnecessary undertaking. I do not quite know what he really is driving at.
LORD MONKSWELL: Perhaps I might say I had not really considered the doubling of the line to Brighton. What I really meant was the actual service that is run on the existing line.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: So far as the service on the existing line is concerned, both the noble Lord and Lord Kilmaine seem agreed that no attention is paid to the needs of the public. I have not got the figures, but a very large number of people are increasingly using the new electrified services, and that is the reason why we are finding it necessary to extend our electrification. Further, I may say that such is the increase in the use of the electrified lines that we could not possibly have carried the traffic that we carry today if those lines were still run by steam.
LORD MONKSWELL: I wish the noble Earl would amplify that. I would very much like to hear about that.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I have stated the facts, and there is nothing I could amplify. We have been told at the annual general meeting the number of people who travel on the railway, and these questions are matters which are very much better dealt with either by the company itself or by the shareholders at the annual general meeting, and not in your Lordships' House.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I am afraid there is nothing I could usefully add on behalf of the Government. The matters we are discussing concern the detailed internal arrangements of the railway company, and I can only say that His Majesty's Government have no wish to interfere in that respect.
LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, I will withdraw the Motion, but before I do so I may say that we down in the south cannot see why facilities that were available with the steam trains are now denied us with the electric trains, which take longer. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name in regard to the Indian Orders Committee. Your Lordships will remember that this Committee was set up in order to deal with Special Orders under the Government of India Act. It was thought to be more appropriate to send them to this Committee rather than that they should go to the Special Orders Committee. The noble Marquess to whom such eloquent reference has been made this afternoon has unfortunately passed from among us, and it is necessary to appoint a successor. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, will probably occupy the position in his Party held by the noble Marquess the late Lord Reading and that he would therefore take his place on this Committee. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, who has represented the Liberal Party in the National Government, he is now taking his place on the Benches behind me, and I think

439
your Lordships will agree that an independent member of the House should occupy the position which he formerly held. For these reasons I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Ker (M. Lothian) and the Lord Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine) be named of the Committee in the place of the Marquess of Reading (deceased) and the Lord Hutchison of Montrose.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT IN SHANGHAI.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information regarding the alleged use of force against unarmed student demonstrators by the police (including British subjects) in the International Settlement in Shanghai in December, 1935; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make an apology, for placing this Motion down at such very short notice, but I did give notice to the noble Earl who represents the Foreign Office. The object of the Motion is to suggest to him the information which it might be desirable for the Government to obtain, if they agree that it is desirable that we should know a little, more about what is going on. During recent years there has been great activity in China on the part of the Japanese, which has aroused widespread opposition among patriotic Chinese, and this opposition has shown itself in a large number of demonstrations by Chinese students all over China. The reports from China show that these demonstrations have universally been entirely orderly. There has been no disorder. There has been no opposition by the police, and there has been no shooting or damage to life or limb. Reports from Canton, Tientsin, Szechuan, and Nanking all say the same thing. In particular, from Nanking, the present capital of China, the reports are that the discipline and self-control of the students and the police were admirable.
When it comes to Shanghai we find that the earlier demonstrations by the students were entirely orderly. The students were received by the Mayor of Greater Shanghai, General Wu Tehcheu, who promised them the support of
440
the civic authorities in their complaints against Japanese depredations and their desire for the patriotic defence of their country. They were also supported by General Chiang Kai-shek, the Generalissimo, who sent them a telegram saying that he was entirely of their opinion that it was desirable to organise nationally against Japanese depredations. The civic authorities in Shanghai even went to the length of putting the autobus service of that City at the disposal of the students to enable them to get back to their various colleges.
The report in regard to their demonstrations in Peking (or Peiping as it is now called) is that the action of the police in firing on students was entirely due to the police themselves. I read in the North China Herald a few days ago the report of the special correspondent, who was an eye witness, and who said that the case had been extremely badly managed by the authorities. His words were these:
"Almost from the very start the police attempted to break up by force entirely peaceable processions and in every case it was the police who started the attack on remarkably well disciplined and, if anything, rather nervous school children, who were completely unarmed."
The average age of the demonstrators in Peking, he says, was well below eighteen, both boys and girls, and the police were firing ball cartridge on these young people.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): Can the noble Lord give me the date?
LORD MARLEY: The North China Herald of December 25, 1935. In Peking the Chinese police were under the control of the Japanese, and I suppose it is not unnatural that the Japanese should desire to repress what might be considered to be anti-Japanese demonstrations. But when it comes to Shanghai the matter is entirely different. The position in Shanghai was broadly this. Numbers of students from the Universities and schools assembled on December 24 at about nine o'clock in the morning in the Nanking road. There have been a number of letters in the Press by eye-witnesses of what went on. They said that the foreign police in Shanghai were clearing, the students, taking their banners from them, tearing them up, and trampling on them. There were indignant protests from foreigners

441
who were watching what was going on, particularly because the demonstrators were mainly schoolboys and schoolgirls. One letter rather indicated the attitude of a certain few English people. The writer protested against these scholars parading in the International Settlement at all. If they wished to parade, he said, let them do so in the Chinese City. When you realise that Shanghai is a City of about 3½million people, of whom only 9,000 are British, and the total number of foreigners is 50,000 or thereabouts, it indicates a most undesirable point of view on the part of British people living in other countries to claim that the Chinese have no right to demonstrate in their own City.
I have a letter on this matter from two persons who themselves witnessed what went Oil. One is an American lady who is entirely trustworthy, and the other is a very eminent Chinese lady who is very well-known throughout the world and whose evidence cannot be but reliable. I venture to read extracts from this letter, because I think it is desirable that the view of eye-witnesses should be given. The letter says this:
"'Moved by patriotic feelings, Chinese students from all schools 'and Universities ma Shanghai following the lead of students in other parts of China in resisting the dismemberment by Japan actions, gathered for a peaceful demonstration in Nanking road in the early morning of December 24. These students, many of them children of middle school age, were perfectly peaceful and orderly. They formed into group, according to their schools, and began distributing leaflets bearing national liberation slogans. There was no kind of disorder until suddenly a band of foreign police, commanded by British police officers armed with clubs and short -truncheons, appeared and began an attack. Soon a fully armed body of Sikh police arrived and joined in the attack.
"The students were absolutely unarmed. They had only leaflets, slogans, and banners. Despite tins, one police officer 'whose cap and arm band bore the number 57 S.M.P. began beating the students over the head. The other police followed his example, with the result that many students fell with blood streaming over their faces and from their mouths. We counted eleven unconscious students lying in their own blood. Even when unconscious and down, still the British police bent down and continued beating the prostrate forms. Riot vans appeared, and several students were arrested for assaulting the police. The boys and girls had only their bare hands, yet they were reported to have attacked and injured a number of British police officers.
442
"On the same clay a British police officer of the name of Lovell arrested a student whom he charged with having assaulted and injured him. The boy was sentenced to fifteen days imprisonment, suspended for two years provided the boy showed good conduct. The Shanghai municipal police are reported to have appealed to a higher Court because of the leniency of the Chinese Court. It was never mentioned that the Chinese student was only fourteen years of age."
The question is really of greater importance than mere student demonstrations in a far distant city. May I remind the House that it is vital to Great Britain that we should have the good will of the Chinese people? Our trade with China is by no means unimportant, and if there is illwill on the part of the Chinese they are perfectly capable of applying boycotts to British goods such as they have applied to Japanese goods. If I may venture to give figures, during the last five years, partly owing to the anti-Japanese boycott in China, the share of Japan in Chinese imports has dropped from 25 per cent. in 1930 to 14 per cent. in 1932 and 12 per cent. in 1934. In the same period, because of the good will the Chinese have for Great Britain, our trade has risen from 8 per cent. in 1930 to 11.3 per cent. in 1932 and 12.1 per cent. in 1934. I take these figures from the Department of Overseas Trade Report on Economic Conditions in China, 1933–35, just published. That, document points out that the figures show that quite apart from the great potentialities of the Chinese market, the trade is already of sufficient value to merit the earnest attention of United Kingdom manufacturers and exporters. But however much our manufacturers and exporters pay attention to the details of their trade, they cannot trade if there is anti-British feeling among the Chinese people.
The Chinese may not be entirely well informed. I notice that habitually they talk of the "British" International Settlement in China, which is an entire misconception. The International Settlement is not British controlled in the same way as it was a few years ago; it is under international control. Nevertheless we always have talk of the "British" controlled police and the British "International Settlement. If the Chinese think that the British police are using undue force to put down

443
peaceful demonstration by students—who, if they demonstrated in a like way in this country, would receive the support of all right-thinking men and women, because they are merely showing their patriotism and their desire to defend their country against attack from outside—it seems that we must tend to become extremely unpopular. For those reasons I have put this Question in the hope that the Government may make inquiries into the position. If in fact undue force has been used it might be in the interests of employment in this country, of the people and trade of this country, as well as of international justice, to do what is possible to mitigate these conditions. I beg to move for Papers.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite knows, I have no official information which I can give him. He only informed me of this Motion yesterday afternoon, and I have not had time to wire to Shanghai and get a reply. But I am bound to add that the report which I have read in the Press on this matter differs very materially indeed from the one he has given to your Lordships. I have read a long article in, I think, the North China Daily Courier, in which it is pointed out that these students held up the whole traffic on the railway going from Shanghai to Peking for no less than 30 hours, with losses on the railway amounting to between 300,000 and 400,000 Chinese dollars.
LORD MARLEY: I do not think that was December 24.
EARL STANHOPE: Yes, it was December 24.
LORD MARLEY: I am talking about another part of the City.
EARL STANHOPE: The railway station is fairly close to the International Settlement. It is not very far outside, because the account goes on to say that these groups of students went into the station and tried to break their way into the Settlement. It is quite obvious that if you are going to have demonstrations which are to take charge of the whole of the railways of a country, any Government, whether it is municipal or national, must take action to secure control again. As I read this unofficial account—I do not know if it is more true than the noble
444
Lord's, but it describes more the sort of thing that does happen in Shanghai and elsewhere. It says that the police, too, were unarmed, that they put up barricades to endeavour to stop students going into the station, but the weight of numbers and the general excitement were such that they utterly failed to achieve that purpose. The students, some 400 in number, got into the train and remained there. Obviously a railway does not earn$300,000, or rather have paid over to it within thirty hours that large sum of money, by the amount of traffic which comes to it from Europeans. It was obviously the Chinese travellers who were prevented from travelling much more than Europeans. Therefore it was to the interest of China even more than that of Shanghai itself that order should be restored in that area of the City.
As regards the students being unarmed, the report in the paper that I saw stated that three of the inspectors of the International Police were very severely injured. One was very badly knocked about the head with bamboo poles. That indicates that the armaments, at any rate, were less lethal than those that are sometimes used in riots in other parts of the world. The injuries received by the police show that the weapons used were not to be despised. I do not know whether it is true that the Shanghai police may have used undue violence, but I will certainly make inquiries about it. I would remind the noble Lord that these police are under the control of the Municipal Council, mostly composed of business men, and the last thing they would allow their police to do is to attack the Chinese unduly, and so raise up a spirit of bad feeling between Chinese and foreigners who are engaged in business in that vast country. That is obviously against the interests of everybody on that Council and business people living in Shanghai. Therefore I am bound to say I very much doubt the accuracy of the information which the noble Lord has given to the House. It would obviously be only right that the House should be given more accurate information, as I think it will prove to be, when inquiry is made. I shall certainly ask my noble friend the Secretary of State to make inquiries from Shanghai, and as soon as the information has arrived I shall be very glad to communicate it to the noble Lord.

445
Perhaps it would be better that it should be communicated to the House itself on some future occasion. I am afraid I have no Papers which I can lay.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am very tau.ch obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. I think that the suggestion he has made is perfectly adequate. When a reply is received to the inquiry which is to be made, we will then put down a further Question so that the information can be given to the House. I think it ought to be understood that the railway station is a long way from the Nanking road and that the noble Earl and myself have been dealing with two totally different sides of the demonstration.
EARL STANHOPE: As I understood it, it flowed straight from one to the other—that is according to the account in the paper which I read.
LORD MARLEY: I am afraid I did not see that particular newspaper. I got my information mainly from letters of eyewitnesses who wrote to me personally as
446
to what they had seen. Of course there is a considerable distance between the two points. Even though it may be the desire of the Shanghai Municipal Council that the police should not use undue force, we know that the police sometimes do use undue force either because they are inadequate in numbers or use bad judgment at a time of stress or trouble. I hope that the Shanghai Municipal Council will support any suggestion that the force used by the police should be the minimum necessary to maintain order. I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his promise, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRAFT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (EXCLUDED AND PARTIALLY EXCLUDED AREAS) ORDER, 1936.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Indian Orders Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.