Sitting of 4 December 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next.
Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred, till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Glasgow Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation Water," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (Under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Bromley, in the room of the Right Honourable Henry William Forster (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ALTRINCHAM WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any complaints regarding delay on the part of the Altrincham War Pensions Committee in dealing with cases, and, if so, whether he is making inquiry into the matter?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A complaint has been received from the Secretary of the National Union of ex-Service men. He has been asked to furnish particulars of any case of delay, but he has not yet done so. If he does, the case will be investigated.

    DISABILITY PENSION.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions whether the pension of 3s. 6d. a Week which is granted to holders of the Distinguished Conduct Medal is in addition to the State pension given in respect of disability or whether, in the case of policemen who have been disabled in the War, it is intended that this pension should. be merged in any allowance from police funds authorised by Section 1 (2) of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Any pension payable in respect of disability due to service is in addition to the pension granted to holders of Distinguished Conduct Medal. I have no information which will enable me to answer the last part of the question.

    WOMEN'S SERVICE OVERSEAS.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry into the position of all women who, during the late War, served outside the British Isles on war service and were incapacitated, directly or indirectly, owing to such service, with the ultimate object of placing them upon the same footing in regard to disability pensions as male combatants?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Government are at present considering this matter, and if my hon. Friend will repeat his question next week I hope to be able to answer it.

    ARREARS OF PAYMENT.
    Dr. M'DONALDasked the Prime Minister whether he would take steps to accelerate the payment of gratuities, arrears of pay, and compassionate allowances in the Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force; and whether he was aware that much irritation and discontent was felt in all these Services through delay of such payments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by the Departments concerned that all possible steps are being taken to expedite the payments referred to. I am not prepard to accept the statement in the last part of the question as a fair representation of the situation.

  CONGO (EXPORT DUTIES).
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, upon the Belgian Government assuming responsibility for the administration of the Congo Basin, several leading British merchants and manufacturers commenced, and have continued, to incur very large financial obligations for the development of the palm kernels and the palm oil of the Congo from which the ports of Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol have derived increasing benefit; and whether His Majesty's Government has considered the serious consequences which would now arise if the Belgian Government should decide to impose a differential Export Duty upon all oil products destined for other than Belgian ports?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. With regard to the second part, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 1st December, the General Act of Berlin prohibits the imposition of differential Export Duties in the Conventional Basin of the Congo.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As I asked the hon. Gentleman on 1st December, in equity are we, therefore, entitled to put a differential Export Duty on our products sent to our Colonies?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I told the hon. Member that I was not competent to discuss that question.

  RUSSIA.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the progress of negotiations for peace between the Russian Soviet Government and the Baltic States?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no further information to add to that which was given on 24th November in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any restrictions to prevent the resumption of trade with Russian territory under the Soviet Government as soon as freights can be arranged through Baltic ports or by overland railways which enter Russia on the Western Russian frontier?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The restrictions which, in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Council, have been imposed on exports to Soviet Russia, are still in force.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to keep these restrictions in force in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that the blockade by the British Navy is being raised?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No doubt that will be considered at that time.

    EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the negotiations between the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) and M. Litvinoff with reference to an exchange of prisoners with Soviet Russia?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I cannot make any statement at the moment, but I hope to do so at the first favourable opportunity.
    Mr. RAFFAN: How many British subjects are being held as prisoners of war?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think there are about 120 prisoners of war. There are other British civilian subjects who are not exactly prisoners of war.
    Mr. MACMASTER (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the prospect of the release of our prisoners of war in Russia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman sent me no copy of that question.

    GENERAL DENIKIN'S ARMY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the activity of the agents of General Denikin's volunteer army in the Batoum district is causing apprehension among the inhabitants of the Georgian republic; and if he can state whether the Peace Conference has as yet come to any decision regarding the future of this district, which forms, historically, a part of Georgia, and is of strategical importance to the British Empire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are aware that, in the province and town of Batoum, as elsewhere in Trans-Caucasia, there is considerable agitation both for and against maintenance of the Russian connection. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. It is obviously impracticable to decide the future of Batoum apart from that of Trans-Caucasia as a whole.

    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make a statement as to whether representatives of the Soviet republic of Russia will be invited to attend, in any capacity, at the forthcoming International Conference which is to settle the future of Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The forthcoming conference will consist of representatives of the same Allied and Associated Powers which have hitherto constituted the Peace Conference.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many men in this country at present advocating Bolshevism, and is it not necessary, in the interests of the country, that inquiry should be made into the origin of their financial resources?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his question on the Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister what steps have now been taken to bring about the proposed conference for the settlement of the Russian question; and whether, in addition to the Allied and Associated Powers, such conference will include
    546
    representatives from all those states which formerly were part of the Russian Empire but will exclude representatives of the Soviet republic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing for the present to the very full statement I made on the subject a fortnight ago, except that nothing has yet been settled about the date of the proposed conference.
    Mr. BILLING: When the Prime Minister states that they have it under consideration, may I ask is that whether they shall or shall not invite Soviet representatives?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that I said that. I said nothing had been settled about the date of the conference.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it definitely decided whether the conference will be held in London?

    CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.
    Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he or any other member of the Cabinet has received directly or indirectly any intimation that the Bolshevist Government are prepared to agree to the convocation of a constituent assembly empowered to establish some form of stable government in Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I can ascertain no member of the Cabinet has received any intimation on the lines reported by my hon. Friend.

    RAILWAY TRANSPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance to this country of establishing regular trade with Southern Russia on a basis of bartering our own manufactured goods against Russian raw materials, any, and if so, what measures are being adopted by the Government to assist General Denikin in reorganising railway transport, etc., in those regions liberated by his armies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British Military Mission in South Russia includes a railway section of forty officers and sixty-five other ranks, who are assisting General Denikin in the reorganisation of the railway system. The British contribution to General Denikin includes a considerable quantity of railway material

    547
    mainly for the repair of derelict locomotives and wagons of which there are a large number in the country. A British Economic Mission is being dispatched shortly to South Russia, and I hope that this will materially help the promotion of trade.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this railway material much more needed in this country?

    GENERAL GOUCH'S VIEWS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he had seen General Gough or read his views as set forth in the Press as to the Russian position to-day, the need of a settlement with the Soviet Government and the danger of a union between the anti-revolutionaries and their cousins the Junkers of Prussia; and, if not, would he summon the General to a consultation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that General Gough has expressed the views indicated in the question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman not consulted General Gough or seen him since his return, and has he not read the reports in the Press, signed by General Gough, as to his views on this question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen reports from General Gough, but nothing to indicate that he holds these opinions.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that General Gough reported on this matter in these terms when he returned in July and was relieved of his command for that cause?
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it intended to take the English chaplain from Odessa into consultation too?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consult General Gough about these matters so as to get up-to-date information?
    The PRIME MINISTER: General Gough has returned for some time, and he has sent in reports, but there is nothing in them to bear out the suggestion contained in the question.

    DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS.
    Mr. INSKIPasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Govern-
    548
    ment had made formal recognition of the Government of either Admiral Koltchak or General Denikin; whether such recognition had been intimated to the Governments concerned; and what extent of territory was included?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. We have, as the House knows, assisted Generals koltchak and Denikin in various ways, but nothing has been done in the nature of formal recognition. They are, of course, the only authorities with whom we have any dealings within the area they occupy.
    Mr. INSKIP: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the meaning was of the statement made in the Debate on Russia a few days ago, that His Majesty's Government had recognised the de facto Governments of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer I have given will show what I mean. We treated them as de facto Governments within the areas occupied by them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we not have posted up in the Map Room a map showing the changes from week to week in the territories still occupied by Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the fact that General Denikin controls the Black Sea coast, and will steps be taken that he releases that coast before recognition is given?

  PIGEON RACES (ENGLAND AND FRANCE).
  Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the prohibition of long-distance pigeon races to France and from France to England is most prejudicial to the full training of carrier pigeons; and if he will make representations to the French Government to ensure that, at any rate, after the ratification of Peace with Germany, these long-distance races may be resumed?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the situation is as represented in the first part of the question. If the hon, and gallant Member will give me further par-

  549
  ticulars, I will gladly consider whether the subject is one on which representations could properly be made to the French Government.

  TURKEY.

    PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. G. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations for Peace with Turkey have yet commenced; and, if not, whether he can state when these negotiations will be opened?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The nature of the terms to be imposed on Turkey has been the subject of frequent discussion among the Allied representatives at Paris. For reasons with which the House is familiar, it has not yet been found possible to proceed definitely with the negotiations. His Majesty's Government are anxious, and have, indeed, proposed, that they should be taken up with the least possible delay.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are these negotiations going to be resumed in Paris?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That point is under discussion.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be possible to declare the War at an end before this Treaty is made?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.
    Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any date and place have yet been fixed for reopening negotiations as to peace with Turkey?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The matter is under discussion between the Allied Powers.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we have some statement of policy with regard to Turkey?
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government can make any statement in regard to the present situation in Afghanistan and Kurdistan; whether there has been any reason to believe that recent unrest has been greatly augmented by the activities
    550
    of the agents of the committee of the Union of Progress; whether the present Government at Constantinople are aware of the action of the Young Turk party in organising trouble, especially against the British Empire; and whether, in view of the admitted necessity of concluding an early peace with Turkey, and basing our claim upon the predominant part played by the British Empire in bringing about, the defeat of Turkey, the British Government can at once open negotiations with the Ottoman Government in London, and no longer await the indefinite commencement of peace negotiations in Paris?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make any statement on this subject at present.
    Colonel P. WILLIAMSasked whether it is intended to make the expenditure of £21,000 per day on the Black Sea Army a charge upon Turkey under the treaty to be negotiated with that country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to discuss by question and answer the possible terms of peace with Turkey.

  IRELAND.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Mr. E. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will circulate a White Paper giving financial particulars and estimates regarding future income in detail in connection with the Irish Education Bill; whether he can say when the Second Reading will be taken; and will he make the suggested White Paper available a reasonable time before Second Reading?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is hoped the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken next week; a White Paper will be issued at the usual time.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: What is the usual time in the Irish Office?
    Mr. HENRY: After the Second Reading.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total sum of money provided annually by Parliament for education in Ireland at the present time, and by what amount tins sum will be increased if the Irish Education Bill is passed in its present form?
    Mr. HENRY: The total provision voted for the current year for education in Ireland, excluding universities and colleges, is about £3,387,000. If the Bill becomes law in its present form Ireland will secure (in addition to the equivalent of the amount granted for Ireland in the standard year) 9/80ths of the excess amount granted from time to time to England over the amount granted in the standard year as provided in Clause 24 of the Bill.
    Major O'NEILL: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say what that nine-eightieths will amount to in this year?
    Mr. HENRY: That would be impossible, for this year will not be the governing year. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the Estimate, he will see that it is a matter of calculation. I shall be glad to supply him with information.
    Major O'NEILL: Will this amount be sufficient to carry out the recommendations of the Vice-regal Committee so far as teachers' salaries are concerned?
    Mr. HENRY: I think so.

    SALMON FISHERIES.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) what steps he proposes to take, financially, to enable the conservators to protect salmon in Ireland in the coming season;
    (2) Whether he has received the resolution of the conference of Irish fishery conservators of 14th ultimo; and whether he will introduce legislation this Session to remedy the grievance complained of before next fishing season?
    Mr. HENRY: I have received the resolution referred to. Legislation would be necessary to remedy the grievance complained of, but I can hold out no hope of any such legislation this Session.

    HORSES (EXPORT TO SWITZERLAND)
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware
    552
    of the considerable export of horses from Ireland to Switzerland viâBirkenhead; has he been able to ascertain if the Swiss Federal Government is making any large increase in its Cavalry force or are these horses being exported to Switzerland for purposes of sport; and is he able to say that these horses will not be transferred from Switzerland to Germany for the use of the German Army?
    Mr. HENRY: The Department of Agriculture are not aware that there has been anything abnormal in the number of horses exported from Ireland to Switzerland (all of which have been for the Swiss Government), considering that the practice of the Swiss authorities before the War was to purchase remounts in Ireland, and that this practice was in abeyance from the outbreak of war until the month of October last.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many horses were-shipped from Dundalk in the course of the last few weeks?
    Mr. HENRY: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give me notice.

    OUTRAGE, MOUNT CALLAN, COUNTY CLARE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received information of an outrage committed on the 21st ultimo on Colonel Tottenham, Mount Callan, County Clare, a gentleman advanced in years; whether his house was entered by a party of twenty-two men of the Irish Republican party who knocked him down, tied his hands, and compelled him to give up all he had in his house, and, in an attempt at resistance, Colonel Tottenham was repeatedly struck in the face with bludgeons and severely injured; and if the authorities have been able to ascertain the names of his assailants?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Victoria Division of Belfast on Thursday last, and to which I have nothing at present to add.
    Mr. DONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the present condition of this gentleman?
    Mr. HENRY: I believe that he has improved.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the names of the assailants, how is it possible to say to what political party they belong?
    Mr. HENRY: I am sure that I have not the slightest idea.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Was there not an excursion party from the North of Ireland down there?

    EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if, having regard to the pledges given to men who fought in the Great War and also to the large number of Irish ex-Service men who need employment, he would suggest to the Irish Local Government Board the firmest exercise of its powers on behalf of Irish ex-Service men?
    Mr. HENRY: The Local Government Board, like all other Government Departments in Ireland, has been doing its best to give employment to all ex-Service men, but I am bringing my hon. Friend's question again to their notice.

    HOUSING PROPOSALS.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can now say in what way it is intended to apply the principle, of the new housing proposals to Ireland?
    Mr. HENRY: The Bill, which was introduced yesterday, will apply to Ireland.

    PRISONERS (TREATMENT).
    Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the General Prisons Board of Ireland has issued an Order, dated 22nd November, laying down that any prisoner committed in default of finding sureties to keep the peace shall be treated as if he had been convicted of the offence charged against him; whether, seeing that it is a settled constitutional principle that a requirement to find sureties is a precaution but not a punishment, the Cabinet will direct an inquiry into the legality of this proposed innovation and into the general question of the treatment of prisoners convicted merely of political offences?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, Section 16, Sub-section (4), which extends to Ireland, applies, to persons sentenced to
    554
    imprisonment in default of finding sureties to keep the peace, and since the date of that Act they have been treated as ordinary third-class prisoners under Section 6 of the Prisons Act, 1898. The notice issued by the Prisons Board is in accordance with the existing law.

    MILITARY AND POLICE (RAIDS).
    Mr. G. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that over 10,000 private houses have been raided by military and police in Ireland during the past twelve months; in how many cases have convictions followed; and whether the Government will direct the Irish Executive to discontinue raids unless where informations have been sworn that arms or ammunition are believed to be concealed in the premises proposed to be raided?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a similar question on 6th November.
    Captain W. BENN: Is it the policy of the Government to provoke an outbreak in Ireland?

    TRIAL BY JURY.
    Captain W. BENN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether it had been decided to suspend trial by jury in Ireland, and, if so, under what powers and for what areas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I sincerely hope it may not be necessary to take action of this kind.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, that is right. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman?

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Before asking the next question, I wish to raise point of Order. I originally put the question down to the Prime Minister, and he notified me that he had transferred it to the foreign Secretary. I wish to ask whether that is by your order and what are the general principles which govern the transfer of the Prime Minister's questions to the Foreign Office. Another question on very much the same lines stands

  555
  in the name of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and remains among the Prime Minister's questions.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: On the same point of Order, I wish to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that I handed in notice of a question with regard to Father O'Donnell's case addressed to the Prime Minister. Without consultation with me and without any authority whatever, direct or indirect, that was transferred from the list of the Prime Minister's questions to the list of questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War, with the result that the question, instead of being reached at an early stage, stands No. 177 on the Paper. I suggest that no Minister, whether Prime Minister or otherwise, has a right to give an order to the clerks at the Table to transfer a question from the Minister to whom it is addressed.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May I also draw attention to the fact that the very same thing has happened to one of my questions?
  Sir S. ROBERTS: May I draw attention to the fact that a great many questions are now put clown to the right hon. Gentleman which ought to be put to other Ministers?
  Captain W. BENN: May I suggest that the difficulty would be overcome if the Prime Minister resumed the immemorial practice of attending the Debates in this House every day?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: With regard to my question, one part of it dealt with representations made to the Prime Minister of this country by the Prime Minister of Australia, and no one but the Prime Minister could answer it.
  Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: I put three questions on the Paper to the Prime Minister, only one of which appears.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The questions which have been transferred are properly transferable I understand. Even if they were reached during the time the Prime minister was answering questions all he could do would be to transfer them for reply to the respective Ministers. Therefore the better course would seem to be to transfer them at once.
  Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: May I ask what questions are properly transferable to other Departments, seeing that
  556
  the Prime Minister is responsible for all Departments as the head of the Government, and that every single question put down to him might as an alternative have been put to some other Department?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman proves my case. If he and all other Members put all their questions down to the. Prime Minister we should be in an impasse. It is obvious that those questions which are Departmental have to be answered by the heads of Departments. The Prime Minister is- not omniscient and cannot answer all questions.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: By whose authority were these questions transferred?
  Mr. SPEAKER: They were transferred I understand by the Prime Minister to the particular Departments concerned, which in the ordinary course have to supply the Minister in charge with the reply.
  Mr. TERRELL: Has the Prime Minister authority to transfer questions which are addressed to him to other Members of the Government? Is it not contrary to the usages and practice of this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, it is in accordance with the practice of the House. The hon. Member must have heard over and over again questions transferred to the appropriate Department.
  Mr. MACVEAGH: Should not Members whose questions are thus transferred receive some notice of the transfer?
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it competent for the Prime Minister or any other Minister to go to the clerk at the Table, take off the question of an hon. Member put down to a particular Minister and transfer it to the name of another Minister, which is what has happened?
  Mr. DOYLE: My complaint is that of three questions which I put down to the Prime Minister only one appears on the Order Paper at all.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will bring that to my notice or the notice of the clerk at the Table investigation shall be made as to how that occurred. I cannot say without more knowledge.
  Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that his questions occupied the early part of the Order Paper on Thursdays, he would

  557
  arrange for the questions addressed to the, Minister of Health to be taken early on the Paper on some other day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They were taken early yesterday.

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PROFITEERING).
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Health whether he has made any inquiry into the allegations of profiteering in building materials; whether he is aware of the great increase in the price of bricks, cement, ranges, etc.; and whether he will consider the advisability of commandeering all necessary materials at cost price, as the only sure and fair method of securing houses quickly and at a reasonable cost?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. I have made inquiry into this matter, and as regards building materials for State housing schemes obtained through the Supply Department of the Ministry of Munitions, I cannot find evidence of profiteering. If, however, my hon. Friend can give me any definite instances I will see that they are inquired into. As regards prices in the open market, the Government have already provided machinery to check profiteering, but any question on this subject should-be addressed to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee to ascertain the cost of building materials in January of this year and to-day and receive evidence as to the reasons why the prices are in some cases treble and in many cases double?
    Mr. HOPE: That question must be addressed to the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Health.

    WOMEN ARCHITECTS.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Health whether he has appointed any women architects in connection with the Government housing scheme; and, if so, will he give their names, positions, and salaries?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): No women architects have been appointed in connection with the Government housing scheme.
    Major HILLS: Is it intended to appoint any women architects?
    Dr. ADDISON: The reason why no women architects have been appointed is, because there were no properly qualified women architects available.

    SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE BUILDERS.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether the scheme for subsidising private builders, as well as that being carried out under the Housing Acts, would be under the supervision and control of the Minister of Health?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

    EAST LONDON.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the housing conditions in the East End of London; whether he is aware of the difficulty in districts such as Leyton in raising any forms of loan necessary to carry the projected building schemes into operation; what prospect does he hold out to the working classes of these districts of better houses; and how long does he anticipate they will have to wait?
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope that the recommendations of the Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I hope effect will be given in the new Housing Bill, will enable local authorities to obtain the capital they require for their housing schemes.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Cheltenham Rural Pensions Committee has not met since June last; if he will state how many applicants approaching seventy years of age have put in claims for an old age pension; and of these applicants how many are seventy years of age without having had their claims considered or the decisions made known to them?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that the Committee met on the 16th October, when all claims received since the previous meeting were dealt with and the claimants notified the same day. Since that date eight claims (including four in respect of persons who have not yet reached the age of seventy)

  559
  have been received, the majority on the 24th November, and a meeting to dispose of these claims will be held in the course of a few days.
  Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister what action the Government propose to take with regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether, in view of the need for increased allowance, steps could be taken to ensure immediate action?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question on Monday, I hope that it may be possible to give him a definite reply.

  INCREASE OF RENT (WAR RESTRICTIONS) ACT.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARRENasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to cases of tenants occupying houses of £28 to £30 per annum rent (whose owners are precluded by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act from advancing the rent), where the tenants by sub-letting are obtaining sums of as much as £65 per annum for two unfurnished rooms and as much as £90 per annum for three unfurnished rooms; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this abuse?

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

  Salaries and grades of women employed in an administrative capacity.

  Name.

  Grade.

  Salary.

  Permanent—

  £

  Miss E. A. Charlesworth

  …

  Woman intelligence officer

  …

  …

  260,

  plus War bonus.

  Miss A. K. Leach

  …

  …

  Assistant inspector (attached to head quarters)

  150,

  "

  "

  Miss Z. L. Puxley

  …

  …

  Child welfare assistant

  …

  …

  260,

  "

  "

  Temporary—

  Miss M. M. Anderson

  …

  Junior administrative assistant

  …

  …

  200.

  Miss V. D. Dumbleton

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  185.

  Miss E, S. Durrad

  …

  …

  Temporary assistant inspector (attached to headquarters)

  250.

  Miss M. G. Elias

  …

  …

  Junior administrative assistant

  …

  …

  185.

  Miss E. A. Ferris

  …

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  200.

  *Mrs. D. K. Foster

  …

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  200.

  Miss E. M. Knight

  …

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  220.

  Mrs. A. M. Macintyre

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  170.

  Miss A. A. Malcolm

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  215.

  Miss I. St. C. Tisdall

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  205.

  Miss C. Rowson

  …

  …

  "

  "

  "

  …

  …

  175.

  Miss M. M. White

  …

  …

  Assistant private secretary to Minister

  …

  200.

  * Mrs. Foster resigned her appointment on the 29th ultimo.

  Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that the Increase of Rent, etc., Acts apply to any part of a house which is let as a separate dwelling, and that, therefore, any increase of rent in excess of the standard rent of the part so let would be recoverable by the sub-tenant.

  WHISKY.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the trade asked for the release on whisky to be removed or whether it was removed by the Government to enable American spirits to be sold and so secure a larger revenue for the Exchequer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the first part of the question, the pressure for release did not emanate from the trade; the reply to the second part is in the negative.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WOMEN EMPLOYED).
  Major HILLSasked the Minister of Health if he will state the individual salaries and grades of the fifteen women who he has stated are employed on his Ministry in an administrative capacity?
  Dr. ADDISON: The information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the information, promised:

  STANDING COMMITTEES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  Major GUESTasked the Prime Minister, in view of the present Grand Committee system and of the fact that it would appear a complete impossibility for Members to follow the daily proceedings of a number of such Committees besides the debates on the floor of the House, whether he will arrange that a précis of the proceedings of all such Committees be printed and circulated to all Members prior to the Report Stage of any Bill, in order that Members may become acquainted with the amended Bill and familiarise themselves with the main points of alteration and contention?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In most cases an OFFICIAL REPORT is published of the proceedings of the Grand Committees, and is available to Members.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Prime Minister to the fact that sometimes the proceedings of very important Standing Committees remain wihout any report owing to the fact that there is no provision made for a report of the proceedings of those Committees? May I suggest to the Prime Minister—I do not know whether it is in your authority or his—that a rule should be passed that the proceedings of all the Standing Committees should be officially reported?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been frequently discussed in this House, and the decision we came to was that it should be left to me to make arrangements for the reporting of the Committees.

  STATUES TO PRIME MINISTERS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the statues to late Prime Ministers voted from public funds were placed in Westminster Abbey and not in the House of Commons; whether the statues to Bright, Northcote, Gladstone, and Granville, and the busts of W. H. Smith and Lord Randolph Churchill in the House of Commons were all provided by private subscription; and whether he will now reconsider the proposal to vote money from public funds for a statue to the late Mr. Chamberlain?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the
  562
  affirmative, as regards the last part, I see no reason to modify the opinion which I expressed in answer to a question by the hon. Member on Thursday, 20th November.
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: Could not we reproduce in stone Prime Ministers during their lifetime?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All Prime Ministers, in my experience, get plenty of stones thrown at them.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).
  Major STEELasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation for the reform of the Second Chamber during the year 1920?
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to introduce legislation for the purpose of dealing with the reform of the House of Lords; and whether it is desirable that this great constitutional issue should continue to remain in exactly the same position as it was many years ago when his predecessor declared it to be a question that brooked no delay?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 29th of October last in reply to a Supplementary question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich, we are anxious to deal with this question at the earliest possible date.
  Mr. E. WOOD: Can the Prime Minister give a pledge that it will be this Session?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Wait and see.

  ROUMANIA AND BESSARABIA.
  Captain MOREINGasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will regard with sympathy the desire of the inhabitants of Bessarabia to be reunited to Roumania?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government, throughout the Peace Conference to endeavour to unite national majorities wherever it is practicable to do so. They will approach the consideration of the Bessarabian problem in that spirit.
  Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister what provisions had been made for the protection of religious, racial, and linguistic minorities in Roumania?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Roumanian Government have been required by the Supreme Council in Paris to sign a Convention protecting those minorities before 5th December, in order that the terms of Peace with Hungary may be settled.

  CENTRAL EUROPE (ECONOMIC SITUATION).
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state whether the United States have consented to share the burden of relief of the economic situation in Central Europe?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are discussing the question with the United States Government, and it is impossible to make any statement for the moment.

  GERMANY.

    PEACE RATIFICATION.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement upon the questions which are delaying ratification of Peace with Germany, namely, the administration of the occupied territories, the sinking of the German ships, the repatriation of German prisoners of war, and the extradition of war criminals?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can make no statement on this question while negotiations are in active progress.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked when the Treaty of Peace with Germany will be ratified?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible to give a definite date, but I hope that the Treaty will be ratified before the end of the month.

    DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether it had been decided to send diplomatic missions to Munich, Darmstadt, Leipsic, and Stutt-
    564
    gart; and, if so, what was the justification for the expense in view of the unified government of the German republic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of sending diplomatic representatives of His Majesty's Government to Munich and Dresden is under consideration, but cannot be decided until it is known whether, under the new German Constitution, the separate States of the Reich are entitled to separate diplomatic representation, and, if so, whether those States would wish for such separate representation. The question cannot be finally decided until the Peace Treaty with Germany is ratified and His Majesty's representative at Berlin has been, thereafter, duly accredited.

    RUHLEBEN PRISONERS (COMPENSATION).
    Colonel MORDENasked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements had been made whereby the civilians interned at Ruhleben during the War were to be given compensation for the losses occasioned by their internment; and, if so, what was the basis on which this compensation was to be paid, and what was the Department through which the payments would be made?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Compensation for damage sustained by British civilians formerly interned in Germany is governed by the terms of Annex 1 to Section 1, Part VIII., of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. All claims by British civilians against the German Government in respect of internment have been registered during the War by the Foreign Claims Office of the Foreign Office. These claims will in due course be presented to and considered by the Reparation Commission. That authority alone has the power to decide which of them are entitled to rank under the terms of tile Treaty. The procedure of the Commission, the basis upon which its awards will be made, and the mariner in which the amounts awarded will be paid to the claimants are matters which cannot be determined in advance, but must necessarily await the establishment of the tribunal in question.
    Colonel MORDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state any approximate date when these claims can be adjusted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Everything awaits the ratification of the Treaty. Until the Treaty is ratified the Reparation

    565
    Commission cannot commence its work. The moment it is set up and is in authority I have no doubt all these claims will be considered.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Where are parties to lodge their claims?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are registered with the Foreign Claims Office at the Foreign Office.

    "GOEBEN" AND OTHER SHIPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked whether anything has as yet been decided with regard to the disposal of the ex-German ships and the "Goeben"; whether the cost to this country of the manning and maintenance of these ships is recoverable from Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter is still under consideration by the Supreme Council in Paris. As regards the second part, a record of the expenses incurred is being kept, but the amount cannot yet be stated. The provision of a skeleton crew for the "Goeben" is a charge upon the Turkish Government. As regards the last part of the question, no financial claims have been made on Germany for expenses arising out of the Scapa incident, but reparation in kind has been demanded.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to take it as a fact that the publication made as to the disposal of these ships is correct?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what publication the hon. and gallant Member refers.
    Viscount CURZON: Publication in the Press.

  D'ANNUNZIO'S FORCES.
  VISCOUNT CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the extent of the armed forces, naval and military, at the disposal of Gabriel D'Annunzio, and what is their present disposition; and, as to their intended movements, whether the Supreme Council intend to permit any further attacks upon Jugo-Slavia or Montenegro?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government can make no statement as to the extent or disposition or intended movements of the armed forces at the disposal of Gabriel D'Annunzio for they vary from
  566
  time to time. As to the last part of the question, the matter is engaging the constant attention of the Supreme Council.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state on what date the Government proposals for the better government of Ireland will be introduced?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any statement with reference to the proclamation of the Sinn Fein organisation in Ireland and the proclamation of kindred bodies in that country; if so, when; and whether, in view of the feeling in this country and in His Majesty's Dominions beyond the sea aroused by the present state of affairs in Ireland, an early opportunity will be given for a discussion in the House of Commons on the Irish situation?
  Mr. G. THORNEasked when the Bill dealing with the government of Ireland will be introduced?
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked whether the Government has decided, in view of the increase of crime in Ireland, to delay the introduction of the proposals dealing with Irish government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I intend to make a statement on this subject after questions, when I propose to announce the Government decision as to business for the remainder of the Session.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I take it that the commission of crime in Ireland will not put off the settlement of the Irish question, as was suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech at Bedford? Does the Prime Minister agree with the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the hon. Member heard what I said. I propose to make a statement at the end of questions.
  Mr. J. JONESrose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have called the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) to ask the next question.
  Mr. JONES: Is there any truth in the report published to-day that the Cabinet have decided to suspend trial by jury in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question was put to me by my hon. Friend opposite (Captain W. Benn).

  EGYPTIAN CIVIL SERVICE (MILNER COMMISSION).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether inquiry into any grievance, individual or collective, of the British members of the Egyptian Civil Service will be included in the reference to the Milner Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference of the Mission are sufficiently wide to cover cases of the nature indicated by the Noble Lord, in so far as general principles may be involved.

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (TROOPS IN PLEBISCITE AREA).
  Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for the transportation of British troops from the zone of the Army of Occupation to the plebiscite area by the German Government; whether there have been considerable difficulties in carrying out this movement; if there is some reason to doubt whether the terms of the Peace Treaty will be put into effect before the date on which the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Act, 1919, expires; and, in this event, what steps the British and Allied Governments propose to take to enforce the necessary pressure to back up any demands made upon the German Government or the Governments recently associated with Germany?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Arrangements for the transportation of British troops to plebiscite areas are being made by Marshal Foch with the delegation of the German Government in Paris, and are not yet sufficiently advanced to permit of judgment as to the probability of difficulties arising in the execution of the movement. The Memorandum embodying the proposals is at present under consideration by the German Government. I do not think that the doubt expressed
  568
  in the third part of the question is justified. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  HORSES IN WAR.
  Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he will consider a proposal to erect a national memorial in recognition of the great work done by our horses in the late War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
  Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as a nation of horse lovers the English people would like to have a permanent recognition of the work done by our horses in the War?

  TRIAL OF ENEMY SUBJECTS.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if the Allies have the right under the Peace Treaty to call for the surrender for trial of any enemy subjects accused of military or civil crimes against Allied subjects during the War; if it is intended to enforce the Treaty provisions in this respect whether the list of persons whose surrender will be called for by this country has been completed; what is the number of such persons; and how many of these have been extradited up to the present time?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The final list of such persons is now under consideration. It is not at present desirable to state their number nor how many are already in the hands of the Allies.
  Sir F. HALL: When does the Prime Minister anticipate that any of these people who have been guilty of these murders will be brought to trial?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Peace Treaties must be ratified in the first instance, and it is after ratification that the demands will be presented.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FUNDS (POLITICAL PROPAGANDA),
  Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the Prime Minister whether the opinion of the

  569
  Law Officers has yet been sought upon the question of the legality of the industrial co-operative societies applying their funds for propaganda purposes under the designation of political educational propaganda in support of the aims of the Labour-Socialist party and in agreeing to advance co-operative society funds subscribed by members of such societies under their statutory constitution to trade union organisations to support such members of such unions when on strike, as well to their declared intention of applying their stocks of provisions and other goods for the use of members of trade unions (when on strike) and their families to the exclusion of other members of such co-operative societies; and, if so, what is the substance of such opinion, and what action is Proposed to be taken?
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the resentment caused to members of industrial and wholesale co-operative societies who are not in sympathy with the policy of the Labour-Socialist party by the declared intention of the societies to give financial and purchasing advantages and preference to those of their members who may be on strike over the bulk of the members of the society; and, in the event of such intention being contrary to the Acts of Parliament on which such societies rest, it is his intention to introduce legislation to enable them to effect their purpose?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The opinion of the Law Officers has not been sought upon these matters. It is suggested in the questions that there have been declarations of intention on the part of the co-operative societies to use their funds for purposes other than those for which these societies were founded. It is true that. as was stated by my right hon. Friend on the 5th November, there have been references in the Press to proposed action by the co-operative societies, but I am not aware that any declaration has been made either by the Co-operative Congress or any general body of the societies of a character which suggests that legislative or other action by the Government is necessary.
  Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the cooperative movement was compelled to enter into politics because of the action of vested interests in this House; and, further, is he aware that over two-thirds of the question submitted to him is a complete falsehood, from beginning to end?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not express himself in that way.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, withdraw!"
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that statement.
  Mr. WATERSON: If the word is objectionable I withdraw it. Probably it may be a terminological inexactitude.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to put down any further question he desires to ask.

  TRADE MONOPOLIES.
  Mr. JESSONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that certain industries in the country have now become monopolies, and that others are steadily moving in the same direction by amalgamations and other forms of absorption now acing on; whether the Government have any considered policy for the protection of the consumers' interests against the controllers of these monopolies; whether he will consider the advisability of the Government acquiring an interest in all these monopolies on the lines of the Government's interests in such commercial undertakings as the Suez Canal Company, Limited, British Dyes Company, Limited, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited, and other industrial concerns, with a view to the protection of the consumers' interests without interfering with the-initiative of private enterprise; to assisting in increasing production; to making labour a partner in these industries, as recommended in the report upon Whitley Industrial Councils; and, after allowing a fair return for the use of the capital invested in these undertakings, to advocate the division of the surplus between the Government to assist the nation's finances, labour and management as extra remuneration for increased output, and the owners of the capital to encourage further industrial enterprise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government is alive to the movement referred to in the first part of the question, and is watching it closely. As the House is aware the Government has taken power to investigate the operations of combinations and monopolies in the Profiteering Act, and the question of the extension of those powers is under consideration. A

  571
  number of inquiries are being made, especially in reference to the effect of such combinations on prices, and the future action of the Government will be considered in the light of the reports following upon the inquiries referred to. As regards the third part of the question, I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable.

  AUSTRIA (PEACE TREATY).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked when a statement will be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government with reference to the Treaty of Peace with Austria; and whether an opportunity will then be given to the House of Commons for a discussion of this Treaty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave to a question on this subject on 26th November.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the latter part of the question? Are we at any time to have an opportunity in the Prime Minister's time of discussing the question in this House, and, if not, why are we asked to abrogate our functions as a controlling power?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The House is certainly not abrogating any functions. If there was a general demand in the House for a discussion of the Treaty, no doubt the Government would be pleased to make any arrangements necessary, but I hope that hon. Members will wait to hear what I have got to say about the business of the House and then they will find whether the House would like to add to its burdens to the extent of discussing this matter.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that at present the development of the coal industry is arrested; whether an arrested development now will render a famine in coal certain in a few years' time; whether our export trade is dependent on coal production, without which export trade food products from abroad, which are necessary to prevent our people from starva-
    572
    tion, cannot and will not be imported; and whether he will announce the permanent policy of the Government so that confidence may return and the development of our coal resources be resumed?
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister when the Government will introduce the proposals for the future organisation of the coal industry, in addition to the limitation of profits, which he announced on 18th August would be submitted with the least possible delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The announcement of the Government policy with regard to the coal mining industry will be made at the earliest possible moment. My right hon. Friend may rest assured that in framing the legislative proposals which will be required to carry out the Government policy the greatest care will be taken not to prejudice the development of this vital industry.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time the development of the coal industry is arrested? Will he, therefore, make a statement or cause one to be made at the earliest possible moment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I realise the importance of the consideration which has been urged by my right hon. Friend. It was brought to my notice by a deputation of coal-owners the other day.

    COAL INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY) BILL.
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, before this House is asked to give a Second Reading to the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill, he will cause Members to be presented with a statement revising Cm figures given in Mr Justice Sankey's Report and in his statement of the 20th March last, in the light of the most recent information available in regard to the output and profits of the coal mining industry?
    The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. I am sorry that I cannot undertake that such a statement shall be circulated before the Second Reading of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill. As was stated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in last Friday's Debate, the estimated surplus for the current financial year, on the basis of prices ruling prior to 1st December, was £17,000,000.

    573
    The House is aware that the figures are being examined by an independent firm of accountants, Messrs, Alfred Tongue and Company, whose report will be circulated. I do not think it desirable to anticipate that report.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the report will be circulated before the discussion takes place on the Government proposals?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would ask for notice of that question.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND (MAIL SERVICE).
  Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that the mail services to the Inverness-shire portion of the Outer Hebrides have been reduced to one-third of their pre-war frequency; that the population of these islands depend almost entirely upon transport by the mail boat for their food supplies and for marketing their produce from land and sea; whether, in order to prevent the economic ruin of these islands, the Government, through the various Departments concerned, will take immediate steps to restore the steamer services to their pre-war state:
  (2) whether he has received communications from public bodies in Stornoway and Lewis protesting against the recent reduction of the steamer mail services to one-half what there have been for over thirty years; whether he is aware of the injury which this step is certain to cause to the economic life of the Island of Lewis, with its populaton of 30,000; whether he is aware that the island is dependent for over 75 per cent. of its food supply and for all its passenger traffic upon transport by the mail steamer, and that the food supply of the people is thus seriously imperilled; and whether the Government will take immediate steps, through the various Departments concerned, to restore these services to their pre-war level?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The mail boat services for the winter months have been fixed at three calls a week for Stornaway and two calls a week for the Inverness-shire portion of the Outer Hebrides. These services, though less frequent than those enjoyed before the War, are nevertheless, only being maintained with the aid
  574
  of a heavy Exchequer subsidy. It has, however, been represented to me that the great reduction of frequency and the awkwardness of present connections in the case of the service to the Inverness-shire portion of the Outer Hebrides causes considerable hardship, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland I am giving directions for the restoration, in the case of these islands, of the service temporarily adopted in September last.
  Dr. MURRAY: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his concession, may ask if he is aware that the question of a daily service is a matter practically of life and death to Stornoway and Lewis, that during the War the Transport Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland reported that there was a serious shortage of the necessaries of life, and having in view the fact that there are —
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down some of those questions on the Paper?

  TRIESTE.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether at the present moment there are large stores of food at Trieste; for whom these foodstuffs are intended; whether these foodstuffs could be used for the relief of starvation in Central Europe; who is responsible for the custody of the stores; whether there is any danger of attack upon Trieste by Gabriel D'Annunzio; and, if so, what action the Supreme Council propose to take to prevent it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first four parts of the question, the facts are that certain supplies of grain are being made available by the Italian Government for the relief of Austria. A first consignment of 6,000 tons is on its way to Vienna. His Majesty's Government do not anticipate the likelihood of Signor D'Annunzio attacking Trieste, as this town definitely passes to Italy by the Treaty of Peace with Austria. The last part, therefore, does not arise.

  LIQUOR TRADE.
  Mr. HOGGEasked when the Bill dealing with the liquor traffic will be introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to make a statement on the business of the House later on.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what amount of excess profit was paid by various branches of the liquor trade in the last financial year before the reduction of the Excess Profits Tax from 80 per cent, to 40 per cent.; if the figures are not available if he will obtain them;
  (2) the approximate profits of the various branches of the liquor trade during the last financial year compared with their profits during the last year before the War; and if the figures are not available if he will obtain them?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 29th October last by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. For the reasons given in that answer, I am unable to undertake to obtain the information which he desires.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain why it is that the producers of beer and whisky, in spite of the Excess Profits Tax, have all been so enormously enriched, and whether that is due to the Liquor Control Board Regulations; and if he will abolish those Regulations so as to prevent incomes increasing?

  TERMINATION OF WAR ACT.
  Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the number of Acts whose duration or operation is affected by the termination of the War; and whether, in view of the fact that the termination of the War will not take place till the last of the treaties with enemy countries is ratified, he will introduce a Bill to amend the Termination of the War Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I see no reason to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

  FIUME.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what is the present position of
  576
  the question with regard to the allocation of Fiume and adjacent territory; if the Italian Government have proposed that Fiume should be constituted a buffer State; if President Wilson has rejected this proposal; and, if so, whether, as it may become necessary to bring the Peace Treaty into force without American ratification, arrangements can now be made to come to a settlement with regard to Fiume which will be in agreement with the national traditions and desires of its population?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it desirable to make any statement in regard to the present state of the negotiations about Fiume and the adjacent territory between Italy and the United States. The whole question is receiving the earnest and constant attention of His Majesty's Government and of their Allies, who are anxious to bring about a satisfactory and amicable settlement at the earliest possible date.
  Sir F. HALL: Is it not necessary, in order that that amicable settlement may be reached, that something should be decided with regard to Fiume on the lines suggested by the Italian Government?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Certainly not!
  Sir F. HALL: Is that not so?

  TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

    GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether it was the policy of the Government to return the railways to the companies when the Government control ceases?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position now to make any statement on the subject.

    RAILWAYMEN'S PAY (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he could now make a statement as to the position reached in the negotiations between the Government and the National Union of Railwaymen?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made on Sunday at a meeting of railwaymen, by a very high official of the railway union, that negotiations were not proceeding satisfactorily, and that that is a very disturbing statement to make to the general public? Cannot he take some steps to give information to the House that will either contradict that or state the Government case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think negotiations are helped in the least by public statements. It is far better if negotiations are allowed to go on. We shall do our best to come to a satisfactory arrangement, but nothing will be gained by making statements in public.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    PALM KERNELS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether the Government would give a day for the discussion of the, restrictions on the export of palm kernels and other vegetable oil products from the British dependencies to territories other than British?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that there would be a general desire for this discussion, and the pressure upon Parliamentary time is very great.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present restrictive policy of the Government is causing great discontent among the native producers, and also dissatisfaction among merchants at home?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure. There are two sides to that question, and I cannot discuss it with my hon. Friend now.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we not have an opportunity of discussing this—[HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to restrain himself. I must warn him against constant interruptions, which may lead to reprisals.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    INTERNATIONAL CREDIT.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of granting international credits, in order to prevent a further collapse of economic life in Central Europe, he would use his influence to have either the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations, or both, summoned, in order that the League might itself initiate measures for international credit, or any other measures of international co-operation necessary to prevent a further international economic breakdown?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As my Noble friend will see from my reply last week the economic situation in Central Europe is a matter which is causing anxious concern to His Majesty's Government, and about which they are in communication with the United States Government. As to the suggestion made in the question, it is not possible to summon either the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations until after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it would be possible for Austria to get credit in other countries besides the United States, for instance, the Argentine?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not. There is a good deal of material which will have to be purchased in the United States.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether he could state the terms of the assurance given by him during his recent visit to Woolwich on the unemployment question to the effect that the Arsenal would be developed as a railway centre for the construction of locomotives; and whether many other Government properties, established and extended during the War, could also be used in other centres for useful productive work and for reducing greatly the number of the unemployed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: During my recent visit to Woolwich I had the oppor-

    579
    tunity of discussing the matter with the representatives of what is called the "All Grades Committee,'' with representatives of the Ministry of Munitions, and members of the administrative staff of Woolwich Arsenal. I also made personal investigations on the spot, with a view to seeing in what respects the Arsenal could be utilised for alternative work, and especially for the purpose indicated in my right hon. Friend's question. The question of the transfer of Woolwich and other Government establishments from war work to permanent peace work has been receiving the earnest and careful consideration of the Government.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask for an answer to the remainder of the question? Will the right hon. Gentleman state who the Woolwich representatives were whom he met, and whether also, in the case of similar plant and machinery in other parts of the country, similar action will not be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are attempting to do it, I can assure my right hon. Friend. Even this morning I had to meet a Committee which is attempting to deal with a similar problem in the dockyards. I am very glad to be able to say that they have given a fairly satisfactory Report which, I believe, is satisfactory even to the representatives of these areas. It is a very difficult problem, and we are doing our best to solve it.

  HUNGARY.
  Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the Government had any information as to the behaviour of the Roumanians in the occupied districts of Transylvania and Hungary; and whether they would lay any Papers on the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Various reports have been received. If the House desires it, I will consider the possibility of laying any of these on the Table of the House.
  Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister whether a Government has now been set up in Hungary with which it will be possible for the Allied and Associated Governments to negotiate; and, if so, when negotiations will be opened?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The reply is in the affirmative. Sir George Clerk's
  580
  Report shows that M. Huzzar's Government is satisfactory, and the Supreme Council have asked for delegates to be sent to Paris forthwith.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULATION BILL.
  Mr. A. SHAWasked the Prime Minister whether the Ways and Means Resolutions necessary for Clauses 3, 4, and 10 of the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill would be put upon the Paper before the Second Reading of the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not usual to put such Resolutions on the Paper till after the Second Reading, but I shall give consideration to the suggestion in the question.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not probable that the action of many Members on Second Reading may depend on the details of these Resolutions? Is it not, therefore, a special case for this concession?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I promised to take it into consideration.
  Captain W. BENIN: Will the Government move that the Committee stage of the Bill be taken downstairs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of the question asked.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister when the Bill will be introduced to amend the law of insurance under the National Insurance Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This question is at present under consideration by the Government, and I cannot, therefore, make any statement at present.
  Sir A. WARRENasked the Minister of Health how many friendly societies' medical institutions approved under Section 15, Sub-section (4), of the National Health Insurance Act are now in existence; how many of such approved medical institutions have ceased to exist since the coining into operation of the National Health Insurance Act and what cause (other than insufficiency of income) has brought about their dissolu-

  581
  tion; whether any complaints have been made to the National Health Insurance Commission or the Ministry of Health as to the lack of efficiency of the medical service to insured persons rendered by such approved institutions; if so, whether such complaints have been investigated and established by any impartial or competent authority under the Insurance Act; and if he. will say why the Ministry of Health is not prepared to pay approved medical institutions for services rendered to insured persons such amounts pro rata in fees and additional bonuses granted by the Treasury towards increased expenses upon the same recognised basis as the Ministry have been and are now paying the panel doctors engaged in private practice and rendering similar services under the Insurance Act?
  Dr. ADDISON: With regard to the last part of this question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Poplar South on the same subject on Monday last, and to the correspondence which I am sending him showing that every one of the approved medical institutions referred to in his question is being afforded the opportunity of submitting a claim for grants analogous to those which have been made to insurance practitioners. It would take some little time to furnish the whole of the information asked for in the early part of the question as it is not readily available; but I shall be pleased to have particulars sent to my hon. Friend if, after consideration of the correspondence which I am sending him, he considers that any useful purpose would be thereby served.

  PEACE TREATY:

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if the hesitation of the Senate of the United States of America to ratify the Peace Treaty arises from the fact that, under pressure from President Wilson, the Peace Conference made the ratification of the Treaty dependent upon endorsement of the scheme for a League of Nations; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made for the formation of the League to be left over for fuller consideration and discussion, steps being taken in the meantime to bring the Treaty, as to which there is practical agreement, immediate force?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can give no appreciation of the reasons which are influencing the United States Senate in their attitude towards the Peace Treaty. Opinions differ on the subject. I can make no statement as to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question at the present time.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BUTTER.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the offer of 2,000 tons of Dutch butter made to the Ministry of Food last week at 330s. per cwt. c.i.f., is the same price as the Ministry are at present paying for Danish butter; whether he is aware that this 2,000 tons could have been distributed to the public without loss to the Exchequer by averaging the price with cheaper purchases of Colonial and Argentine butter in accordance with the Food Ministry's usual policy; and whether, in considering proposals of expenditure by the Food Ministry, butter is regarded as a luxury or an essential food?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The price asked for the Dutch butter was £330 a ton f.o.b. Sanction has been given for purchases of Danish butter at a price not exceeding 6 kroner per kilogramme c.i.f., but purchases have, in fact, been made at 5.50 kroner per kilogramme. The higher price would represent approximately £304 10s. a ton c.i.f., and the lower £279 2s. 6d. c.i.f. As the right hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Danish exchange is favourable to this country, whereas the Dutch exchange is seriously adverse. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the butter and cheese operations of the Ministry of Food will result during the current financial year in a loss. As to the last part of the question, I should be sorry to have to decide in the case of any individual exactly what is or is not a necessity. It is, in part, a personal question dependent on the individual, in part a question of alternatives, and, in part, a question of degree.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. WALLACEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that investors in the last War Loan who borrowed money from the banks

  583
  for the purpose have now been advised by the bankers that 6 per cent. will be charged on the money advanced, any allowance will be made when the Government deduct Income Tax from the dividends?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 36 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which authorises repayment of Income Tax in respect of interest, paid without deduction of tax, on advances from a bank carrying on a bonâ fide banking business in the United Kingdom. The tax on such interest will then be recoverable in the ordinary way.
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what abatement should be made from the Income Tax of a single man who is the sole support of his father and sister, the latter acting as housekeeper for them and the former being totally incapacitated from work?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where the total income does not exceed £800, relief from tax upon £25 may be claimed under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, in respect of any person whom the taxpayer maintains at his own expense, being a relative of his, or of his wife, who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself and whose income from all sources does not exceed £25 a year. The "housekeeper" allowance in the case of an unmarried person is confined to cases where the "housekeeper" resides with and is maintained by the taxpayer for the purpose of having the charge and care of any brother or sister of his in respect of whom the Income Tax relief for children is given. In this connection, I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the Finance Act, 1919.

  CIVIL SERVICE (INCREASED BONUS).
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Board have recently awarded an increased bonus to the Civil Service; what the estimated cost of the award will be; and whether any provision was made for such an increase in the revised Estimate for the current year or in the Estimate of Expenditure in
  584
  a normal year which was recently submitted to Parliament in Command Papers 377 and 376?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Arbitration hoard has granted an increase of war bonus to permanent Civil servants, dating from the 17th November. The cost of the increase granted by the Board is estimated at £1,250,000 in the current year and at £3,500,000 per annum in a full year. No provision was made for these increases in the White Paper. I, perhaps, ought to add that since the award was given application has been made for a similar increase in the wages of temporary employés.

  EXCHANGE (UNITED STATES).
  Colonel MORDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United States Government have ever been asked to accept an equivalent amount of the securities we hold of our other Allies in settlement of our debt to America; if so, what was the date on which the question was brought forward and the nature of the reply given by the United States Government; and, if not, whether, in the event of the United States Government having agreed to make this settlement, the adverse rate of exchange would have been materially rectified, our credit greatly improved, and the cost of living consequently lowered?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No proposal of this kind has been made by us to the American Government.
  Colonel MORDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a leading bank in New York last spring was prepared for such a proposal from the British Government and to support that proposal?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am unable to confirm the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I could not make proposals to the American Government on the initiative of an American bank.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why did you not make it on your own initiative?

  FLOATING DEBT.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, in view of the rejection of Premium Bonds, how he now intends to get the Floating Debt funded?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, I do not accept the assumption underlying his question that an issue of Premium Bonds would have materially reduced the Floating Debt, nor can the conversion of, say, Treasury Bills into short-dated Bonds be properly described as funding. On the general question of funding, I can at present add nothing to my previous statements.

  PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Prime Minister if he can inform the House what business will be taken next week, and if he is in a position to say when the House will adjourn for Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The business we propose for next week is:

    Monday, Housing Bill, Second Reading;

    Tuesday, Supplementary Estimates;

    Wednesday, Navy Estimates;

    Thursday, Coal Bill, Second Reading.

    The House would, I have no doubt, desire to have an indication of the views of the Government as to the future course of business and the probable termination of the Session.
    The Government recognise that a great and an almost unprecedented strain has been put upon the House. Speaking as a Member of thirty years' standing, I cannot recollect a single Session where so much hard and conscientious work has been put in by hon. Members, both in Committee upstairs and on the floor of the House.
    The essential tasks of reconstruction following the dislocation of a great War rendered it necessary that an unusual number of measures of the first importance should be carried through without delay. In normal times, this legislation would have been spread over several Sessions, but the conditions here and everywhere made delay dangerous, and a good deal of the essential work of reconstruction could not be commenced without the statutory authority of Parliament. That accounts for the exceptional pressure upon Parliament in its first Session. I fear also, for the same reason, the pressure must continue through the second Session of this Parliament.
    586
    Having regard to the strain of the past few months, and the prospect of an inevitable repetition of it in the coining Session, the Government feel it is due to the House to close this Session as early as possible, in order to give hon. Members an interval of rest before they renew their onerous tasks next year.
    We therefore propose, with the assistance of the House, to do our best to avoid an Adjournment and to secure a Prorogation before Christmas. That will necessarily involve postponing till next Session all measures which have not yet made much progress, and which the House has shown a desire to spend a considerable time in examining.
    We hope to introduce the Irish Bill early the week after next, but it is obvious if we are to prorogue this year that such a measure could not be carried through this Session. The same thing applies to measures like the Hours of Employment Bill, the Education (Ireland) Bill, and the Imports and Exports Bill I doubt whether there will be time to introduce the Liquor Control Bill and the Agriculture Bill.
    In order to save the time which has already been expended, we are contemplating inviting the House to alter the Standing Orders, in order to take particular measures in the next Session at the stage at which they have been carried during the present Session.
    As regards the Army and Air Estimates, these are ready and will be laid in a few days. There is nothing new in them which has not already been under discussion, and I hope the House will await further discussion on Army and Air matters till the post-War Estimates are introduced early next year.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: What will be the date of rising?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That will depend entirely on the progress we shall make with business. There are certain measures we must get through. For instance, the Housing Bill we must get through all its stages in order to press on, and there are certain other measures which must also be completed. I hope we might be able to rise on the 23rd December. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am certain that hon. Members would prefer going on till then to coming back after the 23rd, and for that reason I suggest

    587
    that we should press on before Christmas, so as to be able then to adjourn till early in February.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Can the Prime Minister inform us when the copies of the Limitation of Food Prices Bill will be available?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand to-morrow.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now dropping the Irish Education Bill, may I ask what he proposes to do with regard to the teachers' salaries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I never indicated that the Government proposed to drop the Bill.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can he give any indication as to the date of the commencement of the next Session?
    HON. MEMBERS: He said early in February.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give time for the discussion, as has been understood and agreed between both benches here, for the Army and the Air Force before Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will be very difficult to find time if the House really desires to prorogue before Christmas. We are entirely in the hands of the House, and if the House insists upon discussions upon that and one or two other topics, it will be quite impossible to prorogue on the date named. However, we are entirely in the hands of hon. Members.
    Sir H. NORMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he proposes to give only one day for the Second Reading of the Coal Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With the time at our disposal, I am sorry to say, there is only one day available.
    Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney-General for Ireland stated early in the day that it was intended to take the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill next week? Is that still the intention, and is it the intention of the Government to carry that Bill through this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it will be quite impossible to carry it through this Session, if the Session terminates before Christmas, but as I pointed out, there we are entirely in the hands of the House. I did not hear what the Attorney-General for Ireland said, but. I do not think we can take the Second Reading next week.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May we take it that the Irish Bill will not really be formally introduced, but that there will be a day for its discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In our plans we have allocated a day for the discussion upon introduction, because we feel it is not a Bill one can introduce without explanation.

  Captain REV. T. J. O'DONNELL:
    COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS.

      MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Can the Minister for War now make a statement with regard to the case of the Rev. Father O'Donnell?
      [The following Questions relating to the court-martial proceedings stood on the Paper]
      Mr. MacVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Father O'Donnell, an Australian Army chaplain, after strenuously supporting the Military Service campaign in Australia and after serving in France during the War, was arrested by the Army authorities in Ireland on a false charge of sedition; whether he is aware that the arrest was made without proper investigation by his commanding officer, although such investigation is made necessary by the Army Regulations, and that, in further breach of the Army Regulations, no particulars of any charge were notified to him until application was made to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus; whether he is aware that when in custody he was prevented from seeing his friends and even from consulting the solicitor and King's Counsel engaged far his defence unless in the presence of an officer; that his military gaolers refused to send any message to his friends; that although he was under the care of a medical specialist they refused to send for his medicine or his dressing-bag; and that when crossing the

      589
      barrack yard for necessary purposes he was obliged to pass between soldiers with fixed bayonets; whether such treatment is usually meted out to officers; whether on arrival in London he was confined as a prisoner in the Tower; whether he is aware that he was acquitted by a general court-martial composed of fellow Australian officers; whether any representations with regard to this case have been made by Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia; whether, as sworn by the Dublin Provost Marshal, Father O'Donnell was arrested on his authority and responsibility; if so, whether the provost marshal will be dismissed from the Army; and what steps it is intended to take with regard to Chambers, whose evidence the court-martial refused to believe?
      Captain BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the inquiry he promised on Monday into the case of Captain O'Donnell is yet complete?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The Rev. T. J. O'Donnell, Australian imperial Forces, was arrested in Dublin on the 14th October, 1919, by order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Irish Command. The arrest was made on substantial prima facie evidence in accordance with King's Regulations; paragraph 469. This paragraph authorises a competent authority to place an officer under arrest without previous investigation when circumstances require, and lays down that an officer against whom charges are preferred will invariably be placed under arrest.
      The Rev. O'Donnell was informed by the officer who placed him under arrest of a preliminary charge—namely, conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.
      He was then handed over for safe custody to the Commanding Officer of Ship Street Barracks, as a temporary measure. On arrival at the barracks, the Rev. O'Donnell was placed in a room provided for officers in arrest, and the Commanding Officer personally went to see him and explained that he was making ready the best non-commissioned officers' bunk in the barracks, as all the officers' quarters were then full. The Rev. O'Donnell was treated as any other officer under arrest would have been.
      The accommodation consisted of a warrant officer's bunk, which was clean in every respect, having been scrubbed daily. He was provided with four blankets and
      590
      three pieces of bedding, all of which were clean. The room in which the Rev. O'Donnell was confined was placed in charge of a guard, in accordance with King's Regulations, paragraph 465, which reads: "An officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer may, if circumstances require it, be placed for custody under the charge of a guard, picquet, patrol, sentry, or provost marshal."
      The non-commissioned officer in charge of the guard personally provided the Rev. O'Donnell with soap, towel, shaving materials, and a washing bowl, and other necessary articles, also newspapers and candles. Pens, ink, and writing materials were on the table for his use. His meals were provided from the officers' mess. Everything for his comfort was provided as far as possible.
      The following morning, the 15th October, he was visited by a medical officer, and the same day was transferred to Richmond Barracks, where he was permitted to see visitors in the presence of an officer on the 16th, 17th and 18th October. From the 19th October onwards he was permitted to see his legal advisers in private.
      In accordance with the usual custom his baggage was not given to him until it had been examined by a competent officer.
      The Rev. O'Donnell did not ask to see a medical officer until the morning after his arrest, and as already stated, this request was immediately complied with.
      He sent messages to his friends and had frequent interviews with medical advisers, both his own and Army doctors.
      The arrest of the Rev. O'Donnell was immediately reported by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Ireland, to the War Office, who informed the Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, asking what instructions they desired should be sent to the Irish Command. Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, expressed a desire to send an assistant provost marshal to conduct the Rev. O'Donnell under arrest from Dublin to London.
      Before, however, they could carry out their intention, application was made in Dublin for leave for an order of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the Rev. O'Donnell on Saturday, 25th October, in the King's Bench Division, and Mr. Justice Dodd directed that in the meantime time Rev. O'Donnell was not to be removed

      591
      from the jurisdiction of the King's Bench. This application was heard in Dublin on the 25th October, and the Lord Justice refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus, stating that he was satisfied (inter alia) that the detention of the reverend gentleman was legal.
      On the 26th October the Rev. O'Donnell was conducted under arrest by an assistant provost marshal of the Australian Imperial Forces from Dublin to London. On arrival in London, the Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, requested the General Officer Commanding London District, to provide accommodation for the night. This he did, and the Rev. O'Donnell was confined in one of the ordinary rooms at the Tower reserved for officers in close arrest. Here he was given dinner sent down from the officers' mess, and was attended by an orderly.
      After spending about fourteen hours in this room he was removed by the Headquarters, Australian Imperial Forces, and placed under open arrest.
      The Australian Military Authorities, in taking over conduct of the further proceedings in the case of the Rev. O'Donnell, acted in accordance with the practice which has obtained all through the War and since. After considering the evidence the Commandant decided to convene a general court-martial for the trial of the Rev. O'Donnell on a charge of using disloyal words regarding the Sovereign.
      I am not in a position to state why the Australian Military Authorities decided to try the Rev. O'Donnell by court-martial. It may be that they considered that, in view of the nature of the charges, there was no alternative but to go to trial, or they may have acted on the instructions contained in the Manual of Military Law, which read as follows: "A case should not, as a rule, be sent for trial unless there is reasonable probability that the accused person will be convicted; at the same time there may be cases where disgraceful charges have been preferred and where a court-martial affords the only method to the accused of decisively clearing his character."
      The Court consisted of officers of the Australian Imperial Forces; counsel for the prosecution being provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the request of the Australian Military Authorities, who were advised by the Judge-Advocate General that it was proper for the
      592
      prosecution to be represented by counsel. The provision of counsel is governed by paragraphs 574 and 574a of the King's Regulations.
      I desire to take this opportunity to observe that, as stated above, the reasons which actuated the Australian Military Authorities in their decision to try the Rev. O'Donnell by court-martial do not come within my province. I can only say, however, that had the decision as to whether or not there should be a trial by court-martial rested with the authorities of the War Office, they would have come to exactly the same decision as that taken by-the Australian Military Authorities, that is to say, there was no alternative but that the case should be brought to trial.
      From this statement it is clear that the action of the Military Authorities, whether in Ireland, at the War Office, or at the-Headquarters of the Australian Imperial Forces, has been in strict accordance with the provisions of the Army Act and the King's Regulations throughout.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Who supplied the right hon. Gentleman with that tissue of lies which he has just read out? [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that I would wantonly convey such an impression to the House. I have every reason to believe that the statements I have-made to the House are not only furnished in good faith, but are strictly accurate. They are based up-on the statements of the individual officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers who were concerned, every one of Whose statements I have seen, and, in order to make matters perfectly sure, even at the risk of some delay, I telegraphed as soon as my hon. Friend's question was on the Paper to the authorities in Ireland, in order that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief should go into the matter and make a special report, and it is on the special report of Major-General Shaw, based on a further examination of the original statement of the case of the military officers and subordinate officers concerned, that all the facts I have stated have been laid before the House. In-addition to that, on the question of law and procedure involved, I have taken the advice of competent military authorities at the War Office and of competent legal authorities.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence, the sworn testimony, of Father O'Donnell after he was arrested and as to his ill-treatment in the cells?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen the statement he has made, and I have also seen the statements of the officers and non-commissioned officers, which controvert that statement.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of the statements contained in the document which ho has just read was contravened by Father O'Donnell in the witness-box, and that the prosecutor specially appointed by the military to carry on the prosecution at the court-martial never cross-examined him in regard to these statements. Is that so?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have every reason to believe that this statement is strictly accurate and correct.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House who was responsible for Father O'Donnell's arrest in Dublin Was he arrested on the responsibility of the War Office or on the responsibility of the Irish Government?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have stated already to the House that the Rev. O'Donnell was arrested on the 14th October by order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Irish Command. Of course the acts of all military officers are a matter for which the War Office is responsible, wherever they are situated, and therefore I am perfectly prepared on that ground alone to defend the action taken. At the same time, of course, the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland naturally in many matters—I do not know whether in this matter he so acted—but in many matters he is guided by the Irish Executive, but I do not know that in this case he acted on any other grounds but purely military grounds.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the charge preferred against Father O'Donnell, according to the evidence given by General Ready at the Habeas Corpus motion, was that he used language disloyal to the King and to the Government?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The court-martial proceedings are available, and my right
      594
      bon. Friend is just as capable of looking into them as I am. I should say, however, that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary assured me that the Irish Executive-were not concerned in this case, but it was purely a matter of military discipline for which the General Officer Commanding in Ireland is responsible, and for which I am responsible on behalf of the War Office.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me definitely now was the Irish Executive responsible? I ask him, was the Irish Executive consulted about the arrest of Father O'Donnell?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as I am aware, that is not the case, and the answer which I have given to the House makes it clear that it was the General Officer, General Shaw, who issued the order for the arrest.
      Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence given in the application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus differs from the evidence given at the court-martial, and from the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day? May I ask what is the proper opportunity for the House to discuss the statement, which is obviously controversial, and largely controverted by those familiar with the facts?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the rules as well as I do.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions I have put on the Paper, and which were transferred without my authority from the Prime Minister to him. I want to know whether any representations with regard to this case have been made to the Prime Minister of Australia. In the second place, I want to know whether it is true, as sworn by the Dublin Provost-Marshal, that Father O'Donnell was arrested on the authority and the responsibility of the Provost-Marshal, or whether the truth is, as sworn by General Ready on the occasion of the habeas corpus motion, that he was arrested on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland? Which of these statements is true? One or other is perjured, and, anyway, I want to know how it happened that the message sent by the Tasmanian Government to Father O'Donnell was suppressed, and not delivered to him for three weeks?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see myself any essential conflict of facts between the two statements the hon. Gentleman has made. I can quite understand the officer executing the order of a superior authority might be represented as the authority on which he was arrested, and then, on more formal inquiry, the actual source from which that authority emanated might come to light. It is quite likely that in the first case the Provost-Marshal was considered to be the authority, and later on that the Provost-Marshal was acting on a higher authority. So far as Mr. Hughes is concerned, I believe some telegram has passed between him and the Colonial Office, but I have not seen it up to the present. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put a question to the Colonial Office. So far as the Tasmanian message is con-corned, I have no information on the subject.
      Mr. DEVLIN (later): I feel obliged to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the intolerable outrage on Captain the Reverend T. J. O'Donnell, a gallant officer of the Australian Imperial Forces, which calls for the immediate reprobation of this House, and for the instant dismissal of all officials who were responsible for this indefensible insult to the brave officer and to the Australian Army and people."
      The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
      The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

  STANDING ORDER SUSPENDED.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Government of India (re-committed) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Third Report, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.].

  BILLS PRESENTED.
  NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL, —"to provide for the registration in Scotland of Nurses for the Sick," presented by Mr. MUNRO: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 232].
  HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL,—"to make further provision for the better housing of the people, to authorise the acquisition of land for the development of garden cities or for the purposes of town-planning schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of public authorities and bodies, and with respect to the securities issued by them," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1919–20).
  Estimate presented of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1920 [by Command], referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 222.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Composition of Governor's Legislative Councils.)
    (1) There shall be a legislative council in every governor's province, which shall consist of the members of the executive council and of members nominated or elected as provided by this Act.
    The governor shall not be a member of the legislative council, but shall have the right of addressing the council, and may for that purpose require the attendance of its members.
    (2) The number of members of the governors' legislative councils shall be in accordance with the table set out in the First Schedule to this Act; and of the members of each council not more than twenty per cent. shall be official members, and at least seventy per cent. shall be elected members:
    Provided that—

    (a) subject to the maintenance of the above proportions, Rules under the principal Act may provide for increasing the number of members of any council, as specified in that Schedule; and

    (b) the governor may, for the purposes of any Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in his legislative council, nominate, in the case of Assam one person, and in the case of other provinces not more than two persons, having special knowledge or experience of the subject-matter of the Bill, and those persons shall, in relation to the Bill, have for the period for which they are nominated all the rights of members of the council, and shall be in addition to the numbers above referred to; and

    (c) members nominated to the legislative council of the Central Provinces by the governor as the result of elections held in the Assigned Districts of Berar shall be deemed to be elected members of the legislative council of the Central Provinces.

    (3) The powers of a governor's legislative council may be exercised notwithstanding any vacancy in the council.
    (4) Subject as aforesaid, provision may be made by Rules under the principal Act as to—

    (a) the term of office of nominated members of governors' legislative councils, and the manner of filling casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence of members from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of office, resignation duly accepted, or otherwise; and

    (b) the conditions under which and manner in which persons may be nominated as members of governors' legislative councils; and

    (c) the qualification of electors, the constitution of constituencies, and the method of election for governors' legislative councils, including the number of members to be elected by communal and other electorates, and any matters incidental or ancillary thereto; and

    650

    (d) the qualifications for being and for being nominated or elected a member of any each council; and

    (e) the final decision of doubts or disputes as to the validity of any election; and

    (f) the manner in which the Rules are to be carried into effect:

    Provided that Rules as to any such matters as aforesaid may provide for delegating to the local government such power as may be specified in the Rules of making subsidiary Regulations affecting the same matters.
    (5) Subject to any such Rules any person who is a ruler or subject of any State in India may be nominated as a member of a governor's legislative council.
    The CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out one or two matters with regard to the series of Amendments which are on the Order Paper on Clause 7. In the first place, these proposals are not framed to bring a franchise into being, but they are to insert special directions within the limited rules proposed under the Clause. It would not be within ray duty to take a series of interminable propositions of that kind. I propose, therefore, with the assistance of the Committee, to take three leading points from the various Amendments; and perhaps hon. Members of each group will subsequently let me know their views on the matter. Roughly, I suggest that one Amendment should be taken on the question of sex, another on the question of candidates, and a third on the question of the electorate. I think that will give a fair opportunity to hon. Members to put forward their views on the three divisions into which the Amendments may be considered to be divided.
    Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words "provided that in framing such Rules no discrimination of sex shall be made."
    In moving this Amendment laying down that there shall be no disqualification in the Bill on the ground of sex, I should like to say one preliminary word on the scheme of the Bill. The Bill itself does not lay down a qualification for electors. This is to be done by Order in Council. I want it to be a necessity that the Order-in-Council which describes the qualification of voters shall include women as well as men. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with any general arguments in favour of giving women the vote. I should say, in passing, that my Amendment is confined to the vote, and does not give them the right to sit on the Legislative Councils. I do not think I need waste the time of the House on this matter, because all those

    651
    who can be converted have been converted long ago, and those who are not converted I am afraid no words of mine will ever convert.
    I want to deal with the question as it affects India. After all, India is not Great Britain. In the minds of a good many Members, I think, there must be a feeling of surprise that we should ask them to grant Indian women this gift of the vote which European women have won after a very long struggle. In view of the long constitutional history of our country, and our long training in representative government, it seems, perhaps, strange to some Members that Indian women should at the very beginning of this great experiment be given the vote whereas English and Scottish women have had to wait many centuries to get it. I quite feel the force of that argument. I propose to deal with it in a minute. Before I do so I want to clear out of the way one or two misunderstandings. In the first place, it is said there is no demand. All bodies in any way representative of Indian opinion and of the opinion of the public have supported woman suffrage. The Indian National Congress and the Home Rule League have done so, and I think every witness that appeared before the Joint Committee—and there appeared some very distinguished Indian and other witnesses—favoured this view. Also the only Indian member of the Viceroy's Council himself supports it, so it cannot be said that there is no demand for woman suffrage. A demand from the Indian women themselves is hard to ascertain, and cannot be evolved until they have got some constitutional means of expressing it. So far as Indian opinion goes, it is quite unanimously in favour of the grant of the vote to women.
    It is said that it is quite impossible because Indian women are quite unfitted for the vote. They are, it is said, illiterate. A very small percentage read and write even their own language. They are not up to the standard which we expect an electorate should reach. I think these views arise from a misunderstanding of what education means. Education is not entirely a matter of reading or writing. You can obtain knowledge in other ways than from print. Anyone who knows anything of the East knows that the very high standard of knowledge,
    652
    ability, practical sense, and judgment of affairs does not depend at all upon books. After all, that argument destroys itself, for the basis of the Bill is not an educational qualification. A man can get the vote whether or not he can read and write. If he can get the vote, why not the women? Then as to the fitness of the two sexes to vote. An opinion from any of us here is difficult to express. I do not know; I have never been in India. But I have this advantage: I was brought up in an Oriental country, Egypt, which, when I was young—which is now a good many years ago—was an entirely Oriental country. I think I do know something of the manners and customs of the East. I agree, however, it is very difficult to judge of the comparative fitness of men and women to vote, but I will say this: that a very distinguished Indian Civil servant told me quite a short time ago that women and women's opinion ruled matters in India.
    To pass from that, I come to what I believe is the real objection in the minds of most Members to this proposal. That is this: that the franchise is totally foreign and repugnant to the social and religious feelings of the community. On that, again, I cannot speak with great confidence, and I do not want to dogmatise, but I would ask the Committee to observe one or two things. In the first place, we have made very great inroads by this Bill on the social structure of India. We have enfranchised the lower castes. We have given special representation to the non-Brahmins; all along we have gone counter to the traditional customs of India. Surely what we have done in enfranchising the men of the lower castes is a far bigger shock to conservative opinion in India than the enfranchisement of women of their own caste? I am not sure that the House altogether appreciates the position of women in India. We have all assumed, I think, that they are oppressed, occupied entirely with domestic affairs, that they have no outlook at all, and that the man is lord and master. Anyone, who looks upon the picture of Indian history will find that he frequently comes across gallant figures—women leading their armies in battle, ruling their countries wisely, and presiding over their councils in peace. Apart from that, I just want to call attention to two facts existing at the present time. The one is of an aged and revered sovereign, the Begum of Bhopal, who her-

    653
    self is the strictest of the strict. The second figure is that of the Aga Khan, himself a Muslim of the Muslims.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: He represents only one small section of the Muslims.
    Major HILLS: I could quote many more, but I do not want to quote more than one distinguished man. I do, however, entirely resent any aspersions on the Aga Khan, a most distinguished man.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Who is not accepted as a leader by a large number of his co-religionists!
    Major HILLS: He told the Joint Committee that the effect of purdah was grossly exaggerated in Europe. He did not, he said, only regard the vote as possible, but he wanted the vote as necessary for women to protect their property. Evidence of that sort, I respectfully put it to the Committee, is to the point, and it is, I think, rather a tall order that we should say that Indian opinion will not sanction the vote. We all have a tendency to exaggerate the restrictions of Indian women's life. These restrictions, I would remind the Committee, are fast passing away. An Indian lady assured me that purdah never had prevented any woman from doing what she wanted, and I am sure that members of this Committee are well enough acquainted with human nature to realise that the influence of women is not merely a matter of convention. It is argued that my proposal is not practical, and that women in India, especially Mahomedan women, cannot go to the poll. They say that you may give her the vote, but the class of women you want to vote will not go to the poll and the less desirable class may go and exercise their rights. In this connection, I wish to point to the experience of Bombay, where women have a municipal vote and they exercise it; in fact, the percentage of women voting in Bombay is higher than is the case with the men and women who voted here at the last election.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: That is the percentage on the register.
    Major HILLS: I agree; there is only a small fraction of the women on the register, and the percentage of those voting is more than 40 per cent. The effect of my Amendment would be this: The Bill gives the franchise upon a property or taxpaying qualification to about 5,000,000 men. I ask
    654
    for a franchise for women on the same terms, and the effect would be to enfranchise about 1,000,000 women. The franchise would then consist of about 6,000,000, of which 1,000,000 would be women.
    I now Corms to another argument which is perhaps one of the strongest in the minds of the Committee. It is said that you ought to leave this question to the decision of the Legislative Councils. I want to meet that argument. In the Report of the Joint Committee, for which we are so deeply indebted, it is laid down that this question goes so deeply into the social life of India that we sitting here ought not to decide it, but should leave it to the councils when they are formed. I want to put to the House that it is for us and not for the Indian Councils to settle this great question. Surely it is for this House to guide them. You cannot leave a great question of this sort to the Governor's Council to settle. Even in England, with our centuries of representative government, we did not leave the question of the women to the county councils. We settled it here. I know there are many disadvantages. It appears that it is a democratic procedure. It looks as though we are referring questions to the decision of Indians themselves, but really we are doing nothing of the sort. The House will realise that the 5,000,000 men in India enfranchised under this Bill are only a very small fraction of the community. Again, you will have a hopeless want of uniformity. One Province may act in one way and one in another way and you do want some body like the House of Commons, well informed, experienced and absolutely impartial, to decide this great question. Do not throw this apple of sex discord into your new Indian Constitution. There is enough trouble there already without that, and we should settle it one way or the other. I would far rather it were settled here than it should be made a weapon in party warfare, because it is a very difficult question. We know how difficult it was here, and how it shook our old and well established polity rather severely. What is it going to do in the untried assemblies in India? Surely you had much better settle it here. In. India you have all sorts of franchises. Each Province has a different franchise, and there are different arrangements for the different classes. I still hope that the Government will give way on this point,

    655
    and I am absolutely in earnest in what I say. Until I examined the case for this Amendment I had no idea of its strength, and I had no idea as to the extent of the demand for it. Every organ of opinion and every body which expresses a view on the subject supports it.
    I only wish to deal with two more points. In the first place, it is said sometimes that all revolutions are caused by women. I believe women are at the back of every revolution in the world's history. It may be that some of the more advanced spirits in India are women. It is said that if this be so, what risks you run in granting the franchise to women. In any case, surely they are safer inside than outside the Constitution. If there are these wild women thinkers there, they will continue to do their work. Give them an outlet and a chance in the future of voting for somebody who can speak and represent their views. That has always been our plan, and it has always been successful. I do not care how vast the number of the people are it is safer to give them a chance of expressing their views. A great many causes which would have been far more dangerous have been made safe and orderly by giving the speakers it chance of expressing their views.
    My second point is that we have, consciously or unconsciously, sapped the old traditional historic system of India. Though we have held the balance fairly between creed and creed, we have allowed Western thought full play, and it has sapped the whole foundation. Therefore, you cannot expect the system to remain as it was before. You are destroying the old system and you must put something in its place. It should be built up on modern lines. The New World you can build up, but I do not believe you can build it up successfully without the help of women. The future of India is hopeful, but there are storm clouds around this enormous enterprise, which is a new experiment, and I want it to be made under the best possible conditions. We do not know what dangers are ahead, but I sincerely believe, and I ask the Committee to say, that by far the safest course, as well as the most just, is to grant women the vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will put his Amendment in a slightly different form as
    656
    follows: After the word "thereto," to insert the words "provided that in framing the Rules for this purpose no discrimination of sex shall be made."
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I think my hon. and gallant Friend, who has moved this Amendment, has made out the most powerful case that could be made for it. For myself, I am bound to express the hope that the Committee will adhere to the decision of the Joint Committee. I quite recognise the force of the demand for woman suffrage in India. There is no doubt about it, and it is quite true to say that the overwhelming mass of evidence before the Joint Committee was in favour of it, and, therefore, I think Parliament would be making a mistake in denying the opportunity to women to become enfranchised. My hon. and gallant. Friend may take it from me as a fact that none the less, despite the strong opinion in favour of it in India, in very many parts of India there is a very strong conservative opinion against it in India, more prevalent in some provinces than in others, but based very largely on the belief in old-established customs, sometimes amounting to a religion. That being so, there being on the one hand on a subject of this kind, divergence of opinion going, as the Joint Committee says, deep down into the social life of India, what is the best thing for Parliament to do? I submit it is to maintain the impartiality which has been the characteristic of English government in India ever since it was founded, and leave it to the people of India as represented to decide for themselves. That is what we have done. That is what we are doing in the case of the Brahmin versus non-Brahmin, and that is what is suggested by the Joint Committee's Report in the case of women. Let me remind the Committee that this is not a question of enfranchising the women in our own country, living under our own social conditions, a decision which we took only after years of hesitancy. It is a question of deciding now and at once whether we shall enfranchise the women of India, who live under different conditions, and whose relations to things in India are matters, I would submit, for Indians themselves to decide.
    Viscountess ASTOR: But it is to be decided by Indian men.
    Mr. MONTAGU: That is quite true, but the hon. Member will remember that the question of the women's franchise here was decided by men.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Only after enormous pressure from the ladies.
    Mr. MONTAGU: That is also quite true, but the pressure I am quite certain, if it does not already exist, will come into existence, and the matter will be decided in a similar way. I quite agree with everything that my hon. and gallant Friend said about the folly of excluding women from the franchise and about the valuable contribution which they can make to the political questions of the country both as electors and as elected, and, if I were in India and were a member of the Legislative Council, I should agree with my hon. and gallant Friend and vote for the proposition, but I do not think that we are entitled to do it here and now. I think we should leave it to those who are Indians.
    Mr. SPOOR: The right hon. Gentleman, on the face of it, has put up what appears to be a very plausible argument why the recommendation of the Committee should be adopted, but I rather imagine that his case will not bear close examination. He asks us to leave this question to be decided by the people of India. I submit that the recommendation of the Committee does not leave it to the people of India at all. We are proposing to give to India a certain measure of self-government, so restricted or limited that 98 per cent. of her people will be excluded from the first electorate. However the Legislative Councils to whom this question has to be left, are composed, it is certain that they will not be representative of the people in India. We are actually advised by the Select Committee, of which I was a member, though I certainly did not agree with this recommendation, to leave to this small body, which I submit is entirely unrepresentative, the settlement of this very important question in this part of the Empire where we want to secure conditions of real equality as between India and Great Britain. When we say to India, "We are going to give you a form of government which in all essentials corresponds with that which we have in our own country," then, if we are to act consistently, we must say, "As we Great Britain have recognised the principle of sex equality so far as political matters are concerned, so at the very
    658
    commencement of the period, when you are going to travel, we hope, on the lines that we have travelled, the demand, though it may meet with considerable opposition from conservative quarters, should be met, so far as this Parliament at any rate is concerned. I submit, therefore, that in the interests of consistency alone we should affirm our belief in the principle of the right of women to exercise the vote. Witness after witness, representing not only the feminine interest in India, but other interests, and also British and commercial interests, came before the Select Committee and testified to the reality of the demand on the part of the women of India to take part in the political life of their own country. No more powerful and certainly no more eloquent memorandum was submitted to the Committee than that which was submitted by Mrs. Sarojini Naidu when she came representing the suffrage movement in India, and stated her case before the Committee. I only wish it had been possible for all the members of this Committee, and especially those who are not present to-night, to have heard, or at all events to have read, the very powerful plea that she made. It seemed to me, and I am sure it seemed to other members of the Committee, that she very effectually disposed of some of the reasons that had been advanced as to why this demand should not be granted.
    Those of us who perhaps have a very recent and a very casual acquaintance with India have, at any rate, come to realise that in India for a very long period there have existed conditions of sex equality in advance of those which exist in our own land. The position of women in India is different from that of the women in this country. Certainly the reality of the equality of the sexes in India, despite all those intricate difficuties associated with religion that I am afraid many of us do not understand, has been one of the facts brought out again and again in the course of the evidence. I am sure that I speak for every member of the Select Committee when I say that we were profoundly impressed by the reasons which were advanced, by the eloquence with which those reasons were put forward, and by the strength of the case that was made out for the political enfranchisement of the women of India at the very beginning of this reform scheme. Personally, I was

    659
    immensely surprised that the Committee did not go further than the recommendation that they have made. I am sure, had they been guided by their first impulse, that a majority of the Committee would have agreed to the affirmation of this principle in the Bill itself. I sincerely hope that the members of this Committee will try to act consistently, and assist those of us who are urging the Secretary of State either to incorporate it in the Bill or make the strongest representations to the authorities in India that it is the desire of this House that a privilege which we enjoy here shall be extended to the people of that country.
    One does not need to go over the arguments in favour of the vote for women, but I do want to emphasise the point that in leaving this matter to the Legislative Councils in India we are not leaving it to the people of India, and, as we have been reminded by the Noble Lady on my left (Viscountess Astor), we are certainly not leaving it to the women of India to decide. The women of India who have spoken in this country from hundreds of platforms have demanded this right with an insistence and power which has certainly never been surpassed by their English sisters, and, as a matter of elementary justice, in the interests of the future peace of India, and with the object of securing from the beginning the co-operation in the future government of the country of a large body of Indian women, many of whom may not have had educational opportunities, but some of whom have and have taken the fullest advantages or those opportunities — there are women of extraordinary literary distinction — I urge the Secretary of State to accept this Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills). After all, it is not an Amendment which goes very far. It does not enter into any details of machinery; it is merely an affirmation of a principle which we have already accepted in this House, and have reaffirmed again and again during recent months, a principle which, I believe, if extended to India, will bring about those desirable results to which I have referred.
    5.0 P.M.
    Earl WINTERTON: I confess that I was very much surprised to hear one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment. We are accustomed in those days to hear some strange arguments
    660
    from strange quarters in tins House, but I never thought that I should live to see the day when my right hon. Friend would say an Amendment to any Bill could not be passed because there was a strong conservative opinion against it. It shows the remarkable political times in which we live. In fact, in the very short speech which he made, so far as I could make out, that matter was most prominently in his mind. He came down to the House, after listening to the proceedings of the Joint Committee, imbued with the idea that this proposal could not be accepted because there was a strong conservative opinion in India against it. I never heard my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), who sits on my left, cheer any statement with more vigour. Honestly, I cannot see that that argument should hold good in considering this proposal. In the first place, what is it that is proposed to be done under the Bill as a whole? I understood that all shades of opinion supported this Bill—after all, different shades of opinion do support it, people who in ordinary politics have entirely different ideas—because it is an attempt to advance along a path by successive and progressive stages towards the ideal of Western democracy. That being so, there is no logical reason why Indian women also should not be permitted to make an advance along that path. Under the Bill as it stands the path is absolutely barred to women. Then I turn to the way in which this question was dealt wit by the Committee, and, with all due deference to the Committee and to the very admirable Report they presented, I must say I think their references to this particular subject are lacking in strength. I should like to read to the House the paragraph dealing with this question:
    "The question whether women should or should not be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men should be left to the newly-elected legislative council of each province to settle by resolution… The Committee have not felt able to settle this question themselves, as urged by the majority of witnesses who appeared before them. It seems to them to go deep into the social system and susceptibilities of India, and, therefore, to be a question which can only with any prudence he settled in accordance with the wishes of the Indians themselves as constitutionally expressed."
    When we come to examine what appear to be very weighty words one is tempted to ask whether an extension of the franchise in any country does not go deeply into its social system and susceptibilities. Is any-

    661
    one going to tell me that when we in this country a few years ago extended the franchise to women, and extended it still further last Session by opening this House to women, that that was not going deeply into the social system and susceptibilities of this country? After all, it has been suggested, and it is indeed always suggested, that there is something inherent in the purdah system which renders women who live under it entirely different to their European sisters. But really the evidence available with regard to the position of women in Eastern countries does not entirely bear out that statement, and I should like, with the permission of the House, to read an extract from a statement issued by Indian ladies who support this movement which expresses the situation in a nutshell. It is as follows:
    "The very fact that a woman lives under the purdah does not prevent her taking an intelligent interest in the affairs of public life… There are many women who manage their business with great capacity."
    I fear that far too many people take their ideas of the conditions in Eastern countries from the scenes portrayed in Algal. But all the evidence that is available is to the effect that women in Eastern countries are taking interest, not merely in politics, but in the affairs of life generally, and this is exemplified by what has recently taken place in Egypt. If one ten years ago, had asked any Anglo-Egyptian who lived in Egypt if he believed it would be possible in the year 1919 that the wives of some of the most prominent officials in that country would agitate in the streets against an act of the Government with which they were not in agreement, he would have replied that it was an absolute impossibility. Yet we have seen that happening in Egypt. [Sir J. D. REES: "Egypt is a long way from India."] No doubt it is, but the question of women under the purdah can only be considered as a whole, and what applies to Egypt applies also largely, if not entirely, to India. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend suggested as an argument that Egypt is a long way from India. I think he would be the first to admit that all countries in which women are under the purdah bear a close resemblance. But the whole argument is that women under the purdah are not fit to exercise the franchise. That is the argument put for ward by the opponents of this Amendment and by the supporters of the Report of the Joint Committee. But I say there is a great deal of misconception among many
    662
    people in this country as to the position of women under the purdah. As a matter of fact, they are stirred by life outside their own homes to an extent which was unknown ten years ago, and the experience of English ladies who have lived in Eastern countries and have come into close contact with women in 3ndia and Egypt—with women who very often live under what would seem to us to be the utmost detachment from the world—is that they take the keenest interest in political and religious questions of all kinds.
    I can assure the Committee as a matter of fact, which can be testified to by anyone who has had anything to do with government in Eastern countries, that they exercise a far greater influence through their husbands on the government of that country than is generally supposed. If so—and I appeal to my hon. Friend below me (Sir J. D. Rees), who is an expert in Indian affairs—what is the reason for keeping them out of the franchise system? If it is true they exercise such an influence, for goodness' sake give them the vote. Is it not the whole experience of the British Empire that when you give people a vote, when you give it to people who are agitating, the result of giving them the vote is that their agitation takes place on constitutional lines? I do not want to go into any argument on the question of direct action, but this is the kernel of the question. Are you not, by refusing an extension of the franchise to women, running the risk of creating a state of agitation among the women in that country similar to that which was created in this country I My right hon. Friend above the Gangway quite naturally desires to see agitation put down in India. But you are putting a serious weapon into the hands of the agitators by refusing the vote. No one would suggest that the ladies who have come over here from India to represent the case of the women of India on this particular point belong to the agitating class. Certainly that most distinguished lady who represented the case extremely ably and eloquently—the daughter of one of the greatest financiers and capitalists in India—cannot be accused, either her or her family, of belonging to the agitating class. They are many miles removed from Mrs. Besant and those who act with her. She and many other Indian ladies have come over here and have ably represented the case of the women of India. We

    663
    are further told in the Report that it is premature to give the women the vote and that they are not fit to receive it.
    Mr. MONTAGU: Not in the Joint Committee's Report.
    Earl WINTERTON: No; I think it is in the Southborough Report that the opinion is expressed that the extension of the franchise is premature. Of course, there are cases in every country where women as well as men are unfitted to exercise the vote, and, really, when one reads cases which are reported in the papers, and especially the proceedings of the Divorce Court, one might as well say that some women in this country are unfitted to exercise the vote. In every country there are scores of people of whom that might be said. One need only take for example the case of the major's girl-wife. Is it to be suggested that the major's girl-wife when she reaches the age of thirty would be more fitted to exercise the franchise than a woman graduate of Bombay University? These arguments have a boomerang effect and they are most dangerous to use. May I return for a moment to the Southborough Report, which reads:
    "We are satisfied the social conditions of India snake it premature to extend the franchise to Indian women at this juncture."
    I should like to give one other quotation from the Memorandum these Indian ladies have prepared. It is in reference to public work done by women in India, and I do not think hon. Members are fully aware of the important position occupied by women in India in regard to public work. They say:
    "Women…take an important part in social and public affairs. There are many women's associations which do a good deal of Educational and social work. The work done in Bombay during the last famine is too well known to need detailed statement, and during the War the women did much in contributing to the comfort of the troops, raising thousands of rupees. They also took a conspicuous part in the influenza epidemic."
    All this is an argument against the ridiculous assumption made in this country that women take no part in public life in India. I have only one further argument which I wish to put forward. It is admitted by everyone, opponents and supporters alike, that, above all else, what is needed and what will be needed in the future when this new system of government is brought into operation in India is to bring formed public opinion to bear on such questions
    664
    as sanitation, hygiene, and social reform. Can it be contended that this House is justified in refusing to extend the franchise to women in a country where, above all, woman's influence is needed? Having extended it in this country, I cannot see how this Committee can refuse the same extension to India. There are fears which are always expressed whenever any extension of the franchise is proposed that something dangerous is going to be done by the people to whom you give the vote. That argument has been used in regard to every Reform Bill, and the result has always been very different to the expectations of the opponents of the Bill, and also to what may have been hoped for by some of the supporters of the measure. Let me take the Reform Bill of 1867 as an example. The Liberals believed that measure would keep the Liberal party in power for many years; whereas, as a matter of fact, they were very quickly turned out and for a very long period remained out of office. I do not fear any danger from the extension of the franchise. There are, of course, always people who fear such extensions, but when they have once been granted there are very few who will come forward and say that they would like to revert to the old conditions. I do remember one Noble Duke who, in private conversation, once said that, so far as he was personally concerned, he would like to see the Reform Bill of 1832 upset. But I have never heard that remark made in public by anyone in regard to any such Bill. I hope the Committee, therefore, will not allow their minds to be affected on this question by any such considerations. You are carrying out a great experiment in India and on ground of logic and of justice, and, indeed, if I may put it lower, on the ground of political expediency, I submit the franchise should be extended to women in India. I very much hope, therefore, that the Committee will support the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Hills), and, as we intend to go to a Division on this matter, we shall see what is the attitude of the Committee towards the women's movement generally, and what they are prepared to do to hold out a helping hand to the women of India.
    Mr. BENNETT: While I am in full accord with the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) in his deep convictions and enthusiasms on behalf of women's suffrage, I am not able to support

    665
    his Amendment. I should first like to address myself to a few remarks made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), who told us that the question to be left to the Provincial Councils in India, whether women should or should not receive the vote was a question that would not be settled by the Indian people. I have noted with some regret the tendency on the part of my hon. Friend—I hope he will not mind my mentioning it—to undervalue the character of the representative institutions it is proposed to set up in India. He says that something like 98 per cent, of the people of India will have no voice in determining whether or not the vote shall be extended to women. Let me assure him that anyone who has any knowledge of the people of India would say that not from the 98 per cent. of the population will the demand for the vote for women proceed. The demand will come from within that 5,000,000 upon whom the franchise is to be bestowed and not from the 98 per cent. who are left outside it. The hon. Member's anxiety on that point is a little bit premature. The Noble Lord behind me (Earl Winterton) somewhat wasted his time, if he will permit me to say so, in condemning the Southborough Report. The Southborough Report has not been adopted by the Joint Committee so far as his question is concerned. The Joint Committee did not say that the giving of vote to women would be premature. As a matter of fact the Southborough Report in regard to this matter has been thrown over by the Joint Committee. Lord Southborough's Committee proposed to enact a positive disqualification for women, coupling them with minors and lunatics as among the people not fit to be trusted with the vote. In that regard Lord Southborough's Report has been thrown over entirely and the Joint Committee have given no heed whatever to it.
    If I felt that in voting against the Amendment I should be acting in hostility to the women's vote in India or anywhere else I should certainly refrain from voting against it. I have been for years a convinced upholder of women's suffrage. I have not waited, as Mr. Asquith did, for women to show in the War what good work they could do for their country. I dealt with the question on its merits, and I may claim to be as enthusiastic an upholder of the right of women to vote as the hon. Member for Durham himself, and that is saying a great deal. But we have to consider the conditions under which we
    666
    are asked to extend women's franchise to India. Parliamentary draftsmanship is a cold thing; it appeals neither to the imagination nor to the feelings. As a matter of fact, there are drafting difficulties in the way. My hon. Friend will see, if he studies the Bill, which I know he has done, that the Bill itself does not propose to enact qualifications in the case of men. In its original form the Bill said not a word about qualifications. It did not empower the Indian Government to pass Rules defining the qualifications of men. That was put in in Committee. If we were to enact in the Bill the right of the women of India to vote, we should be acting quite inconsistently with the line on which the Bill has been laid clown. However, I do not put that forward as other than a technical objection. My objection is of a different nature. We have had from my hon. Friend a statement as to the hopeless want of uniformity throughout India. Is that not one of the reasons why we should refrain from uniformity of legislation on this particular point? Lord Southborough's evidence on this subject is worth reading. I think more of his evidence than I do of some of his proposals. He gave the circumstances of the tour of his Committee to India and, in speaking on the question of the women's vote, he said that in Orissa and Bihar he found great coldness in regard to it, and there was no desire shown to have the women's vote. Coming a little westward, he found a certain interest was being shown in it, but in the Punjab I believe no interest whatever was shown in it.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the memorandum prepared by the women's associations came after the issue of the Southborough Report?
    Mr. BENNETT: I quite recognise that. I am merely stating what the Committee found. They found in the Central Provinces a little more interest was being shown, but it was not until they got into the Bombay Presidency that they found any real interest being taken in it. That statement, no doubt, impressed the Committee, and the Committee, recognising the variety of conditions in regard to women's suffrage, thought it better not to suggest to Parliament the enactment of the women's vote. It has been said, but it should not have been said, that we are refusing the women's vote to India. We

    667
    are not refusing it in the least degree. We are helping India to an effective exercise of the women's vote more than we should be doing by enacting it in the Bill as it is proposed to-day. It is a. commonplace of legislation that Parliament should not go in advance of public opinion. I feel sure that if we resort to a universal enactment of women's suffrage in India the result would be that in parts of India the people would be absolutely indifferent, and no advantage to the cause of women's suffrage would result, because a function which is not exercised does no good and may do harm. I believe we may confidently leave it to the Presidencies and the various Provinces themselves to decide whether or not they shall have women's suffrage. We have heard a great deal about self-determination. What self-determination would there be in Parliament saying that, whether she liked it or not, India should have women's suffrage? I do not call that self-determination; it is rather the contrary process. Further, we want to have some assurance that women's suffrage is demanded in India. I know very well what will happen. I feel sure that in Bombay the Provincial Council, very soon after it assembles, will enact women's suffrage. One has only to know the Bombay delegates, the ladies who came from Bombay representing the cause of their sisters in this country, to feel sure that they will not allow much time to pass before they have converted their aspirations into legislative facts. Although I lived in Bombay during all the time of my life in India, I try to avoid as far as I can looking at all India from the Bombay point of view. I recognise that there are Presidencies other than that advanced Presidency in which I had the happiness to live for many years. For instance, there is the Punjab. Although the hon. Member for Durham said that all the witnesses from the Punjab were in favour of women's suffrage, one rather important witness, a Sikh gentleman from the Punjab, gave hostile evidence on this question. He said:
    "Plainly speaking, the prejudice appertaining to questions like this so strong that I know of examples in which highly-placed and educated gentlemen would prefer to forego the benefits of this scheme rather than give out the names of their wives. We therefore think that this question should at present be left alone."
    That is not a theoretical argument; it is a concrete fact. It is one of the class of
    668
    facts which must have been in the mind of the Government of India when on this subject it advised that we should go carefully and warily. I recognise the strength of the case that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Durham and those who have supported him, but I hope that those who feel inclined to give their votes on his side will not think that in supporting the Government we are preventing, or even seriously delaying, the extension of the franchise to women. The course which the Select Committee proposed should be taken in this matter is, on the whole, quite as helpful to the cause of women's suffrage in India as the course which is recommended by the hon. Member for Durham and his Friends. Therefore I cannot vote for the Amendment.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I rise to make an appeal to the Committee. We have now heard four speeches upon this important topic, two on one side and two on the other side, and the case for the Amendment has never been more persuasively, more powerfully, or more thoroughly put than in the speech of the hon. Member for Durham. I feel that all the circumstances of this issue have now been placed before the Committee, and I appeal to the Committee to take a decision now. After all, it is important that we should press on with the Bill. We have a great deal of work before us and, for reasons which have been very powerfully stated at an earlier point in our procedure, it is necessary that the Bill should be passed with as little delay as possible. Consequently I appeal to the Committee that we should take a decision upon this. The hon. Member (Mr. Bennett) has put the case for the Government clearly before the Committee. We feel that if the text of the Bill is preserved in the form in which it is before the Committee now women suffrage will be introduced in many Provinces of India, but from all the evidence at our disposal we are convinced that to introduce this question at this moment in the Punjab would create very serious difficulty. For that reason we have come to the conclusion that it would be far better to leave the decision of the question to the opinion of the Provinces of India, and not to decide it on the floor of this House.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am more puzzled by this question than by any other which has arisen, or is likely to arise, in the course-

    669
    of the Bill. I should like to ask the Government some further questions about what might happen in India if the Amendment were passed and to put other considerations before them, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, I refrain from that because I think he has good ground.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to answer one observation of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Punjab. I would call attention to the letter of the Aga Khan, the spiritual head of the Moslems in India, in the "Times"
    three or four days' ago, strongly recommending the grant of the vote to women, and further to the fact that the three great native political organisations, the Indian National Congress, the All India Moslem League, and the Home Rule League of India, have passed resolutions by enormous majorities demanding—not asking—that the limited number of women who would be included should be granted the franchise.
    Question put, "That those words be, there inserted."
    Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 202.

    Division No. 145.]

    AYES.

    [5.34 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Hallas, E.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Benn, Captain W. (Leith)

    Hartshorn, V.

    Rowlands, James

    Bentinck, Lt. Col. Lord H. Cavendish

    Hayday, A.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Briant, F.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hoare, Lt.-Colonel Sir Samuel J. G.

    Stanton, Cherries Butt

    Bromfield, W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Thorne, W. (Plaistow)

    Cairns, John

    Irving, Dan

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Clyaes, Rt. Hon, John R.

    Johnstone, J.

    Wallace, J.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Lawson. John

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Malone, Major

    Wignall, James

    Finney, Samuel

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James

    Griffiths. T. (Pontypool)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Hills and Mr. Spoor,

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Churchill, Rt. Hen. Winston S.

    Gange, E. S.

    Allen, Colonel William James

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Barnett, Major Richard

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Grant, James Augustus

    Barric, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Greene, Lt.-Col, W. (Hackney, N.)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Benn, Corn. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Bennett, T. J.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Betierton, H. B.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hailwood, A.

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Davison, Sir W H. (Kensington)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Berwick, Major G. O.

    Dennis, J. W.

    Hancock, John George

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)

    Hanna, G. B.

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bruton. Sir J.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hood, Joseph

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.

    Edge, Captain William

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Planter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Carew, Cherles R. S. (Tiverton)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (Yark)

    Carr, W. T.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jesson, C.

    Cecil. Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Ferestier-Walker, L.

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm, W.)

    Forrast, W.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm, Ladywood.)

    Foxeroft. Captain C

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Fraser. Major Sir Keith

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Kidd, James

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

    Stephenson, Colonel H, K.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Stewart, Gersharn

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Parker, James

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Sturrock, J. Leny-

    Locker, Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Pease, Rt. Hon, Herbert Pike

    Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Pennefather, De Fonblangue

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Lorden, John William

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Lyon, L.

    Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

    Tickler, Thomas George

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Walton, J, (York, Don Valley)

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Wardle, George J.

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W, (Brigg)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Waring, Major Walter

    Macmaster, Donald

    Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Weigall Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    d, D. D.

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Maddocks, Henry

    Renwick, G.

    White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)

    Manville, Edward

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Whitla. Sir William

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Rugers, Sir Hallewell

    Wigan, Brig.-General Sir Tyson

    Martin, A. E.

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Rayds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Willoughby, Lt.-Cot. Hon. Claud

    Moles, Thomas

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col, Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Shortt, Rt. hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Simm. M. T.

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Smith, Sir Allan

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), after the word "Council" ["member of any such council"], to insert the words "provided that; non-residence in any constituency shall not disqualify for election."
    My three Amendments all deal with the qualifications of prospective members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. Under the Bill, and under the Committee's Report, there are three points which ought to be quite clear. The first is that it should not be necessary that a candidate for these Provincial Assemblies should be resident in his constituency. In this country a Member can sit for any constituency wherever he lives. In America they have the other plan, and a man may only stand for a constituency in which he is resident. The difference between these two systems is profound. In England anyone who is a keen Conservative, Liberal, or Labour man, who loses his seat can find a seat elsewhere. In America that is impossible, and if you lose your seat you have no chance of re-election till another general election comes along. Furthermore, if you happen to live in a constituency which is naturally Conservative, and you are naturally Liberal or Labour you may never have a chance of getting into Parliament at all. The residency qualification is a curse in America. It prevents a man taking a real live interest in a political career. It makes a man much
    672
    more the delegate of the vested interests in his constituency than a representative of the whole community. In fact, I do not believe there would be one Member of this House who would consent to the introduction into this country of the regulation that no man might represent any constituency in Parliament except the one in which he resided. That being so we ought to be very careful not to introduce into India a system which we would toot tolerate here. In this Bill they have arranged for India that in the three Provinces of Bombay, Punjab, and the Central Provinces for some unknown reason a member who is elected to the Legislature must reside in the constituency which he represents. In the other three Provinces it is not necessary. In these Provinces the stipulation has been made—I think I am right in saying at the instance of the local Government—that there should be a residency qualification. All the arguments against residency which apply in England apply with even greater force in India, because there they are beginning political life, and there is not a very large selection of candidates available. Leaders are few in number at the present time, and to intensify the difficulty of getting these leaders elected by prohibiting them from standing in any constituency save that in which they live would make far more difficult than it would otherwise be the

    673
    selection of leaders to lead the new democracy in India. I protest against this system. Obviously, what is good for England should primâ facie be good for India, and when we see that it is considered right in five Provinces we have a right to some explanation as to why a system which has proved satisfactory here and is expected to prove satisfactory in the other five Provinces should not be satisfactory in Bombay, the Punjab, and the Central Provinces. I cannot help feeling that at the back of this desire to limit the choice of candidates for any constituency there is a desire to have representatives in these legislative assemblies who will be less educated, less experienced, and more amenable to political pressure. Against that we most emphatically protest. That is one of the Amendments I have on the Paper; the demand that, as in England, there should be no residency test for any candidate for the Indian Parliament.
    The next Amendment dealing with the qualifications of those who are to stand for the Provincial Assemblies is that a man should not be disqualified by reason of the fact that he has been dismissed from the Government service, or that he has been in prison for any offence not involving moral turpitude. In that question we should follow our own precedents in England. A man who has been dismissed from the Government service may have been dismissed for all manner of reasons.
    Generally speaking, when you are dealing with places like India, the man who has been dismissed from the Government service is a man who found that he could not work in the Government service by reason of his Nationalist aspirations. I do not say that that man makes an ideal candidate, but I do say that to start this reform in India by intentionally preventing any man of that type from getting into a local Legislature is bad, not only for India, but for this country. It is a well-known principle of all government that the best way to cure a poacher is to make him into a gamekeeper. In the same way the best way to get into the agitator a sense of serious responsibility to the community is to put him into Parliament, whether in this country or in ally part of India. Why should these people be ruled out and be driven into non-constitutional methods of agitation? As to the question whether a man who has been to prison should be a Member of this or any other Parliament
    674
    it ought to be the decision of the electorate and not the decision of the administration, that he should be ruled out. In this country it would be very difficult to secure election for any man who had been in prison for any serious offence. The same might or might not be true for India, but the principle should be laid down that the electors are responsible for a man's character and not the Government, by saying a man who has been in prison should not be allowed to stand for election.
    There are many cases of Indians whom we hope to see in responsible positions in the new Parliament. Take the case a Banerjea, who is one of the moderate leaders, and who will be one of the people to lead India in the next ten years. His connection with the Indian Civil Service was cut short, and unless we stipulate that dismissal from the public service shall not disqualify a man from the Legislative Assemblies, Banerjea, upon whom the right hon. Gentleman counts in order to get this Act to work in India, may be prevented from standing for any of these legislatures. Take the case of Mr. Tilak, who has spent years in prison. He has been twice convicted. He is one of those Indians whom the right hon. Gentleman would like to see on a Provincial Assembly or in the Indian National Assembly. Such a man ought to be in a position of responsibility instead of in a position of complete irresponsibility. Take the case of Lajpat Rai, my friend in America. He has been deported, but he is a patriotic Indian, and wishes to work this Act to a successful issue, to make the best of it, in order to do the best for India. Is he to be barred out by reason of his deportation and imprisonment? Everybody, bad as well as good in India—I mean from the point of view of the present administration—have to be invited to co-operate in working this Act if it is to be a success, and any other policy would be fatal to the prosperous outcome of this great piece of experimental legislation.
    The third Amendment dealing with the qualifications of Members to sit in the Indian Legislatures says- that a man representing a constituency in the Indian Legislative Assembly at Delhi should not be debarred from being a member of, say, the Bombay or the Bengal Legislative Assembly. I want to see it possible that a man may sit in his local legislature and in the Imperial Legislature at Delhi. I do not want to have a hard and fast rule that if you are a member of the one

    675
    you cannot be a member of the other. In this House there must be nearly one-fourth of the members who are also members of town councils or county councils. We combine the duties of local legislation and Imperial legislation, and we do not find that it hampers our position here or our position on the county councils that we are also Members of the House of Commons or of the county councils. On the contrary, we find that it strengthens our position here that we are able to bring the experience from the local body to the assistance of Parliament, and take the assistance of Parliament to the local body. It is eminently desirable that the Indians, just as we in this country, should be able to sit on both the Imperial and the local Legislature. The stipulation that a man shall not be eligible far the local Legislature and the Imperial Legislature is most unfortunate. It has come about, as I understand it, through the determination of one of the Governors in the past, I think Lord Sydenham, that a man could not sit on the Imperial Legislative Assembly if he was already on a local Legislative Assembly. That may have done in the past, but now that we are starting a genuine responsible Government in the Provinces and a Representative Assembly at Delhi, we ought to make a fresh start and arrange that the practice which has proved successful in this country should be given an opportunity of working in India as Well.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The Question is after the word "council." to insert the words "provided that non-residence in any constituency shall not disqualify for election."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to have my Amendments put consecutively and together. I have moved them together by arrangement, and at your request, and I want them on record as having been moved.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was not the understanding.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member will not press this point.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I shall move the others later on.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Member would gain nothing by that. He has made a speech on all the Amendments.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to get it on record that I have moved the Amendments.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was decided that we could not allow all these Amendments to be moved, but to assist the Committee in considering the various questions raised by the Amendments it was arranged that latitude should be allowed in the moving of the first Amendment, so that the hon. Member might deal with the issues raised by the subsequent Amendments. It was only on that understanding that the matters could be discussed generally. There is no question of the rights or wrongs of Members.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have tried several times, and I regret without effect, to persuade my hon Friends opposite that they are doing no good to the cause they have at heart by these Amendments. I will tell them why. The scheme is that the franchise should be included in Rules. The hon. Member takes up certain points and says, "To these things I attach great importance and they must be in the Bill. The rest must be done by rule." Consequently you get an unintelligible scheme. People will wonder why some points are in the Bill and why they are not all in the Bill. I know what my hon. Friend is afraid of. He says, "Unless I get my opportunity now, somebody in India will do these dreadful things without my getting any chance." Can I not persuade my hon. Friend not to move these Amendments if I give him an assurance, which I do, that when the Rules in regard to the franchise come from India, and are put before Parliament, an opportunity will be given in this House to discuss them, and, if the House wishes, to recommend Amendments. Surely that is sufficient. I can assure my hon. Friend that the recommendations of various people will be considered in framing these Rules in India. Let me say a word about the three recommendations that he now makes. I will deal with them on their merits, although I hope they will not be included in the Bill. As regards the residential qualification, I believe that the residential qualification provision is a bad one, because it is very little used. Its object is to ensure that candidates who stand for a constituency are really representative of that constituency. It is very easy to get a residential qualification.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not for a poor man.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not sure about a poor man, it he stands for an organisation. it was holly pressed upon the Government of India and upon the Joint Committee that there should be a residential qualification in order to see that we did nut get an urban representation of a rural constituency. The provision that this should be tried in five Provinces without residential qualification was suggested as a compromise. There is no reason whatever why you should not try different conditions in different Provinces, and if it is found that, the absence of residential qualification leads to good representation of rural constituencies, then I hope that the reservation in the three Provinces will disappear. My hon. and gallant Friend is always inclined to look with suspicion on anything coming from the Government or the local Governments in India. On the other hand, I would urge him not to reject the advice of the local Governments in India by whom this course has been endorsed. On the second point I am enthusiastically in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that dismissal from the Government service should be disqualification. That is the recommendation of the Joint Committee. That is what is intended to be embodied the Rules, and at this time next year, or I hope earlier than this time next year, you will find that that condition has been incorporated, as recommended by the Joint Committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you include imprisonment?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The suggestion of the Joint Committee is that imprisonment for a, period of more than six months should be disqualification for five years.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then Mr. Tilak would be disqualified.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know whether the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers has been out of prison for five years. If, as I have heard stated, he has been out four years, then, before these elections are over, the five years will have terminated. I believe that that provision has been copied from some other constitution, but it is one thing to disqualify for a term of years after a long term of imprisonment and another thing to leave to a Government Department the very task of deciding whether a man is qualified or not. I do not like the phrase "moral
    678
    turpitude" used by my hon. Friend. It is difficult to decide its meaning. Various experts differ on this.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have it in Acts of Parliament in this House.
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is a matter of taste and opinion. I would rather not have it. I do not know who is to decide what is moral turpitude. The third suggestion is that a man may be a member of two Legislatues in India. There is nothing sinister behind the existing provision. It is a question of geographical impossibility. My hon. and gallant friend knows perfectly well the great distances that there are. It is not at all comparable to the case of simultaneous membership of this House and of a county council. These local Legislatures are Legislatures to whom will be entrusted very often the interests of 40,000,000 people. They will have great powers of legislation. They will sit at the same tune of year as the Imperial Legislature. They will have far more work to do in future. How can a man be a member of two Parliaments which may be sitting at the same time, one in Bombay and the other in Delhi, or one in Darjeeling and the other in Simla? I cannot see how it is possible. If a man is elected for both he can choose which he will sit for, but to allow a man to accept seats in two Legislatures of supreme importance would mean that he must be an absentee member of one of them. I am in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend on one point, but I think that all his Amendments would be much better moved, if they are to be moved, when the Rules come before the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Committee will not accept the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he hoped the Rules would be laid before the House by this time next year. The Committee has understood that the whole argument for pressing on with this Bill is the need of speed, and that it is essential to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. Now we are told that the Rules for the first election, which will probably be of vital importance—and I agree that the need of speed is paramount—
    Mr. MONTAGU: You are not doing your best to help it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am doing my best. These Rules might

    679
    have to be framed for emergency elections which might have to be held to pacify certain parties. My friends and I feel that certain classes of people should not be differentiated against in their right to stand as candidates, as we fear otherwise will be the case. We look upon this first election in India as of great importance. It is a great historic event, and we want to make certain that the men who suffered for the cause of India shall not be prevented from standing at the first elections in the country for which they have struggled and suffered, and we feel that certain provisos should be put in the Bill in order to make certain that the first elections in India shall be held under democratic conditions.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will these Rules be statutory or changeable? If we could get a reply on this question then we shall be able to take it into consideration.
    Mr. MONTAGU: They will be changeable, but when any change is made they will again be brought before the House.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Shall we be able to settle them by a vote?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The House will be able to make recommendations to the Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When is it hoped that the first elections under this Bill will take place in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I thought I had explained that yesterday. You cannot arrange that until the Bill is through. I want the first elections to be held in November, 1920, in order that the first session of the new Council will open in January, 1921. In order to do that, I want the Bill through as quickly as possible. I am sorry that through a slip in my speech I should have misled the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the date.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
    "Provided further that the Rules under this Section shall be so framed as to provide that every ex-sepoy, ex-officer and non-commissioned officer shall be entitled to be a voter."
    I wish to deal with three or four Amendments down on the Paper concerning the franchise proposals under the Bill. The great difficulty in considering the whole question is that so much is left to Rules, that the House is at a loss to understand
    680
    what kind those Rules will be and what actually is going to occur. The first point to be discussed is the power to have an alteration of those Rules when they come before us. These Amendments have been brought forward not in any spirit of unkind criticism, but for a very constructive purpose. It is quite evident that the Government has no intention of accepting any Amendment on the Paper. They are trying to pass the Bill, as was said by an hon. Member yesterday, without the alteration of a single comma. At the same time I feel that a very distinct purpose is served by this discussion, isasmuch as it will convey to the Government of India the desire which exists in Parliament that when these Rules are shaped, even in the first instance before they come here, they shall be so framed as to meet with the approval and express the real wishes of this House. The franchise proposed in this Bill strikes those of us who have been intimately considering it, as it must strike those who have not been doing so, as absurdly limited. When one thinks of a great country like India with its population of 315,000,000, and when one remembers that it is proposed to enfranchise about 2 per cent. of these people, it is really difficult to believe that we are even taking a step in the direction of democratic sell-government in that country.
    I am simply expressing what every member of the Select Committee felt when I say that those of us who have considered this question at some length, and in some detail, agree that the franchise should at the earliest possible moment be widened considerably. There are differences of opinion as to where that widening should be effected. There was disagreement as to whether this class or that class should be included, but there was general agreement, and I believe a very general desire even among the conservative-minded members of the Committee, that the electorate should be made at the earliest moment as wide as possible. In the course of the sittings of the Committee Amendments were proposed, and in one case an Amendment was actually carried, though at a later meeting of the same Committee that Amendment, coming up again with some fresh information from the Government of India, was negatived. That is the Amendment which I am now proposing. I imagine that it will meet with general approval in all parts of the House. When the War broke out the people of India showed a loyalty to the British Empire

    681
    that, to put it mildly, was surprising to some people, at all events. They contributed during the progress of the War in men and money in a truly remarkable manner. Over a million of their men came on. They were not conscripts. They were volunteers. Every man who has come into touch in any capacity with Indian soldiers will admit that, whatever else they may lack, they certainly have never lacked courage. Large numbers of them laid down their lives, and we ask that these men who were good enough to fight for us, whatver their class in India may be, should have the right to vote.
    The position of the Indian soldiers is a peculiar one. When I have been discussing with friends the conditions obtaining in India I have always found great surprise manifested by people when they have learned the way in which the widows of Indian soldiers have been treated now that the War is over.
    They find it difficult to believe that the wives of these men, who laid down their lives in the interests of the Allied cause, are to-day paid a pension of 1s. 6d. a week. As far as I know, that amount has never been increased from the start of the War, although we do know that the cost of living in that country, as in others, has very considerably advanced. I submit that justice has most certainly not been done to the widows of Indian soldiers. We ask that, so far as the men who have been spared are concerned, the men who have fought in this terrific struggle, they shall be entitled to whatever protection the exercise of the vote will give them. If this Amendment was left to the considered Judgment of this House, I feel that it would be accepted without even the necessity of a Division. I cannot imagine any member of this Assembly, or of any other, who would have the temerity to get up and oppose a proposal of the kind. As I have already said, when it came before the Select Committee, that Committee, I believe with complete unanimity, accepted it. Later on that decision was reversed. It was reversed, I believe, because of a telegram that came from the Government of India expressing disapproval of the proposal.
    Sir J. D. REES: It was the Government of the Punjab.
    Mr. SPOOR: It was pointed out that 1,000 men would be enfranchised if the proposal were adopted. Whatever their opinion may be, the proposal as a matter
    682
    of common justice, I am sure, commends itself to the right feeling and the good sense of Members of this House. I feel that it is not a debatable question at all. The next Amendment on the Paper dealing with the franchise provides that the Rules under this Section shall be so framed that persons whose annual income exceeds 150 rupees shall be entitled to vote. Reference has already been made to the growing industrial class in India. That class is at present entirely without political power. Economically the conditions are very severe. There is not the slightest doubt that in the months and the years that lie ahead attempts will be made to improve the conditions of the industrial workers. I believe that no better weapon could be placed in the hands of the industrial worker than to give him a measure of political power. If that is not done he may resort to other, and perhaps less desirable, means of achieving his end. I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee by discussing the terrible conditions existing in India now—the fearfully low wages and the long hours. I know that there are settlements where improvements have been effected and where a certain amount of social welfare has been secured. But at the same time the fact remains that the economic conditions in the industrial areas are appalling. We submit that this class is entitled to special consideration, and that the workers should at the earliest possible moment be included in the electorate. I believe that that also is a matter upon which the Select Committee was in almost complete agreement.
    The last Amendment dealing with this question is one which provides that the rules under this Section shall be framed so as to provide that every person who knows how to read or write in the vernacular shall be entitled to a vote. It is proposed to apply a simple literacy test. I believe that rather lees than 10 per cent. of the population of India are literate. My Friends here say 6 per cent. Even if this Amendment is adopted, it is not going to enfranchise a very large number. The whole object of the three proposals is to secure from the beginning of the working of this scheme the widest possible electorate; the most democratic electorate. It might be argued that the proposal of the second Amendment, that a wage-earning basis should be adopted, is not altogether a democratic proposition. I admit that it is not the basis which

    683
    I would ordinarily choose, but it appears to those of us who went into this question carefully, to be the only practical way at the moment. I believe that the present basis is tax-paying capacity of a certain amount. This was fixed so as to exclude practically the whole of the industrial workers. By making the basis a wage-earning capacity of 150 rupees per year, we include a very considerable section of those whose interests we are seeking to protect—seeking, too, to give them in their own hands the power by which they can achieve reforms in their own conditions. Again and again we have referred to the tremendous experiment that this scheme really is. A great deal of doubt has been expressed on both sides as to whether it is going to be a success. There are right hon. and hon. Members in this House who believe that the course of the Government is an exceedingly dangerous course. They feel that we are going very much too far. There are others who believe that it is a dangerous course because it does not go far enough. I am quite satisfied, from all our experience of government in this country and in every other part of the Empire, that the success of the scheme depends in very large measure, if not entirely, upon the depth and width of the electorate upon which this machine is built.
    I move only the first of the Amendments to which I have referred. I am quite willing, if you, Mr. Chairman, will not allow the other Amendments to be voted upon separately, to take a vote on this Amendment alone, because I feel that the Committee appreciates the justice of this case and will support the request I make.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The vote will be on the Question whether or not this and similar Amendments shall be put here and now in the Bill, or whether the matter shall be left to Rules which will come before us at a future time.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I fear it will be of no use if I repeat the arguments I have so often used as to the danger of making provisions which we cannot safely say can be universally applied statutorily. Once they are put in a Statute they are unalterable. You cannot make different rules for different Provinces, and you have gained absolutely nothing. I have said that often. The hon. Member starts by
    684
    saying that the franchise is unsatisfactory, and he seeks to increase its size. All that is known is that by a stroke of the pen so many more million people nominally have votes. Is the franchise so unsatisfactory? Hon. Members have again and again given figures, but not accurately. Let me give them. The direct franchise vote will give 5,179,000 males over twenty a vote out of a population of 60,182,000, or a percentage of the population of 8½ per cent. I agree that that is not as representative as we should like. But the present electorate in India is only 05 per cent. There is therefore an increase in the electorate seventeen times. There has never been an extension of the franchise in this country anything like it. You really must keep in your mind whether you can invent the machinery in sparsely populated country districts to enable people to exercise the vote. You cannot simply add millions of men to the register and trust to luck to give them a chance of voting. Everybody wants to do what he can for the gallant soldiers who fought for us, but it does so happen that a very big proportion of the soldiers come from one Province, the Punjab. I do not know how many this would add to the electorate, because I do not know how many soldiers would be otherwise qualified. Take my hon. Friend's second suggestion, with reference to the income of 150 rupees per year. How many voters is that going to add? He does not know, and I do not know. How are we to find out income? He does not know, and I do not know. He puts it in the Statute and leaves some other unfortunate person to find means of carrying it out.
    Mr. SPOOR: Is it not a fact that the Government of Bombay actually prepared figures and ascertained the number of people who would be eligible under the proposal regarding 150 rupees income? That being so, does it not suggest that in the minds even of some officials in India there was the idea that as a practicable scheme this was not to be ruled out?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I really do not know whether they have done so in Bombay or not, but in any case that does not mean that they have done so in other Provinces. My hon. Friend proposes to make it universal. The Committee have recommended that "every effort should be made to improve the representation of the wage-earning classes," but to make a statutory happy-go-lucky suggestion

    685
    that the whole of India should be treated in this way would be to do something which would stultify our legislation. As to the literacy test, I have seen a man in an Indian village reading a newspaper to a group of twenty, and is the man who can read the newspaper more intelligent than the men who listen to the contents of it? I think a literacy qualification and an educational qualification is the mast undemocratic and the most faulty you could possibly conceive. Let us get on to some of the other provisions of the Statute, and leave the franchise to be developed. We want it as wide as we practically can get it, but we do not want to have our proposals ridiculed by adopting a proposal putting on vast numbers of people without any thought of how we are going to get them there.
    Mr. OMAN: As an example of the criminal carelessness with which this extraordinary Amendment has been drafted—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make reflections of that character on his fellow Members.
    Mr. OMAN: The Amendment has been drafted with great carelessness, and might, if passed in its present form, in the case of the ex-sepoys, include many people from across the frontier, and enfranchise possibly 100,000 aliens. Why should ex-sepoys and the other classes mentioned be given the franchise whilst those who served on Government armed ships at sea and Indian sailors generally are not to be included? That gives an idea of the want of completeness of this Amendment.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry once again to have to directly oppose and criticise what the Secretary of State has said. I will not say he ridicules, but he treats lightly our suggestions as to these particular classes of enfranchisement. Surely it would be of great assistance in the preparation of the register if it were known definitely that these classes were to be enfranchised without all the waiting and lengthy discussions to decide whether they should be or not. I believe it was intended in any case to enfranchise ex-soldiers who fought in the War, and that it was on the urgent representation of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, as most of the soldiers came from the Punjab, that this military qualification was cut out. That is contradicted, and it is said to be on the recommendation of the Government
    686
    of India. I withdraw my previous statement, and I understand that the representation came from the Government of India that soldiers were not to be enfranchised. I am glad to hear now from the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the wish of the Government of India, because that Government has always lauded the martial qualities of the martial races of India, who have always been held up to us as the people who supported our rule and did not agitate and have been loyal to us. An hon. Member criticised this Amendment because of the number of people of the frontier tribes who fought in our Armies might get the vote.
    Mr. OMAN: Trans-frontier tribes.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I see no harm in that.
    Mr. OMAN: A number of them might come down from one place and swamp the rest of the electorate.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They will not be on the register unless they live in a village, so that I think that that is drawing a red herring across the track. I have a subsequent Amendment to this Clause, providing that graduates of universities shall be entitled to be voters for their own universities. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) spoke very eloquently on the right of women to be enfranchised. I hope he will support this proposal as to graduates of the universities and not leave himself open to the criticism that he was angling only for the feminist vote in this country. One of the great arguments used against enlarging the franchise has been that uneducated people should not get the vote, but in this case the people are graduates of universities. The graduates have been referred to as great agitators because they could not get briefs as barristers or patients as doctors. Surely the best way to cure agitation is to give the vote. I dare say they are agitators because they are politically and racially conscious. For that reason I think it is essential for the security of government in India that these very people should be enfranchised. I think it was suggested by one of the Provinces that retired soldiers should get the franchise, and I suggest the subject is worthy of more consideration than has been given to it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that early next Session these Rules will be before the House, but they will be Rules made, I understand, by

    687
    the Viceroy in Council, and we will be told then that we cannot alter them and that they are the opinions of the men on the spot. There may be further troubles in India by that time, and we may be told that it will be necessary to push on with the Rules with all speed, and that any alteration of them might mean weeks or months of delay. This is our opportunity, if we are to exercise our sovereign rights over India as expressly stated in the Bill, to put in provisions which shall ensure that certain classes shall be certain of the vote. I am sure that this concession, if it were agreed to and cabled to India, would have a great effect. I believe it would have the same sort of effect as the declaration of the grant of self-government to Malta, which at once turned a Crown Colony which was in a state of open revolt against our rule into a colony burning with loyalty and patriotism for English rule. I do ask that these proposals should receive some little consideration, and that we should not commit these people to tread the long path of agitation, direct action, passive resistance, and the other means that afterwards they may have to adopt to get granted to them the right to vote for their own members to carry out the very limited functions which this Bill give to them.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid that nothing I can say or do will have much effect on my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. There is inherent in all his speeches about this matter, the suggestion that the Committee which considered this question might quite easily, by a few strokes of the pen, have enormously amplified this franchise without any difficulty at all. We really have done our best to set up a franchise which, at any rate, will have the merit of working, and that is what none of these Amendments would do. If we were to enfranchise ex-soldiers it would probably be in one special area, and in that district you would absolutely swamp the constituency. If you tried to find out who were the people who had 150 rupees per year that would probably take two or three years. At present there is an Income Tax there, but only on those who have over 2,000 rupees per year. The other inquiry would have to be undertaken on a different basis which no Department has tackled. The literacy qualification would enfranchise school girls and school boys.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: My proposal is graduates of universities.
    Mr. ACLAND: There is a proposal to enfranchise those who can read and write. Graduates in India usually graduate at sixteen or seventeen years of age, and I do not suppose we want to give the franchise at that age. These proposals would not work, and the Committee have tried to make a franchise which will work.
    Mr. T. WILSON: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should bring these Amendments which have met with sympathy in this House, to the notice of the Government of India? A promise of that kind might be satisfactory.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report of the Joint Committee, Clause 7, (a), which deals with the very point.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any further Amendments on this Clause.
    Major HILLS: Might I draw your attention, Sir, to an Amendment providing that every graduate of a university shall be entitled to be a voter?
    The CHAIRMAN: We have already discussed that.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 8.— Sessions and Duration of Governor's Legislative Council.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any of the Amendments to this Clause.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 9.—(Presidents of Local Legislative Councils.)
    (1) There shall be a president of a governor's legislative council, who shall, until the expiration of a period of four years from the first meeting of the council as constituted under this Act, be a person appointed by the governor, and shall thereafter be a member of the council elected by the council and approved by the governor:
    Provided that if at the expiration of such period of four years the council is in session, the president then in office shall continue in office until the end of the current session, and the first election of a president shall take place at the commencement of the next ensuing session.
    Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "There shall be a president of."
    My object is to move in words providing that the Governor's Legislative Council

    689
    "shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other business, choose a member to be president of the Council and, as often as the office of president becomes vacant, shall again choose a member to be president. The president shall cease to hold office if he ceases to be a member; he may be removed from office by a vote of the Council or he may resign his office or his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the governor. Prior to or during the absence of the president the Legislative Council may choose a member to perform his duties in his absence."
    This is a matter upon which there was some difference of opinion in the Committee. It was discussed at considerable length, and my Amendment simply seeks to ensure the appointment of a President by direct election. As the Bill stands, the proposal is that the President of the Council shall for the first four years be appointed by the Governor and that after that he shall be a member of the Council elected by the Council and approved by the Governor. The argument that was used in support of this paragraph in the Bill was that in these new Councils which were to be set up it would be extremely difficult to find men with the necessary qualifications and experience of Parliamentary procedure to act in the capacity of President, and it was further suggested that it might be found desirable to send out from this country men who had Parliamentary experience and who would be prepared to give four years of their life to go out there and assist the people of India in this work by taking over this responsible position. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been any desire expressed by any responsible Indian for such assistance on our part, nor is there any strong evidence leading us to believe that there do not exist in India at the present time a very large number of men highly qualified to fulfil offices of this character with satisfaction to the Government they are serving and with credit to themselves. It might not appear to some to be a very vital matter, but it is to me. It is another one of those cases in which I fear we show a lack of confidence in our Indian friends, and I feel that the Committee would be well advised to reverse the decision of the Select Committee on this matter and allow the constituent members of these new Assemblies to select their own presidents.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think, if I were opposed to this scheme, I could not recommend any better way of prejudicing its start than by accepting this Amendment. These new Legislative Councils, which
    690
    some schools of thought in this country will watch with the greatest possible care, have a burden big enough upon their shoulders already without suggesting that they should find a man among their number, learned, I do not know how, in all the niceties and intricacies of Parliamentary chairmanship, to be president. Perhaps I should not be out of order, Mr. Whitley, in telling the Committee how often some of my Indian friends who have listened to these Debates this year have expressed their admiration of your chairmanship and wondered how long it would be before they could discover similar qualities and experience in India. We all want that day to come, and therefore the scheme that suggested itself to us was that the President should be appointed in the first instance and should be assisted by an elected vice-chairman, and after one Council has gone by and the second Council has been elected, that the appointed President should disappear and the elected President should take his place. That is not enough for my hon. Friend, who for some unearthly reason says, "I will not wait; I want to risk everything by insisting that that step shall be taken to-day, when in the Legislative Councils no Indians have had any experience of presiding over a Parliament." I submit that of all the Amendments that have been proposed before this Committee this is perhaps—and I say it without offence—the most unreasonable.
    Mr. BENNETT: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken and I were the only members of the Joint Committee who held that at the beginning we should do as it is proposed by the Joint Report to do four years hence. There is no difference between the Report of the Joint Committee and my own view as to the ultimate object. There is to be an elected President, only we have to wait four years for him. It seems to me that that rather mars the gift which we are making to the people of India. We ought at the beginning, and I think we might safely do so, give them the complete gift of a Legislature electing its own President. I doubt whether there is any warrant for saying that suitable men could not be found. Of course, it is a truism that you cannot find men in India who have had Parliamentary experience, but you will find in any elected Assembly, whether Imperial or Provincial, that there are a number of men with experience

    691
    which, so far as it goes, would help to qualify them for the particular service they might have to render in the Chair. We have, for instance, in the Bombay Presidency, a number of past-Presidents of that municipality. The municipality of Bombay has a population much larger than that of one of our Dominions. It has a Budget of £1,500,000 a year, and a series of men who have successfully presided over the affairs of an important community of those dimensions have prima facie some qualification for taking up these posts which we have in view. Again, in the Universities, the Vice-Chancellors, though I admit they have been chosen by the Government, are evidences of the existence of a certain capacity for presiding over large and responsible deliberative assemblies. The Chancellors, whether of the University of Bombay or of the University of Calcutta, have been Indian gentlemen, mainly of professional antecedents, and one and all, I believe, have been successful in presiding over the senates of those universities. That does not go far, I admit, but it does go so far as to suggest that the Legislature would be able to find suitable men as Speakers of those Assemblies. I take it the first Speaker of this illustrious House was not fully competent when he first took the Chair, but that he learned, and the Indian Speakers would learn, and tradition would grow up round their office, and in time they would fully justify their choice. I do not press the matter further. I shall not support the Amendment in the event of a Division, for this reason, that it differs from the Amendment which I had on the Paper in some essential particulars. For instance, it does not suggest any termination of the office, and for that and other reasons I shall not support it, but I hold that the proposal is one which is worthy of being taken into consideration, and I know there will be a certain measure of disappointment amongst political circles in India if the scheme is started under the narrowing conditions which we now propose.
    Mr. ACLAND: Is it not possible under the Bill and under the recommendations of the Joint Committee that in Provinces where persons of the experience referred to by the last speaker are to be found, those persons should be appointed by the Governor as presidents of these Councils? That being so, I think the point is met. The difference between that and the
    692
    Amendment is that, whereas those persons will very likely be appointed in Provinces where there are trained persons who have presided over these large municipalities, the Amendment would make it compulsory.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) almost with contumely, and said it was impossible to find Presidents of these Councils.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I never said anything of the sort.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman maintains that it is absolutely necessary to appoint Presidents of these Councils for four years, but all over Europe to-day are little Parliaments sitting and functioning without any practice or experience whatever, in Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and so on. All these little places, with Eastern blood amongst their people, are appointing their own Presidents of Councils and electing them, as we have in this House elected Mr. Speaker, and I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any further Amendment on this Clause.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 10.— (Powers of Local Legislatures.)
    (3) The Local Legislature of any province may not, without the previous sanction of the Governor-General, make or take into consideration any law—
    (e) regulating any central subject;
    Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3,e), after the word "regulating" to insert the words "currency or coinage or".
    7.0 P.M.
    I put this Amendment down because it seems a matter of very great importance. I think we must bear in mind that the trade of India is so great that, immediately she operates to fill her currency requirements, she really affects the trade of the whole world. I maintain that this subject is an Imperial and not a local one, and I submit that it should not be buried away in a book of appendices, but should be placed right in the forefront of the Bill. I am obliged for the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave me yesterday on this

    693
    subject, but, although his answer was on die whole favourable, he admitted the question rests on these Rules we hear so much about, and it seems to me there is a possibility, if this matter is left in doubt, that it may have the effect of endowing the local Legislatures with powers in Platters of tins sort. I put down this Amendment to make assurance doubly sure that nothing of the sort shall happen. I admit this is not the occasion to raise the question of currency, but let me give two illustrations of how the question of Indian currency affects this country and the whole world. When India closed her mints to silver in 1893, and instituted a boycott of silver, I am old enough to remember that I thought it was a very unwise action to take, and I think so still. They tried to do the impossible.
    What has happened? Shortly after the War began she set to work to scour the world for what she scorned in 1893, and acquired all the silver she could secure from China. Had China been an organised country she would never have allowed it. The act of the Indian Government on that occasion was something like robbing a paralytic. She created a vacuum in China, and China, in filling up the vacuum, has placed silver in a high and an unhealthy position. One result, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted two days ago, has been to cause India to debase her subsidiary coinage. We see certain newspapers in this country advocating a nickel shilling, which would also tend to high prices. Foiled in her efforts to get silver, India is now buying gold to an enormous extent, and we in this country are left with paper notes, which also tend to inflation and high prices. It would be of very great interest if the right hon. Gentleman could say briefly how far the financial policy of India is regulated in India or is regulated in London. In any case, we do not want to run the risk of dealing with more than one financial authority in India, and we do not wish to have controversies between the central Government of India and the local Legislatures, which may arise if this question is left in any doubt at all, and I would urge this Amendment., because it is only really a drafting Amendment, and does not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give away a single point of principle. If he would look over the borders of India into China, he would find every province having a different standard of value, leading to great incon-
    694
    venience and utter confusion, The object of my Amendment is that we should lay down quite clearly that a similar confusion shall not be created in India.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I quite agree with my hon. Friend about the vast importance of the currency and coinage. I cannot conceive of anybody giving any Province of India a different currency or coinage from any other Province. It is intended that the currency and coinage of India should be a central subject, and I can assure my hon. Friend there is not the slightest danger of what he fears. He says, "Why not put it in the Bill?" I hope he will not think that necessary. I have always been assured ever since I have been in this House that it is one of the greatest mistakes of Parliamentary drafting, which has brought about before now confusion in law, to specify one particular subject out of a category. We all agree there is not the slightest danger of currency and coinage ever being a Provincial subject in India. It is physically impossible that it should be without the assent of this House, and absolutely impossible that anyone should propose it. Therefore, I would earnestly recommend my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
    Mr. STEWART: I certainly do not want to press the Amendment, but my right hon. Friend has not convinced me that there are any other questions analogous to this question of currency. In his answer yesterday to my question, he said:
    "The list of central subjects, when embodied in Rules made under Clause 1 of the Bill with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, cannot be varied except by Rules similarly made, and will, therefore, not be subject to alteration by any local authority in India. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1919, col. 372.]
    We all know we are in absolute darkness as to what these Rules will be, and we do not know if they are put on the Table of the House that we shall be acquainted with the fact that they are there.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Business and Procedure in Governor's Legislative Councils.)
    (1) Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section eighty of the principal Act (which relate to the classes of business which may be transacted at meetings of local legislative councils) shall cease to apply to a governor's legislative council, but the business and procedure in any such council shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
    (5) Where any Bill has been introduced or is proposed to be introduced, or any Amendment to a Bill is moved or proposed to be moved, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or tile Amendment affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it, or of another province and may direct that no proceedings or no further proceedings shall be taken by the council in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall be given to any such direction.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-sections (1) and (2) of."
    Sub-section (2) of the principal Act is left in operation under this Bill, and it is that which I seek to omit, In sub-section (2) of section 80 of the principal Act no measure can be introduced by non-official members, and that means by any Indian, in the Provincial Assembly, without the previous sanction of the Governor, if the matter affects the revenue of the Province. This procedure, of course, prevents any discussion, and deprives the Governors of all opportunity of judging whether the proposed measure affects the revenue or not. Most of the Bills which will be introduced into these Provincial Assemblies must deal in some way with finance. They must involve some charge on the Exchequer, and to prevent any private member, representing, as he may, a majority of the Indian members in that Assembly, from introducing a Bill, seems to me to be stifling the activities of Parliament. Here, of course, a private Member can introduce a Bill, and we regard private Members' Bills, or the Government do, as somewhat of an excrescence on the activities of Parliament. But when we talk of Bills introduced by non-official members in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies, we must remember that that will be almost the principal duty of those Assemblies, and I do submit we ought to allow Bills to be introduced, even although they involve a charge on the Exchequer. The Governor's veto upon the Bill still holds good. There is complete freedom, as explained in the Joint Committee's Report. He is expected to apply his veto to any measure that is undesirable, but I do not see that we ought to prevent measures being introduced and debated in these Assemblies.
    For instance, in the Bombay Legislative Assembly there was a Bill introduced by a member of that Assembly, a friend of mine, calling for compulsory education. That Bill under Sub-section (2) was ruled out as being an improper Bill to discuss. I am quite willing, and the Indians are quite
    696
    willing, that that sort of Bill should be vetoed by the Governor, but they do urge, and I think we have a right to ask, that it should be considered that a Bill of that nature should be discussed, and that discussion should be permissible; otherwise the Governor cannot possibly tell what the purpose of a Bill really is, and, in any case, it is much better to allow people to blow off steam in public. [Laughter.] I am glad the House' is beginning to value the freedom of speech. It is much better that any measure should be discussed, and that it should not be ruled out altogether from discussion, merely because it might involve a charge upon the Exchequer. The activities of these Parliaments are to be recommended and not suppressed. What would happen if this Clause is not amended? The majority of any legislative assembly, either in Bombay, Bihar, Madras, or any of the other places may desire to bring in a Bill. This Bill will be prohibited from being discussed. That is not, by any means, the end of the thing. You may have these non-official members meeting together, in a non-official way, in some other Chamber, and—quite unofficially—debating and passing this measure. It is true that that will have no effect. But is it not much more desirable that any discussion of that sort should take place in the proper Chamber, and under proper supervision, with the officials represented as well as the non-officials, so that both sides can be shown, rather than we should give rise to a sort of extra-legal assembly which will have all the limelight thrown upon it, and which will gain the kudos and the applause of the more or less unthinking public? Is it not more advisable to have a proper discussion than that sort of wholly informal proceeding? I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the possibility, later, either under the Rules and Regulations or otherwise, of allowing free discussion and amendment of any measure introduced by the non-official member, even though it does involve a charge upon the rates.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The best way to reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to refer to the Manual Procedure of the House of Commons, with which I am sure he is familiar:
    "The House does not…proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament…except upon the recommendation of the Crown."
    We have tried to keep the procedure of

    697
    these Assemblies similar, though not exactly the same. Therefore, I really think he has put down this Amendment under a misapprehension. Perhaps, if he will be good enough to consider it again, he will find that is so.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not quite the same thing. The Minister in charge of a Bill in an Indian Legislative Assembly is not quite in the same position as the Government Front Bench in this House. He has got the Governor and executive members of the Government to consider as well as his own wishes in the matter. We have not got Cabinet responsibility in India. If we had, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would fit. Until we have we shall have difficulties like this cropping up. It is not fair to quote the Manual of Procedure in connection with private Members' Bills in this House in dealing with a problem which really is not comparable.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words
    "has been introduced or is proposed to be introduced, or any Amendment to a Bill is moved or proposed to be moved, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or the Amendment affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it or of another province, and may direct that no proceedings or no further proceedings shall be taken by the council in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall he given to any such direction,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "or any Amendment to a Bill is passed by the Legislative Council, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or the Amendment directly affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it or of another province and thereupon the Bill, Clause, or Amendment shall be deemed not to have been passed."
    This Amendment deals with a. similar subject to the last, but does not involve any charge upon the Exchequer. Here, too, it seems to me that freedom of discussion is the best thing to allow. You have got the natural desire of the elected representatives of the people to the Legislative Assembly to act upon the promises they have made to their electorate. Are these people to be debarred from raising a question or putting forward a Bill, or—more important still—a proposal to repeal some existing statute by saying that the measure affects the safety or tranquillity of the Province? We all agree that anything which does affect the safety or trait quality of the Province ought not to be passed into law. I am quite ready to
    698
    assent to that proposition. What we do say is that discussion ought to be allowed. We say it with the more force because under the present procedure, as I understand it, of the Provincial Assemblies you can discuss a Bill of this sort in detail, and veto does not take place until the Bill has been discussed. This is, in effect, a retrograde measure depriving these local Legislatures of rights they already possess. It is a step backward. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I hope that I am wrong in my surmise that this is intended to detract from the existing powers of the existing Provincial Assemblies. In any case, on abstract principles I believe it is better to allow people to produce their measures and debate them, and have answers given by officials in these Assemblies so that they may get circulation in the Press which we all agree is so desirable. We ought not to stifle, discussion, and so turn it into channels which will not be as satisfactory to the administration as debate in open house is.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Governor remains responsible for the safety and tranquillity of the Province. Is it conceivable to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are two kinds of safety? I am quite prepared to agree that it is not in the least likely that a majority of the Legislative Council would wish to discuss a Bill affecting the safety and tranquillity of their Province—in which case this Clause would not be operative. I have never yet heard of a Legislative Council which has not got some curious members, and if one man wishes to debate a measure which it is not in the public interest to debate—some attack upon a sect; something that would disturb the peace of a neighbouring Province; some racial matter. These things are not intended to apply from day to day. Nobody hopes more than I do that these precautions will not be necessary. But if you are passing an Act you must provide for every contingency. If you are leaving the Governor of the Province responsible to this House for the safety and tranquillity of his Province, you ought to arm him with power to prevent discussion of a matter which, in his opinion, would jeopardise that safety and that tranquillity.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Really, the right hon. Gentleman is playing with his Liberal principles. He knows perfectly well, as we all know, that it is much better to allow both parties to state their case.

    699
    If you have an unpopular member introducing an unpopular subject into any of these assemblies he will be answered—as I am being continually. A case would be made against him. Otherwise you make a man a martyr. His views get into the Press just the same, and the other side of the case is not stated. The real reason we are educated politically in this country is because we have trained ourselves to listen to both sides, and to choose fur ourselves between right and wrong. I think it is a stupid policy, depriving a country like India, which is beginning its political career, of the chance of educating itself in exactly the same way as we have done—by hearing what is false and true, and learning which is the best way out.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 12 (Return and Reservation of Bills passed by local legislatures), 13 (Provision for case of failure to pass legislation), and 14 (Vacation of seats in local legislative council) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Constitution of New Provinces, etc., and Provision as to Backward Tracts.)
    (1) The Governor-General in Council may, after obtaining an expression of opinion from the local government and the local legislature affected, by notification, with the sanction of His Majesty previously signified by the Secretary of State in Council, constitute a new governor's province, or place part of a governor's province under the administration of a deputy-governor to be appointed by the Governor-General, and may in any such case apply, with such modifications as appear necessary or desirable, all or any of the provisions of the principal Act or this Act relating to governors' provinces, or provinces under a lieutenant-governor or chief commissioner, to any such now province or part of a province.

    (2) The Governor-General in Council may declare any territory in British India to be a "backward tract," and may, by notification, with such sanction as aforesaid, direct that the principal Act and this Act shall apply to that territory subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed in the notification. Where the Governor-General in Council has, by notification, directed as aforesaid, he may, by the same or subsequent notification, direct that any Act of the Indian Legislature shall not apply to the territory in question or any part thereof, or shall apply to the territory or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or modifications as the Governor-General thinks fit, or may authorise the Governor in Council to give similar directions as respects any Act of the local legislature.

    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "The report of the commission of inquiry upon the various distinctive racial and linguistic
    700
    territorial units proposed to be formed as new provinces shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if approved by Resolution of both Houses shall be submitted by the Secretary of State for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, and upon the signification of such assent by His Majesty in Council shall be attached as a Schedule to the Bill and have the same force and effect as if it formed part of the Bill, and the Bill shall not be brought into operation till the Report has been considered and the Schedules attached to the Bill."
    What I want to point out is that the question with which the Amendment deals is one of the most important before us in the whole Bill. There is reference at the conclusion of the Joint Committee's Report to the opposition which may arise between the minority and the majority on the local Legislative Councils, and to get any agreement upon this point between the, different races and nationalities would be very difficult.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question. This Amendment begins. "The Report of the Commission of Inquiry upon the various distinctive racial and linguistic territorial units." What Commission of Inquiry does he mean, and what Report? I submit as it stands it is meaningless, because it refers to nothing in the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: What is the Commission and Inquiry to which this Amendment refers. Is it in existence?
    Colonel YATE: This Commission of Inquiry is to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
    The CHAIRMAN: Under what Statute?
    Colonel YATE: It comes in the Report of the Joint Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not statutory. The Amendment is not in order.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 (Saving) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Indian Legislature.)
    Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Indian legislature shall consist of the Governor-General and two chambers, namely, the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly.
    Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed by the Indian legislature unless it has been agreed to by boil chambers, either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed to by both chambers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "two Chambers, namely, the Council of State and."

    701
    I do not think the Labour party would be doing its duty if it allowed this Clause to pass without a protest. We do not see the necessity even for a double-Chamber system in this country, still less in India, more especially when the Second Chamber and the Council of State is, according to the Report of the Joint Committee, going to be elected in the same way as the Indian Legislative Assembly itself. The Joint Committee have done their best in this matter, and they have tried in every sort of way. Their Report is absolutely non-committal. This is to be an elected Council of State, the sole difference between that and the Legislative Assembly being that the Government have a few more members on the Council of State than on the Legislative Assembly. Before our passionate devotion for a Second Chamber leads us to graft it on an Indian Government, I think we ought to have some idea as to the distinction which is going to be made between these two Houses, because it appears to me that you are simply duplicating the other Chamber. This will add to the trouble of legislation without the slightest improvement in the legislation that is passed.
    Under the Montagu-Chelmsford Report the duties of the Council of State were quite different, and the Committee came to the conclusion that it was not only false tactics but bad policy to rely upon the official block overruling the elected representatives. In the Provincial Assemblies they had the Grand Committee system, which was to overrule any legislation contrary to the wishes of the Government. The same conclusion was arrived at in connection with the local Legislatures. In the Second Chamber you have this check Chamber maintained, although any possibility of it acting as a check has gone. You have got the unnecessary Second Chamber pushed into this Bill simply because there are so many politicians in this country who love the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] That is what it is done for. On this side we object to importing a sham House of Lords into India to do nothing but register the decisions of the Second Chamber or overrule them, and they may be even more ultra-nationalist than the Legislative Assembly. You are only adding to your difficulties and detracting from what we believe to be the most important thing in an Indian Legislative
    702
    Assembly, which is to be an Assembly of all India and the home of future progress in India, and a repetition in India of this House of Commons. You are detracting from its power by putting in a proposal such as this, and it will be no advantage to the Bill or the British control during the whole transition period.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I desire to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that there is in India a very large body of opinion in favour of this Clause. This Second Chamber is not intended to act in opposition to the Legislative Assembly. It is elected for a different term of years by a different electorate to act as a revising body, and will be able to compose its differences with the Lower Chamber by means of a joint session. I cannot believe that a body of that kind in a country like India is a bad Parliamentary body.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. and gallant Member opposite had read all the evidence, he would find that not merely from England, but from India, there was a general recognition that this council might be a body of the greatest: possible value to India, and it received a considerable measure of Indian support. There are many able native politicians in India who might not be prepared to stand the racket of an election, and they might be very suitable persons for indirect election either by the Provincial Legislature or under some special franchise, and they would be very valuable persons to include in the Council of State. Many of these men have had valuable experience in the public life of India, and this proposal enables their services to be utilised. For that reason we came to the conclusion that a Second Chamber—calf it what yon will—will be a most valuable institution to the Indian people in working out and developing their future political institutions in their own way. This proposal is only for ten years, and we thought that for the first ten years we should see if they could get a useful body in this way.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is quite true that I have not read all the evidence, because I was excluded from that Committee. At the same time, I do not think we ought to take all the evidence which comes from India as being the representative voice of all Indians. They mostly represent the people who can afford to spend money upon looking after the interests of India, and the new capitalists

    703
    in India are not the people whom I would absolutely trust with the government of India. In the Second Chamber you are going to have this special capitalistic interest represented. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said so?"] If not, what do special electorates mean? I deprecate the introduction of a Second Chamber which may have the approval of the rich people only, and which may tend to strengthen a hold upon the future government of India which this House would universally deplore. We want to see India democratically governed, and not governed by vested interests.
    Earl WINTERTON: I should like to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact that he has done a good deal of harm in the Debate by again showing the utter inconsistency of his attitude, which is typical of the attitude he takes on every Bill. There is not a person who comes to this country from abroad whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not metaphorically embrace if he has any grievance against this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has indulged in what I may describe as a very badly argued speech, and he has stated that you cannot always agree with the views of the people who come to this country from India. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear that in mind, because we wish to hear less of the views of the hon. Member's friends in India and more of the people of India.
    Colonel WEDGWOODrose—
    The CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the hon. and gallant Member to let us get on with the business.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have heaps of time before five o'clock in the morning. The Noble Lord opposite has referred to people from the Dominions who come to me with their grievances. All I can say is that when people come to me with grievances I sift them. I do not take everything they say as being true, but I apply a proper test, and when I find their grievances are genuine, well-founded and justified I bring them forward, and I shall continue to do so. The Secretary of State knows that in this Debate I have more the confidence of the whole of India than any other hon. Member speaking in this House. Let anybody who doubts that apply his mind to the Indian Press—
    Earl WINTERTON: Is Mrs. Besant India?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole people of India have the same feelings as ourselves. They, too, hate injustice, and they, too, have some faith in a country which has one or two people who will speak up against injustice.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 (Council of State) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Legislative Assembly.)
    (1) The Legislative Assembly shall consist of members nominated or elected in accordance with. Rules made under the principal Act.
    (2) The total number members of the Legislative Assembly shall be one hundred and forty. The number of non-elected members shall be forty, of whom twenty-six shall be official members. The number of elected members shall be one hundred:
    Provided that Rules made under the principal Act may provide for increasing the number of members of the Legislative Assembly as fixed by this Section, and may vary the proportion which the classes of members bear one to another, so, however, that at least five-sevenths of the members of the Legislative Assembly shall be elected members, and at least one-third of the other members shall be non-official members.
    (3) The Governor-General shall have the right of addressing the Legislative Assembly, and may for that purpose require the attendance of its members.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that there is much in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) to insert the word "directly."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is very important. It is a question whether the Legislative Assembly is to be directly or indirectly elected.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then, perhaps, the hon. Member might move.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "or," to insert the word "directly."
    The Bill leaves it open. The recommendation of the Joint Committe was strongly in favour of direct election, but left it open to the Governor-General and the Council in India to decide whether it was practicable or not. I want to lay it down that the Legislative Assembly should be directly elected, and thereby make it comparable with the House of Commons, instead of having it indirectly elected and representing nobody but those upon it. We want to start this new

    705
    Indian National Assembly upon the most democratic lines. It is true that we have not a decent franchise, but we shall get it. If you start this Indian National Assembly indirectly elected, it will be very difficult to get rid of that indirect election at the next stage. I know that there are all sorts of difficulties—the size of the electorate, and things of that sort—but there is no finality in the numbers that have been put down for the Assembly. The number put down is 140, but I have an Amendment to make it 240. In any case, we want to see that the Indian Legislative Assembly, when it gets into working order, is a directly-elected Assembly capable of expansion and really representative of the electors of the country, instead of some form of indirect election drawn from foreign countries, which is not in accordance with British traditions and which is wholly alien to our system of representative Government.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I find myself in cordial agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the advantages of direct election. I do not believe that you can really ever make a representative institution except by direct election, and I happen to know by telegraphic correspondence with the Government of India, that they are hoping to devise a system of direct election that is what they are aiming at, and in all human probability that will he the scheme that my hon. and gallant Friend will find will come before us. There is, however —and that is why the Joint Committee did not leave the words in the Bill—a possibility that a direct electorate cannot be devised in time for the first starting of the Bill. I do not think that it is likely to occur, but it will not be fatal to have for the first ten years or perhaps for a shorter time, indirect election. After all, the local Governments of India, time local Legislatures, are indirectly elected now. They have proceeded through indirect election to the direct election that they are going to get under this Bill. It would not be an incontrovertible disaster if, for instance, the first Legislative Assembly in India were indirectly elected by the members of the municipalities and the local Government bodies in the rural districts.
    Colonel YATE: If the election is to be direct, the question in my last Amendment, which was ruled out of order, becomes very important. The first Bill said that the elected members of the
    706
    Council of State should be twenty-four. In the second Bill the Joint Committee have entirely overruled that, I believe against the wishes of the Government of India. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether the Government of India agree to it. The Joint Committee have put in that not more than twenty shall be official members. We ought to retain the figures in the original Bill that not more than twenty-four shall be elected members.
    Mr. MONTAGU: On a point of Order. This is really very difficult to follow. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) suggests an Amendment relating to the Legislative Assembly, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate) is addressing himself to the question of the number of official members of the Council of State. I do not see how the two things are related.
    Colonel YATE: I understood that we were talking about the Council of State.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but I am afraid that my attention was straying for the moment, and I did not notice.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. OMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "forty" ["one hundred and forty"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
    All my Amendments on this Clause are linked together and are repetitions of the first Bill. I want to have from time right hon. Gentleman all explanation why the figures of the first Bill with regard to the Legislative Assembly have been varied very much in the direction of increasing the proportion of the elected members to the whole. I think that we are entitled to be told why this change has been made.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Committee came to the conclusion that the Southborough Committee's recommendations for election to the Legislative Assembly were not good ones, and they wanted to substitute a scheme of direct election. Now that you have an unofficial majority it does not really matter what the size is, and the advantages therefore are wholly in favour of these figures. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) is continually saying that he does not know what the opinion of the Government of India is, though the opinion of the Government of India was treated at great length in the evidence be-

    707
    fore the Committee. I have here a private telegram from the Viceroy addressed to me at the time that he was on tour at Madras and could not consult his Government, and I will read it—
    "The Government of India are well aware of the immense difficulties of the task which has confronted the Joint Committee and are grateful for the patient care with which that task has been discharged. They have put their views fully before the Joint Committee, and now after much delay a decision at last seems about to be reached I feel sure that the Government of India would not wish to delay by one day the carrying into effect of the Joint Committee's recommendations. Speaking for myself, I feel sure that the Government of India will accept the decisions reached and will endeavour loyally to give effect to them."
    That was followed a day later by an official telegram from the Government of India, which I will also read. It begins m exactly the same way and continues:
    "Now after much delay a decision at last seems about to be reached, they would urge no delay in legislation. They will cordially accept the decisions reached by Parliament and will endeavour to the best of their ability to carry them out."
    I take these two telegrams to mean that they have expressed their views before the Joint Committee, and they now want immediate legislation ad the result of the Joint Committee's Report. I only mentioned that because my hon. and gallant Friend continually asks the question, and now that I have read the telegrams that I have received perhaps he will be more satisfied.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I urge the vital importance of having this Indian Legislative Assembly as large as possible? We do not want the Indians to get the idea that we are trying to split up India into eight Provinces in order to play them off one against the other, or to denationalise the Indian people and make them Bengalese or inhabitants of Bombay. We want to keep right in the foreground the fact that India itself is an entity and a nation. Therefore, we ought to do all that we can to emphasise the importance of the Indian Legislative Assembly, and not give the impression that we are playing the old game of divided rule. It would be of the greatest assistance to the smooth working of the Bill in India if we could get some sort, of statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he realises that the Indian Legislative Assembly is the kernel of the whole Bill, and that increase. of power, and in time responsible government, will come to that Assembly,
    708
    and that we do realise that we are not splitting up India, but that the Indian Legislative Assembly is going to be the House of Commons for the whole of India.
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel YATE: I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. We have a very curious anomaly before us at the present time. We have now a Committee sitting, a devolution Committee, trying to devise separate Houses and Legislatures for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and here we are in a Committee of which the Secretary of State is a member trying to nationalise the whole of the 250,000,000 people of India. If we cannot make Ireland and England one nation, in one Parliament, in Heaven's name how are we to make India one nation? We have in India far greater diversity than in Europe. How are we to make one nationality of India? It is absolutely impossible. Every Presidency and every Province has its own particular difficulty. Look at Bengal with its 47,000,000 people, with the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal as distinct from the rest of Bengal. Everyone of these nationalities will require separate treatment. You can not make them all one nation. That is impossible, and we must try to give self-government to all the different nations and help to keep the peace between them, because the pax Britannica is once removed they will be at one another's throats. We rescued them from chaos 100 years ago, but if we should follow the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman we should soon again have them in the same state of chaos, and again we would have to rescue them, and to bring the pax Britannica to them a second time. I hope, therefore, the proposal of the hon. Member will not be accepted, but that we shall give them a form of self-government which will work properly as between men of all races, sects, and colours.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 20 (President of Legislative Assembly), 21 (Duration and Sessions of Legislative Assembly and Council of State), 22 (Membership of both Chambers), and 23 (Supplementary Provision as to Composition of Legislative Assembly and Council of State) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Business and Proceedings in Indian Legislature.)
    (1) Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section sixty-seven of the principal Act (which relate to the classes of business which may be transacted by the Indian legislative council) shall cease to have affect.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-sections (1) and (3)," and to insert instead thereof the words "Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), and Sub-section (3)."
    This Clause deals with the business and proceedings in Indian Legislatures, and, generally speaking, the provisions of Clause 24 are similar to the Clause already dealt with dealing with the Provincial Legislatures. The point I want to raise is as to the grant of fiscal autonomy to Indian Legislatures. At present the Joint Committee have gone so far as to recommend that India be allowed to put on Import Duties and that the Government, if they think lit, shall propose Import Duties to time Legislatures. But what Indians want, and what I think we ought to grant, is some measure of fiscal autonomy. I submit that the question of Import Duties should not be simply a question for the Governor and the executive, but should be dependent on the Assembly itself. What I am proposing to do is to leave out from Sub-section (1) to (3), and to insert instead Sub-sections (1), paragraph (a) of Subsection (2), and Sub-section (3), and if that alteration is made it will be possible to introduce legislation imposing Import Duties in India and to grant that fiscal autonomy which I think almost the whole of the evidence from India asked for. This is not merely a demand of the Congress party. It is also the demand of the majority. They want that feeling of responsibility which can only come from some control of the purse, and if the Amendment were carried they would have a beginning of control of the purse which would, of course, be developed in future years. During the early years of this experiment, are we not going to allow these people any sort of fiscal autonomy? This demand comes from all parties in India, and should be conceded, and now we have got over the principal objection with regard to duties being imposed in India on account of the interests of people in Lancashire or elsewhere in this country, cannot we go the whole hog and decide there shall be fiscal autonomy, and that the people of India themselves shall be able to
    710
    decide what duties shall be put rather than that the decision shall be left to the wisdom of the Governor, who is, in various ways, to discover what the people want. Why leave it to the Governor, and why not allow the people to feel that they have some control in this matter? In connection with Import Duties it is of paramount importance that the will of the people should be expressed, and it ought not to be left to be discovered by indirect means.
    We are relying on the Governor interviewing all the vested interests concerned, bearing in mind no doubt the public interests and the interests of the consumers. Bat the people who will be interviewed, and whose desires will be translated into Import Duties, will be those who represent the vested interests. We all know that vested interests are powerful enough even in an ordinary representative assembly, but when a representative assembly has practically nothing to do I am afraid their power will be even greater. I am, of course, hoping that India will not impose any protective traiffs whatsoever. I know that if one is introduced it will work to the injury of the people of India, of the ordinary common or garden ryot and industrial worker. I say the people of India are entitled to express their own views as to what they want. If you leave it to the Government to impose these taxes, and if the people of, India subsequently find that they are not to their advantage but rather to their disadvantage, they will blame the British Government. The blame will not fall on the politician as it should do, and I submit it is only by allowing the elected representatives of the people to make their own mistakes that they will eventually learn to go right. If you put the duty on to the Governor, we shall have to stand the blame; we shall be accused of having imposed the duties, and the position of the British Government in India will be detrimentally affected. I know it is hopeless almost to expect any Amendment of any sort to be introduced into this Bill, but I do wish we could have that small amount of courage which is necessary for granting fiscal autonomy to this new democracy, so that time people may make their own mistakes and not put the blame for them on to our shoulders.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope I shall be able to convince the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) that what he seeks to do is quite unnecessary. The proper plan of Parliamentary procedure is that fiscal

    711
    proposals should be proposed by the Government. I am quite in agreement with the hon. Member with regard to fiscal autonomy for India, and I would point out that it is not the Government of India which has been in disagreement on this point. It has been the Secretary of State. There has been no controversy between the officials and the non-officials. Most of the officials have been Protectionists. I myself, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, am a convinced Free Trader, but I hope the example afforded by Protection in India will make more Free Traders. I think it is only right, if India is to possess any key industries, that she should have the liberty of revising her own tariffs in what she considers to be the best way. Under these circumstances I think my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate the fact that this Amendment is not necessary. Any tariff proposed in India must be put into a Bill which can only be carried by the votes of the Legislature.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the Bill will be such that it cannot be amended. It will not be possible to put Import Duties on other articles or to vary the proposal. The Bill must be carried as it stands.
    Mr. MONTAGU: They can amend it, but, of course, the Bill has to be introduced by the Government. It is the responsibility of the Government, and, whatever its shortcomings, we must keep that responsibilty to the Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Indian Budget.)
    (1) The estimated annual expenditure and revenue of the Governor-General in Council shall be laid in the form of a statement before both chambers of the Indian legislature in each year.
    (5) The proposals of the Governor-General in Council for the appropriation of revenue or moneys relating to heads of expenditure not specified in the above heads shall be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly in the form of demands for grants.
    (6) The Legislative Assembly may assent or refuse its assent to any demand or may reduce the amount referred to in any demand by a reduction of the whole grant.
    (7) The demands as voted by the Legislative Assembly shall be submitted to the Governor-General in Council, who shall, if he declares that he is satisfied that any demand which has been refused by the Legislative Assembly is essential to the discharge of his responsibilites, act as if it had been assented to, notwithstanding the withholding of such assent or the reduction of the amount therein referred to, by the Legislative Assembly.
    (8) Notwithstanding anything in this Section the Governor-General shall have power, in cases of emergency, to authorise such expenditure as may, in his opinion, be necessary for the safety or tranquillity of British India or any part thereof.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7). I wish to ask the Secretary of State if this change was made in accordance with the evidence given by Lord Meston before the Committee, or was it done by the Joint Committee because of evidence given by him; also whether the opinion of the Government of India in the general telegram he has read covers this?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The general telegram was based on a full summary of the Report of the Committee and of the Amendments to the Bill. This Amendment was made by the Committee as a compromise after hearing evidence of Lord Meston on his own behalf. It was not in harmony with the evidence given by the Government of India through Lord Meston, but it was a compromise between the two. It was thought that this was the better procedure.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    It being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  Captain REV. T. J. O'DONNELL.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    I cannot say how deeply I regret that the Motion for which I have secured the adjournment of the House should in any way stand between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India and the progress of his Bill. If I were inclined to draw a moral I could do so. We are living in exceedingly strange times, when a Debate upon a great measure that proposes to confer freedom on India is interrupted in order to call attention to another example of the infamy which is carried on in the name of the British Empire in Ireland. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War is not in his place. Is there anybody here to represent him? I wait for the arrival of some of those august personages who

    713
    will be able to tell us something as to the situation which I will present to the House to-night, and to give some form of defence for the series of humiliations and insults to which a gallant soldier and a reverend gentleman has been subjected by the military authorities. This is not a matter that can be treated in this contemptuous fashion, and I should be very glad indeed if the Minister were sent for, and if, after the House has given leave to have this matter discussed, he were brought here, in order that we may be able to deal with it in the only way in which it can be adequately dealt with. My observations are intended for the Minister for War, and I want to know where he is. Will you send the Serjeant-at-Arms for him?
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I have no doubt that the Minister will be here in a moment. The hon. Member is quite capable of giving a preamble in the meantime.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You are perfectly right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I could engage the House in an intellectual preamble for the next twenty minutes if this were not a serious matter. But it is a very serious matter, and therefore, if you do not object, I will allow the progress of the Indian Emancipation Bill to proceed, pending the time when we are able to discuss the latest phase of Irish slavery. I would like your ruling on this point. [At this point Mr. Churchill entered the House.]
    I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War has now arrived, with a red box—a symbol of British freedom—from the War Office. I was rather astounded, after waiting for three or four days for some really sympathetic statement from the right hon. Gentleman, to find to-day that, after all the wiseacres at the War Office had put their heads together, the only result of it was the recital of a number of evasive statements bearing practically upon nothing, which the right hon. Gentleman read to the House at the close of Questions. I expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have come to the House to-day and expressed his own feelings of profound regret, and the reprobation of the Government whom he represents, for the treatment which was meted out to a gallant and reverend member of the great Australian military forces. Listening to
    714
    that statement, and reading it since, from beginning to end of it there was not one scintilla of regret expressed in it. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was not very happy when he read it. It was not worthy of him. If a dog were treated in this fashion, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently humane to feel that a wrong had been done and that indignation should be expressed. But when I find that a man like Father O'Donnell, a chaplain in the British Army, a captain of the Australian military forces, a personal friend of Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of Australia, a man who took a stand, in face of unpopularity of a most widespread character, and fought to rally the forces of Australian opinion to your side in this War, who joined the Army as a private, who became a chaplain, who by his own services in the Army raised himself to the position of a captain—for a man like that to be arrested because a sergeant of Zabern in Killarney chooses to make a charge against him, to be insulted and humiliated, dragged to Dublin from Killarney and thrown into a prison cell, to be subjected there to indignities that were intolerable, to be dragged over here to the Tower of London, to be tried by a court-martial, and then to be found not guilty of the offence with which he was charged—when he was acquitted by the court-martial one would have imagined that British fairplay, of which I hear so much and know so little, would, if it wanted to manifest itself at all, have found expression in an indignant and almost violent repudiation of this conduct from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman in whose custody is the honour and dignity of the whole Army, not only of England and Scotland and Ireland, but of the Army of every part of His Majesty's Dominions. I am not the only one who regards this matter as an important one. When I put the question the other day to the Leader of the House, and asked him for his opinion on this matter, he said:
    "I realise as strongly as the hon. Member the seriousness of this matter on account of its effect on Australian opinion."
    He recognised the seriousness of it. He is the Leader of the House of Commons; he is one of the arch-priests of the Coalition; he is one of the guides of the fortunes of the Empire; and he realised the importance of this question. I am sorry he put it so low as saying that it was because of the effect it would have on

    715
    Australian public opinion. I should have imagined that he would have regarded it from the point of view of manhood, of fair play, of justice, but he only regarded it in so far as it affected Australian public opinion. And how did the right hon. Gentleman to-day deal with this aspect of it as it affected public opinion? Did he apologise to Australia? No. Did he apologise to Father O'Donnell, who was subjected to this wrong, this insult and this humiliation as the representative of the Australian Forces, who had fought with such gallantry and such incomparable glory in some of the noblest fights waged on the battlefields of France and Flanders? Not at all. One would imagine you were discussing the imprisonment of an Irish Member of Parliament. Instead of considering whether you had subjected to humiliation and insult a soldier-priest, you would have imagined you were dealing with the imprisonment of the editor of an Irish newspaper for stating the things he felt. Not a word from the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot and do not believe that when the right hon. Gentleman stood at that bench to-day and read that statement it was typical of his own instincts and feelings on the matter, because I should imagine from what I have known of the right hon. Gentleman that when a wrong had been done he would try to right it; when an injustice had been perpetrated he would endeavour to undo it; and when humiliation has been put on an innocent man he would endeavour to lift that humiliation.
    But there was a greater humiliation than that which was put on Father O'Donnell, and that was the humiliation you put upon yourselves by the part you played in this transaction. I am not animated by the slightest personal feeling in this matter. I do not know Father 'O'Donnell. I have never seen him or even received a communication from him. I have no doubt that if he had sought an advocate in this House he would have sought someone more efficient and powerful as an advocate than I am. Therefore I approach this question from an absolutely impersonal standpoint. No doubt I know Australia. I spent eighteen of the most delightful months of my life there. I know the Australian people well, and I love them—a splendid race, who love liberty, a noble manhood inspired by the loftiest principles of freedom, a great Commonwealth, rich in the
    716
    glory of its own liberty, and anxious to see that liberty extended to others. With all its greatness, all its power, and all its potentialities I am proud of Australia, and when an Australian citizen is struck at, I care not whether he is a priest or a sweep, I feel it my duty to defend him, and to demand some reprobation for the indignity to which he has been subjected and some repudiation of those who have been responsible for it. What is the story of this Father O'Donnell case? He bears an Irish name. No doubt Irish blood runs in his veins. He was born in Australia, and he joined with others, like myself, in a democratic propaganda for the establishment of the principles of liberty for all small nations and for the termination of Prussian militarism. He did not stand alone, nor do I, nor my colleagues, for the suppression of Prussian militarism. He stood for the suppression of militarism as the enemy of humanity everywhere, because to me Prussian militarism is no worse and no better than British, American, or. French militarism. It is the same eveywhere. Wherever this. military Juggernaut is allowed to crush it suppresses all free speech, free opinion, free thought, and independent activity. Therefore, trained in the school of democracy, drinking in the principles, largely as far as this country is concerned, of Mr. Gladstone, I, like others and Father O'Donnell abroad, joined in this propaganda against Prussian militarism because we believed if we crushed it there we crushed it everywhere.
    When the War was over and he had played his part he came back to the land of his fathers—I believe he was never there before—this small nationality which in his vision was to be the sharer in all the glories which were to come to the small nationalities of the world. What was his first observation? He asked someone, "Is there a reconstruction policy in Ireland? What is being done after the War?" Then he formed his own judgment, and said, "As far as I can see, the only thing they manufacture in this country is Sinn Feiners." He went on to give his views upon politics, upon the railway strike, and upon the merits of Lloyd George. He thought he was at an election and the Coalition candidate in the field. What did this military man charge him with? With sedition against the King and against the Government. He never mentioned the King's name unless to praise him. Even the witnesses

    717
    called for the prosecution admitted that he said King George was responsible for the settlement of the railway strike and not Mr. Lloyd George. But a second-lieutenant in the Army happened to be sitting in the room where this conversation was taking place. The priest met an Irishman from the North of Ireland who was slightly deaf, and he was speaking rather loudly, and this sergeant of Zabern, the second-lieutenant, came over and told him not to speak so loudly. He dared to give his views upon public questions, upon which we all give our views, but he gave them loudly in the presence of the sergeant of Zabern. He told him again to stop speaking so loudly and the priest told him to mind his own business. I do not know what his business was. When he was in the witness box he was asked and he said he was in Killarney partly for pleasure and partly for business. I believe the pleasure he was on was to engage in fishing and the business was to try to find out sedition. He was unsuccessful in catching anything in the Lakes. Having failed in pleasure, he said, "Let me try a little business. You will always find sedition in Ireland and so I must go and listen to this conversation." This clergyman who had fought for the rights of small nationalities, who had been four or five years in France and Belgium, who was a strong and as violent a supporter of the Allied cause, did not like the Government. After all that is not a terrible crime. No one likes the Government. I do not see why it should be sedition to dislike the government at Killarney and it is a sign of political prescience to hunt them at all the by-elections. But he happened to be in Ireland, and you are not allowed to dislike the Government in Ireland. It is a most criminal thing to dislike the Government in Ireland. I went to a meeting in the North of Ireland to denounce sweating and the raising of rents, and I was faced with an army of soldiers and policemen who were gathered there to prevent me from doing it, not, I suppose, because they liked sweating, but they thought I did not like the Government.
    Immediately this conversation took place the sergeant of Zabern wrote down an imaginary conversation. Father O'Donnell talked about George and the sergeant of Zabern thought it was the. King, or at all events, thought it would be a good thing to think it was the King. On that he based his charge of sedition,
    718
    and he prepared his indictment of this priest upon this conversation which never took place unless in his own imagination. I put it. to Englishmen, what are they to think of a second-lieutenant in the Army going over to a strange country, partly on business and partly on pleasure, and, according to his own evidence in the Court, proceeding to take out a book and writing down the conversations which are being carried on in an hotel in the place which he visits? It was proven afterwards that what he had done was all wrong and inaccurate. That is all I say about that. I am told that he manufactured the book subsequently, but I do not make that charge. His imagination was fevered. He went to perform a dual function. He failed hopelessly in one function, which was to catch fish, but he said, "I am triumphant in the other, for I have caught a rabbit." So fevered with his success in achieving the second purpose for which he went to Killarney, he then proceeds to prepare this imaginary statement. What does Father O'Donnell say—
    "I left Killarney on the following morning for Rathmore, and arrived in Dublin on the 14th October. I had luncheon at the Gresham Hotel, where two ordinary military policemen asked me if I was Captain O'Donnell. I said I was, and they said that the A.P.M. wanted to see me. "What does he want me for?" I asked. One of the police replied, "I do not know, but he was down looking at the boat last night, probably about some men." I went with him to the Ship Street Barracks and saw the A.I.M. I asked him if he was Major Bagnall. He said he was. He asked me if I was Captain O'Donnell, and I said I was. He then asked me if I had been at Killarney staying at the International Hotel, and I said I had. He then said, "It has been reported to rue that you used seditious language in the hotel." I said, "That is absolutely untrue." He said, "Did not an officer come up to you and speak to you about it?" I replied, "He did nothing of the kind. He came up to me—which was just like his impertinence—and said that I was talking too loud. I said the man I was speaking to was deaf." Major Bagnall then said, "I have not a report here. I must place you under arrest."
    Having been placed under arrest, he was subjected to treatment to which no officer in the Army ought to have, been subjected, and, in my judgment, he was treated in a way that was absolutely opposed to the whole spirit of military Regulations. If I do not make too large a draft on the patience of the House, let me, in Father O'Donnell's own words, give a sworn statement of what happened. He described the room in Ship Street Barracks in which he was detained in custody:

    719
    "There was no proper provision in it at all. There were three dirty blankets which smelt in such a way that one could not go near them. There was no fire though the weather was shockingly cold and no convenience of any kind. The authorities refused to send to the hotel for his bag, which contained his things and the medicine which he was using for a cold. They refused also to allow him to communicate with anyone and sentries with fixed bayonets were placed outside his door. He was taken out in charge of three sentries with fixed bayonets under the gaping eyes of officers and hundreds of English soldiers. He was refused permission to see anybody except on a permit from Dublin Castle and in the presence of an officer. He sent for a priest to hear his confession, but when the priest arrived the officer said he had instructions not to leave and the priest had to go away. The A.P.M. gave him a slip of paper stating that he had been arrested for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. That was not a charge. There was no reference to seditious words. When he sent for his solicitor and counsel the officer said he could not go out of the room, and they had to leave without being able to transact any business."
    The right hon. Gentleman, in the recital he gave to the House to-day, was reading what was supplied to him by the military authorities, who are really the people in the dock in this case. This man was in the dock and was found not guilty. The right hon. Gentleman comes to defend the conduct of the military officers, and he goes to the very gentlemen who are responsible for the thing, takes from them their explanation, adopts as his own, and offers it to the House of Commons, and expects the House of Commons to accept it. I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman.
    Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I am not.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Then you have a lower opinion of the right hon. Gentleman than I have. The statement of Father O'Donnell given in the box, the sworn testimony of this man, is a complete refutation of the reply read by the Secretary for War. I will tell the House why. If the reverend gentleman was stating things that were not true, why was he not cross-examined at the court-martial in regard to them? The right hon. Gentleman recited this evening a list of the great kindnesses that were everywhere extended to Father O'Donnell after his arrest. One would have imagined that this was not a priest-soldier dragged like a common criminal through the streets of Dublin, and put into your dirty, filthy cells, but that it was a Royal parade of some princely person. That is what one would draw from the statement read by
    720
    the right hon. Gentleman. I have read what the reverend and gallant gentleman stated in the witness-box. What do these military gentlemen do? They get one of the most eminent criminal lawyers in England to come over and carry on the prosecution. They brought him there because if there was any man alive capable of tearing to tatters the evidence of this soldier-priest Sir Archibald Bodkin was capable of doing it, and yet Sir Archibald Bodkin, with all the preparation which had been made, well-primed and well-briefed, never questioned one single, solitary statement made by the reverend gentleman in the box. Then the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House of Commons and asks us to believe that the prepared statement of a gang of Prussian conspirators against the liberty of a captain in the Army is to be taken as the authorised version of an incident of this character against the sworn testimony, uncontradicted and unquestioned, of the reverend gentleman himself.
    One thing that was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement was that the reverend gentleman was not allowed to consult a lawyer as to his own defence for five days after he was arrested. This is not Father O'Donnell's statement. It is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It is the statement of the military authorities who supplied the right hon. Gentleman with his brief. What is their statement? It is this. That after dragging this man through the streets of Dublin and placing him in a dirty cell, they left him there, and for five days they refused to allow him to consult a lawyer as to his defence at the court-martial. The right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily went out of his way to drag the military authorities of Australia into this case. I do not quite understand the point of that. Of course, there was a court-martial. Was there a suggestion that there should not be one? We did not complain of it. So far as I know Father O'Donnell did not complain. It was Father O'Donnell who forced it. I have not seen Father O'Donnell. I do not know him, but I read a statement of his in the Press in which he distinctly stated that they were willing to let him go, and he demanded a court-martial, and the Australian Military Forces in London said, "If this Australian officer is to be tried he will be tried before us." If that man had been tried in Ireland he would be doing twelve months or more in gaol at the

    721
    present time. But there is still some remnant of the spirit of liberty left even among military men in this Australian branch of the Imperial Army, and they insisted that if one of their men was to be tried he should be tried before his colleagues of the Australian Forces.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): It is the invariable rule.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If it is the invariable rule, then it is a good thing for once that the invariable rule exists, because whether that rule was variable or invariable—I will not use the expression, it might not be Parliamentary; but it was a very good rule for Father O'Donnell, because Father O'Donnell, instead of standing to-day with his character cleared and his reputation unscathed, would now, not merely have been for three, or four, or ten days in a dirty cell in Dublin, but would be doing time in some prison for perhaps twelve months.
    Brigadier-General GROFT: If he was tried by Englishmen or Scotsmen?
    Mr. J. JONES: If he was tried by Prussians !
    Mr. DEVLIN: He would have been tried by people who would have been told that it was their business to convict him just because he was tried in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] Do not turn up your eyes in holy horror. Let us face the situation. Who was the gentleman who arrested him He was Major Bagnall, Assistant Provost-Marshal of the Dublin area. He went into the box and told his story. Listen to this evidence as a manifestation of British intelligence which should commend itself to the Leader of the National party. He said:
    "He had a wire from the officer commanding the troops at Killarney. He arrested the accused on his own authority. He was acquainted with the King's Regulations affecting the custody of officers.' Then counsel asked him:
    Was this gentleman when he was arrested put into a room in which there was no sleeping accommodation?—I do not know.
    Was he kept there by sentries with fixed bayonets?—I have not the slightest idea.
    Who does know? —Presumably the officer commanding the unit to whom he was handed over.
    Did you make any further inquiry as to how he was treated?—Not in the least; it was none of my business."
    A fine chivalrous spirit of comradeship in the Army !
    722
    "Did you read in the daily and evening papers Captain O'Donnell's affidavit containing the account of his treatment in Ship Street Barracks?—I do not read the evening papers."
    May be he has been studying Mr. Balfour's life. I have not a, very high opinion of the intelligence of most of these people, but I do not know intelligence so low that it does not read the evening paper, and there are some intelligences low enough to read the morning paper. This is the gentleman who arrested this priest. He knew nothing about it. All he knew was that some Zabern sergeant did not like the conversation, the voice was too high, the notes were too loud, there was not sufficient music in this Killarney hotel for this man, and therefore he arrests him, throws him to anybody or nobody, lets him be flung into a cell, does not ask what happens to him, sees a flaming report in the evening paper and a less unparliamentary report in the morning paper as to what took place, and never troubles to read one or the other—and yet we have come triumphantly out of this War. The right hon. Gentleman to-day tried to make a great deal of the fact that they did not want to try Father O'Donnell at all and have a court-martial. That is perfectly true. There would have been no trial if this priest had not forced them to this. He says:
    "I could have dropped it at any stage. The military authorities were most anxious that it should be dropped. That, however, would not suit me. It is a remarkable fact that in this case the prosecution employed a leading criminal lawyer, who was permitted to use his Old Bailey methods against me, contrary to the provisions of the Army Act. Also the judge advocate was an English officer. The judge advocate, in my opinion, was entirely wrong in maintaining that an honourable acquittal could only be granted in exceptional cases. On the contrary, unless it could be shown that the accused was mixed up in disgraceful proceedings there should be an honourable acquittal. It was this that delayed the Court so long in corning to a decision in my case. There, were no exceptional circumstances in any way. However much the authorities try to save their face the case went against them."
    It may be a very small matter that a junior lieutenant in the Army, instinct with the whole spirit of his class, goes into a hotel, listens to conversations carried on at the hotel, afterwards writes them down, goes out and makes a charge, and has a priest arrested. All that may be looked on as trivial, but the subsequent proceedings and the treatment of this priest are matters that concern the Army and the War Office. It was clearly proved that they believed this man guilty before

    723
    ever he was brought to trial at all. I am told that in this case it has cost him over £1,000 to defend himself. He has been misrepresented. Scandalous insinuations have been made against him, all of which have been disproved, even by the Zabern sergeant himself in the witness box.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Who?
    Mr. DEVLIN: The Zabern sergeant. Did you ever hear of Zabern? Perhaps you cannot understand my Belfast accent.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring by the description "Zabern sergeant?"
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will clarify the right hon. Gentleman's mind. His name is Second-Lieutenant Chambers.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Now I can identify him.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know what he wanted in Killarney. He went down to Killarney partly on business and partly on pleasure. The mission of pleasure was a failure and the business was a triumphant success. I hope now that the right hon. Gentleman sits there a fully-informed Minister as to who he was, what he was, what he was doing, and what he has done.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry to interrupt. As a matter of fact I should not have found any difficulty at all if it had not been that the hon. Member was speaking of a lieutenant and referred to him as a sergeant. But for that I should have followed his argument.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for my ignorance as to the status of these military officers. I remember that one of the things that inflamed me against Germany was the Zabern incident. Both the right hon. Gentleman and myself, when we were fighting against, Prussian militarism, had that in all our perorations. I have no doubt he has forgotten his perorations, but I have not forgotten mine. I have asked the House to express its indignation and its condemnation of the action of all those concerned in this transaction. I would have imagined, when the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious for delay, that he would have come himself and would have avoided this Debate, and would have uttered condemnation of the whole trans-
    724
    action. I am sure that he is as anxious as I am that the cause of liberty should go on in India. We have both interrupted a great Indian Debate that concerns the establishment of free institutions for the blacks. "HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I repeat, for the blacks; and, being in favour of any measure of emancipation and freedom for them, I am sorry that we have interrupted the progress of a great measure of popular appeasement. But here we are, come to discuss this thing and to take up the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take the story of interested persons and to throw that at the House of Commons as his reply to an indictment of this character.
    The only thing that counts with me is that this man was charged and found not guilty. Do you question the tribunal? It was yours. They had all the evidence; they listened to every story, every aspect of the question was tested and analysed, and counsel was brought from the Old Bailey with all an eminent counsel's qualities, to put this man on the dissecting table. But gallant officers of his own country and his own branch of the Imperial Army unanimously decided that he was not guilty of the thing with which he was charged and under which be was subjected to insult and humiliation. Not one word of regret has come from the right hon. Gentleman—not one word. Yet the Leader of the House has stated that he regarded the thing as important-, and the more important because of the effect it would have upon Australian opinion. Australian opinion does not count; no opinion counts if Ireland is involved. Captain O'Donnell had Irish blood in his veins. That was the gravamen of his offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I repeat it. This incident may shock some Members of the House, but it is only one of a series of incidents that are occurring day after clay and week after week in Ireland. You would never have heard of it, probably, if he had not been an Australian officer. I am sorry for the whole thing, very sorry; but one can fairly well draw a moral from it. That moral is: Do not care how you outrage public opinion in any part of the world as long as an Irishman is involved. That is my deliberate conviction.
    9.0 P.M.
    I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman now, Is he prepared, as the chief executive officer of the British Imperial Forces, to express his condemnation of the arrest and the treatment of this

    725
    reverend and gallant gentleman? Secondly, what reparation is he prepared to give to this reverend gentleman for the insult and humiliation and expense to which he has been subjected? That is not a very large demand. If you do not concede these two things, Australia will come to the opinion, which I have arrived at, that if there is a race in the world that protests and revolts against militarism—that is practically what exists in Ireland to-day—if they protest against the imposition upon them of what was once the nightmare of the world, then they may look out for such treatment as militarists mete out to all who will not lie down and acquiesce in their policy. No matter what the National party may think of it, that is what it amounts to. I say to English Members here to-night that it is only another added to the many intolerable things under which Ireland is suffering. I say to Englishmen to-night that it is not the personal honour and the ill-treatment of a gallant soldier which are involved, but your honour and your name throughout the world.
    Captain W. BENN: The House will excuse me if, in seconding this Motion, I do not treat the subject from the same point of view as my hon. Friend. I do not think it is a case which should be decided according to our political views, or according to the views we may hold about Ireland. I happen to hold the same views as my hon. Friend, but I treat this case purely as a case. I propose to inform the House of the circumstances of the case, and to invite hon. Members to give their judgment on it as a single and individual case. I interested myself in the case when I got to know the facts, and I am certain that hon. Gentlemen, when they hear the facts, will agree with me in the Motion I am seconding. First of all, who is this Australian padre who has been arrested? What is his record? The hon. Gentleman has referred to part of it. Captain O'Donnell was a priest in Tasmania. He resigned his parish because he was so enthusiastic in the cause of the Allies and desired to go to the War. He addressed many meetings in Australia, taking a great part in the movement for Conscription, which was then unpopular. I will venture to read an extract from a speech which was made at the beginning of last year by this chaplain, when he was campaigning on behalf of the Allies in the Dominion.
    "He said he had urged men to go to the War and many had listened to his appeal. He had
    726
    always desired to go himself, but was never able to do so till now, but the position was very critical and all should do their best. He never expected compulsion to be carried, but they should not desert the boys at the front. They must bend every effort if they were to win. He had always longed to be out among the brave lads of Australia, and the first duty of every true man was to go out with them."
    This is the gentleman who came out and who resigned his cure and went to War as a private soldier. I suppose to whatever party hon. Members may belong they must sympathise with and admire a man who did that. So highly was he thought of in Australia that he was honoured by being the bearer of a letter from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth to Field-Marshal Haig, and also a letter to General Birdwood, recommending him to their special attention and notice, and that letter was acknowledged by the Field-Marshal. That letter went on to say that the Rev. Father O'Donnell had earned and received the thanks of the Australian Government for the work which he had done. That is the man whose ease we are considering. It is not the case of a man who was wildly opposed to us, and not the case of a man with whose views we disagreed so much that we could not undertake to deal with him in an impartial and judicial manner, but the case of a man who acted as every true citizen of the Empire did in a time of great difficulties and made great sacrifices at the beginning of the War on behalf of the cause. That is the man with whose case we have to deal. As regards the charges, I am not going to say anything, as the chaplain was acquitted by the court-martial, and I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will for one moment go back on the verdict of that court-martial. Of course he accepts it when this officer was acquitted of the charge made against him, and I will say no inure about it. What I will say is this. I shall say a word about the character of the prosecution, and I shall ask the House to consider what was the way in which the prosecution was conducted against this reverend gentleman. The chief witness against him was Second - Lieutenant Chambers, and the first charge that was made was a charge of drunkenness. I shall quote from the verbatim report of the court-martial, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to correct me if unwittingly I make any mistake. I say that the first thing that was done by the witness was to make a charge of drunkenness against the reverend gentleman. The first thing

    727
    this witness did was to go to the manageress of the hotel where the reverend gentleman was staying and say to her that this officer was three-quarters drunk, and a suggestion of the same kind was made by another. Overwhelming evidence was produced to show that there was absolutely not a word of truth in that charge, and it was expressly stated in the summing-up that no sort of charge of that kind could lie. I do not know whether it was struck out or simply ignored, but in any case it fell absolutely to the ground.
    Mr. DEVLIN: When Second-Lieutenant Chambers came to give his evidence he said in the witness-box that the priest was not drunk, and had no drink on him whatever.
    Captain BENN: Certainly; but he had gone to the manageress of the hotel, and it was stated in evidence by her that it was not true, and also it was shown that in his bill there was no liquor at all. I really apologise to the reverend gentleman even for referring to it, but I do ask the House to think is that really the sort of way in which the right hon. Gentleman's Department should begin to treat a case against a clergyman who had come over here to fight?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No charge was ever made in the Court.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It was made outside.
    Captain BENN: I do not suppose the eminent people who were employed by the right hon. Gentleman to try to ruin this padre would be so foolish as to lodge a charge of that kind, but the statement was made, and that was the point.
    Mr. INSKIP: Where was it made?
    Captain BENN: The statement was made to the proprietress of the hotel. I have stated the fact, and I shall leave it there. The witness made that statement, and then, of course, when the statement had been made and when they found it could not possibly be substantiated, they withdrew it. There never was a word of truth in it. Why should I go out of my way to defend this reverend gentleman except that I think he has been most unjustly treated? I come to the second part of the case against this padre. The principal witness, Chambers, first of all said, in his evidence, that he had written down
    728
    the words in a book while he was dining. He said he did so at the time the words were spoken. There were five people who were in the hotel dining-room at the time, and everyone of whom was unable to corroborate that statement, including the man who was sitting at the same table with the witness. I do not want to overemphasise this, but is that the way in which a case should be brought and pressed against a priest who comes from the Commonwealth to fight for this country? Let me come to the next point. The reverend gentleman comes to Dublin, and is put under close arrest. I must here tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not know the details of military law.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He was released and came to London.
    Captain BENN: Ah, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right! As soon as he got out of the grip of the right hon. Gentleman to the Australian Forces he was released.
    Mr. CHURCHILLThat is thoroughly wrong. He was in the hands of the Australian authorities in Ireland. They took him over from the British military authorities. They brought him over to London, and, having considered the matter here, they placed him under open arrest.
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is very specious in his interruption, but I will give the House the facts. He was placed under arrest on the 14th, and he was kept in close arrest until the 25th in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman's officials, when he was handed over to the Australians, and as soon as they had investigated the charge they found it was so flimsy that they put him immediately under open arrest. What point can the right hon. Gentleman make out of that? About this close arrest the right hon. Gentleman may probably show that this was ail justified according to the King's Regulations, and certainly he is in a much better position to argue that matter than I am, but I am doing my best to see that justice is done to a man who has been most unjustly treated. On this point of close arrest I should like to say that in the case of even a private soldier, and this was the case of an officer,
    "A private soldier charged with a serious offence will be placed in arrest… He is not to be placed in close arrest for offences unaccompanied by drunkenness, violence, or in-

    729
    subordination, unless confinement is necessary to ensure his safe custody or for the maintenance of discipline."
    I do not know how the case lies as between officers and soldiers, but that is the protection offered to the private soldier. The right hon. Gentleman, who gets hold of an officer, keeps him under close arrest from the 14th to the 25th October. I do not know what the legal technicality is, but we all know very well—anyone who has had the honour of serving in the Army knows—that the object of the authorities is to render all possible assistance to a man under arrest and about to be tried by court-martial. It is not a case of prosecuting counsel or trying to get a conviction at all costs, but of giving what assistance they can. That, I think, is right as an interpretation of the spirit in which the law should be administered towards the accused person; but from the 14th October to the 19th or the 21st October the right hon. Gentleman refused the prisoner the right to see his own counsel unless there was an officer present. There is a very clear statement in the Manual of Military Law on the subject—
    "The accused is to have proper opportunity to prepare his defence, and liberty to communicate with his witnesses and legal adviser."
    That, of course, means liberty to communicate in secret, for how can you possibly communicate with your legal adviser in the presence of the person who is about to be your prosecutor? So my third point is that the right hon. Gentleman, having got this priest in his grip, keeps him under close arrest for eleven clays, during the greater part of which he refuses him permission to see his legal adviser. There are other points which appear to have been overlooked by those who were in charge of this officer. The Manual says:
    "An officer placed under arrest should always be informed in writing of the nature of the arrest."
    I think that means the reason for which he is arrested, but. I am not a. lawyer and I cannot say. I think it means that if a man is put in prison you must tell him why at the earliest possible moment, but that does not appear to have been done. On the contrary, the chaplain asked repeatedly what the charge, against him was, and all he was given in writing was a slip of paper saying he was charged with conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, which might mean anything. That might justify everything
    730
    that people were saying outside about drunkenness and all the other infamous charges which the right hon. Gentleman's myrmidons have been spreading about.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I, or my myrmidons?
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible. If I could get the people who brought these odious charges I should be pleased. But in any case the right hon. Gentleman does not come down here and say, "I am very sorry that somebody has been over-zealous, and I offer a word of apology to this chaplain," who has been acquitted. Not at all. He pretends to justify up to the hilt the whole of the infamous conduct of those under his control. The case is then moved to England. I understand the accused was entitled to have the Australian court-martial in the country in which the offence was committed. It is very difficult. for a man in England to get witnesses in his behalf from Ireland, especially a man like this from the other end of the world, but he is shipped off to England, and he finds employed against him, not the adjutant of the regiment, not some officer detailed by the commanding officer to act as prosecutor, but one of the most eminent criminal lawyers of the day. Why? I should like to read what guidance the King's Regulations give on this point. They say:
    "A General Officer Commanding-in-Chief at home is to obtain the sanction of the Army Council before counsel is engaged to appear on behalf of a prosecutor."
    Was that done? Was the sanction of the Army Council obtained for the employment of Sir Archibald Bodkin to prosecute?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Captain BENN: The Regulations go on to say:
    "The assistance of counsel at courts-martial should be applied for only in cases of an exceptionally difficult or complicated nature, and this course should be very rarely necessary when the offences are of a purely military character."
    The complications were there, certainly, but they were complications arising out of the conflict of evidence of the right hon. Gentleman's witnesses. But is there anything in this paragraph to justify the right hon. Gentleman getting the sanction of the Army Council to employ one of the most eminent criminal lawyers of the day to prosecute this poor, patriotic, Australian padre, who came here to fight for our cause? I think it is one of the worst

    731
    features of the case, and if you read the cross-examination which Sir Archibald Bodkin gave to this chaplain you will find, not that he was trying to elicit the truth in that calm, commonsense way which is prevalent at a court-martial, but that he was trying all the time to get him to commit himself. I will not read the text, but this is the sort of thing he said. He said, "You are an Irishman?" "Yes," said the witness. "You think Ireland is tyrannically governed by England?" "Yes, I do." And so do we, and so do I, most infamously governed.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: So did Churchill at one time.
    Captain BENN: He goes on and says, "I suppose you have not said so?" The witness says, "I do not know." And step by step Sir Archibald Bodkin attempts to get this, I suppose I might call him unsophisticated, man from the Commonwealth on to the slope, so that he can push him down and say, "Those are your sentiments." But why should the Army Council consent to have this criminal lawyer employed to prosecute and ruin this Australian padre? If the House will observe, I am not imparting political prejudice at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I dare say it does not matter. I dare say, hon. Gentlemen think an Australian padre is fair game.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: That is imparting prejudice of the most disgraceful kind.
    Captain BENN: I am trying to see that the gallant and reverend gentleman and his friends in Australia know that there are people in this country who think he has been infamously treated and who are determined to say so and to try and get this House to endorse their view.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHrose—
    Captain BENN: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one further question—who paid for Sir Archibald Bodkin?
    Mr. H. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman slanders professional men who cannot defend themselves, and he will not give way.
    Captain BENN resumed his seat.
    Mr. SMITH: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. May I ask him whether the conduct
    732
    of Sir Archibald Bodkin, of which he complains, is in gross violation of the Manual of Military Law which he has by him, and does he persist in charging Sir Archibald Bodkin with deliberately breaking those rules and being guilty of professional misconduct?
    Captain BENN: I am not making any charge. I should not, dream of doing so. In order to make it perfectly clear—and certainly in advance I shall withdraw what I have said, because I think that is what is fair. I shall withdraw everything I have said about Sir Archibald Bodkin, and will read the evidence, because I shall certainly never attempt in my privileged place in this House to make a charge I would not make outside. I suggest this cross-examination was more suitable to a Criminal Court than to a court-martial, and I suggest it is an amazing thing that the War Secretary should have secured the consent of the Army Council to employ an eminent criminal lawyer to use arts, which, after all, are the arts usually employed in that Court. Let me read the evidence:
    "You said you were an Irish Nationalist. Is it your view that the English Government has ill-treated Ireland?—Yes, that is my view.
    How long have you held that sentiment?— Ever since I was born ever since I could think.
    And you have expressed that opinion, I have no doubt, on many occaions?—Oh, yes, I have frequently expressed that.
    Did you say in that room, 'When the time comes I shall come over and help the people in their struggle against the tyrannical English Government'?—No, I did not.
    That is your sentiment, is it not?—No.
    That is not your sentiment?—That is not my sentiment."
    I suggest that, proper as that cross-examination undoubtedly would be—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was!"]—in an ordinary Court, it is not fair in a court-martial to submit an accused person to a cross-examination of that kind. Now I hope I have dealt quite fairly with Sir Archibald Bodkin, and I think I have made a point which seems to me unanswerable. I would like the right. hon. Gentleman to give me an answer to this question. Will he tell the House who paid for the services of Sir Archibald Bodkin'? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Treasury!"] The Treasury. It comes to this. The right hon. Gentleman when he said to-day in his answer, "Oh, we handed the whole thing over to the Australian Government. They had a court-martial. They dealt with it in their own way and acquitted the officer. We have nothing to do wit h that. All we have

    733
    to answer for is the sending from Dublin." As to who paid a King's Counsel to prosecute this padre in the Court, not a word is said. Is it right that the rates and taxes of this country should be used to pay a King's Counsel to prosecute. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a King's Counsel!"] What does it matter? A learned gentleman prosecuted in this case.
    Mr. W. THORNE: He is a lawyer, anyhow.
    Captain BENN: I do not know what the real explanation of this case may be. It is very difficult to tell. Some think that the thing has been a mistake, and that the right hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong man altogether. I do not know. The "Irish Times," on the 19th December I think, said that the rev. gentleman had been arrested under a misunderstanding and was going to be released. I do not know whether that was so. Here is a curious thing. When that appeared in the "Irish Times" the Governor of Tasmania, Sir Francis Newdegate, who was lately a Member of this House, telegraphed to say the people of Tasmania were very glad to hear that this popular and influential priest had been released. So I think a mistake has been made from the very beginning. Here is another point. When Lieut. Chambers, who was a witness against the padre, got his evidence together, he went to the head of the hotel and said, "Oh, that fellow is not a captain." This officer was wearing a captain's uniform and this witness, who was a casual witness, just doing 'his duty as an officer in reporting what he imagined to be seditious language, went to the proprietor of the hotel, and after the pleasant complimentary exordium about the padre being three parts drunk, went on to say. "He is no captain; he is no priest." How did he know that?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It was not true.
    Captain BENN: How did he come to make such a statement?
    Mr. J. JONES: Who was drunk?
    Captain BENN: It goes very much deeper than that. It lends colour to a much different suggestion when we find the witness for the prosecution saying in advance, "This fellow is no captain." Did not he really mean that he thought it was somebody altogether different, disguised? That is the point and the statement in the Press that there had been
    734
    a misunderstanding certainly lends colour to the suggestion that a mistake had been made throughout, which the right hon. Gentleman will not acknowledge. What is the duty of this House to-night? I am very sorry indeed it my advocacy of this reverend gentleman has been unwise or if, perhaps, I was the wrong person to bring it forward. But what is our duty as Members of this House? Do we doubt the facts? It is impossible to doubt the facts. Do we not know he was acquitted by a court-martial? We do know. Do we question that indignity has been heaped upon him? It is impossible to do so, and I say our duty, especially at a time when Imperial ties are perhaps more delicate than in the memory of any man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, there are elections going on in Australia. I ventured to make that remark in a question the other day, and the hon. Gentleman who stands for the Empire, for which, of course, we cannot pretend to stand, laughed. What is happening is this, that these people in Australia who are fighting for the Empire, and for the Imperial connection, are met with a case like this, and they are told, "Look how your men are treated when they go over and fight for the Empire." This case is of no assistance to any party with whom I may be supposed to sympathise. It is of assistance to all people who want to disrupt the Empire. I simply say this in conclusion. If the right hon. Gentleman can contradict the facts, I shall be glad, but if they are as I have stated, I do suggest to the House it is the duty of all, regardless of our party, to see that justice is done to a man who has been most gravely ill-used.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast reminded us of the great influence upon all our affairs which was always exercised by the skill and gifts of those who represented the Irish Parliamentary party in this House. I take it as an object-lesson of the power and influence which Ireland might exert in all our affairs, and, for her own sake, if she were fully represented in this House, if the hon. Member for Belfast, with one or two colleagues beside him, alone is able to make a small incident of this kind—an obscure incident of ordinary administration—into which no matters political enter at any point, a repeated feature at Question-time day after day, till, finally, there is a formal adjournment of this House and a very important discussion upon the subject. My hon.

    735
    Friend—if he will allow me to call him so—complained most of all that I expressed no regret. No, Sir, if I were to try and express regret for all the regrettable things that are happening in all parts of the world where the British have direct or indirect responsibility, where British troops are in occupation or partial occupation, I am sure I should have my work cut out. It is not possible for me to undertake the general task of expressing regret except in cases where I am satisfied that I, by some decision for which I am responsible, or some neglect, am directly involved in a wrongful or unfortunate occurrence, or where an officer serving in the Department for which I am concerned and responsible, can be shown, to my conviction, to have committed some wrongful act. I cannot feel that I am to be blamed because I have not found it my duty to make an expression of regret in regard to persons who, having been tried by courts-martial, are acquitted, for the inconvenience they may have suffered in the preliminary procedure which takes place, in the harsh conditions of military procedure, in regard to their characters and their fortunes, or at having to defend their liberty or their honour. These things are frequently happening. Many people have been subjected to them during the dark and evil years through which we have been passing, and are still passing.
    While I do not in the least refuse a measure of compassion towards persons who, through an unfortunate series of events, find themselves in disagreeable situations and are injured and reflected upon, I cannot feel that I am blameworthy because I do not accept, as part of my duty as Secretary for War, to make formal and express regret to persons who are acquitted by court-martial. At the same time I have no hesitation in saying to the House that this is a very regrettable occurrence. Almost every circumstance tends to make it a very regrettable occurrence. First of all, there is the personality of Father O'Donnell. He is an Australian, and, therefore, dear to us on that account. He is an Australian soldier who has come across the sea and has fought. He is a priest, and, therefore, deserving of special respect. He was visiting Ireland—
    Mr. DEVLIN: That was his crime!
    Mr. CHURCHLL Mr. CHURCHLL—with which he had a racial connection. It is regrettable on account of the other officer in the matter. Lieut. Chambers also has had a distinguished record. True he was only a second-lieutenant; but I observe he enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps in 1909. He rejoined on the outbreak of War, and proceeded to France on 21st August., 1914. He served for 3½ years in France and Belgium, during which time he was wounded on three separate occasions. He was first wounded in the leg, groin, wrist and hand at Combles, then in the leg at Largemarek, and, thirdly, in the leg at Money Arras. I thought I heard someone say, "What has that to do with it?" Are we only to take a one-sided view of the case? Is every word spoken by the accused in this matter to be accepted and every circumstance connected with the evidence of others in the trial to be thrown aside as if they were persons of no reputation? What has it to do with it? It has this to do with it: My hon. Friend opposite described this young officer as "a Zabern sergeant." I did not understand what that meant, and inquired. I found out it was a rhetorical expression. But I see nothing in the case to make me believe that Lieut. Chambers was not acting bonâ fide the report he made to his superiors. He may have been mistaken. It is quite possible that the fragments of conversation which he thought were grave and incriminating were capable of legitimate explanation—quite possible! That is what the Court found. I am not going to stand against the report of the Court. It is perfectly possible to say what I have suggested, because the Court, on full examination of the circumstances including all the hardships which had been entailed, and with the fine record of this Australian officer before them, found him not guilty on the charge and acquitted him. It. is going too far to turn and treat Lieut. Chambers, who has been wounded three times for his country, as if he were some paid spy and informer. But Lieut. Chambers was not alone. There was a Captain Clark in the room at the same time whom he did not know, and had never seen, and whose evidence was quite separate. Captain Clark, of the Royal Naval Reserve, is new employed under the Board of Trade. Both officers were —rightly or wrongly—greatly offended. They may have been entirely mistaken. They were greatly offended, even in-

    737
    furiated, by the language which they heard, or thought they heard, at the adjoining table. They remonstrated with the offender. The cause of complaint stopped. Lieut. Chambers then makes a report to the proper military authorities. I am not able to state exactly what the circumstances were, but I have no ground to think that his report was not bonâ fide. That report attributes no improper motives to Father O'Donnell. He made his report to the competent military authority, and, in consequence of that report, the machinery of military discipline was set in motion. The hon. Gentleman speaks as if I had been anxious to grasp this unfortunate Australian soldier priest and seeking to employ people to ruin him or get him into my grasp. I never heard of this matter at all until Monday last, when I found that my hon. Friend had been putting questions.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman like the Provost Marshal? Does he not read the evening and morning papers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I do, and I look out particularly for matters which are likely to concern me.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: You said to-day that you accept full responsibility.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I do in a Ministerial sense, and in justifying that responsibility surely I am entitled to repudiate this odious and invidious kind of almost personal malevolence which the hon. Gentleman—although I am sure he did not believe it—indulged in. These two officers arrived at these conclusions, and as a result of the report of Lieut. Chambers the military machinery of discipline was put into operation and Father O'Donnell was arrested the next day on a charge of using seditious language against the King. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Government!"] Yes, and the Government. No one would ever object to any language being used against the Government in Ireland or anywhere else, but language used by an officer in uniform in an hotel against the King—I am, of course, assuming the allegation was correct because in this case the court-martial has acquitted him—language of that kind which was alleged, if true, would constitute a very serious charge against an officer, and, in consequence, this machinery, which is a very rough machinery, as those who have served in the Army or in the War know, was put
    738
    into operation. It is not unfair or by any means corrupt machinery, but it is a rough and ready machinery. This was set in motion and the gallant and reverend gentleman was arrested. I have examined the case of how he was treated immediately after his arrest, and when he was in the-custody of the British military authorities; and I cannot see from any of the evidence that there is any ground for complaint.
    Of course, I do not say that he did not have a very disagreeable time. I regret that he should have been treated in this manner, but I do say that there was no ground for very many of the charges—finding fault with the officers or non-commissioned officers to whose charge he passed before he was handed over to the-Australian military authorities. He would have been handed over much earlier to the Australian military authorities but for the fact that an application was made in the. King's Bench Division, Dublin, for a writ of habeas corpus, and he was ordered not to be removed until the matter had been tried. That application was made by himself. Eventually, after eight or nine days' confinement, he was handed over.
    An officer accused of using seditious language in a place like Ireland, where the military authorities have a very difficult task to perform, and where no one can doubt that a very dangerous state of opinion exists, is under a very serious charge. After eight or nine days he was removed. The Australian authorities took him over into their charge and brought him over to England. I should like to point out how very widely opinions may differ in regard to these matters of the administration of justice. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last complained bitterly that this man was shipped off to England, and he asked, "Why could he not be tried in Ireland and have the inquiry there where the witnesses were on the spot? Why ship hint off to England?" and he tried to make this out as another instance of my extraordinary malice. Another hon. Member said that if he had been tried in Ireland instead of England he would not have been acquitted, so I leave it to hon. Members opposite to settle this point between themselves.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman is magnificent. I was not discussing the geographical position, but the character of the tribunal, and I was speaking of the Australian officers. I say that if

    739
    he had been tried by a court-martial set up in Ireland he would have been found guilty, and that is my point.
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly made a magnificent display, but it is all air. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the tribunal administering so-called justice in Ireland, and I was referring to the Australian court-martial. Therefore, there is nothing in his point at all.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It seems to me clear that however you may argue about the tribunal there is a distinct difference between the hon. Member who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion as to which side of the Channel this man should be tried. It was a very serious charge, and I do not believe there can be any dispute about the procedure adopted. I have seen the statements made by the non-commissioned officers and the warrant officers concerned in providing the quarters for the confinement of Father O'Donnell after he was arrested. I do not want to read them, because they go into all sorts of squalid details, which, in view of all the circumstances, I do not think it is desirable to deal with. They are plain statements of officers who gave up their bunk. They declare it was clean, that there was plenty of bedding, and that all the requirements of an officer were provided. I am not prepared to say as between Father O'Donnell and these non-commissioned officers of the Wiltshire Regiment that either were telling an untruth. I am not going to say that just because Father O'Donnell takes this view that these men are necessarily lying, but there is a conflict of testimony, and it is not in my province to decide. I am not going to found a charge against these officers simply on the statement of Father O'Donnell.
    Mr. DEVLIN: These officers did not give evidence at the court-martial. Father O'Donnell did. These are his sworn statements before the court-martial. Why did not the counsel employed by the Treasury cross-examine to prove that his statements were untrue?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Because Father O'Donnell was brought before the court-martial on a charge of using disloyal language, and the question of any ill-usage or what kind of usage he had received from the military authorities during the
    740
    time that he was in custody before trial was really not relevant except to this extent, that he had been in custody under these unpleasant and disagreeable circumstances, and the Court were entitled to take that into consideration in their general view of the affair. The hon. Member has said that this affair was an outrage —an intolerable outrage. I want to know, Where is the outrage? Does the outrage consist in the bonâ fide statement of Lieutenant Chambers? Does the outrage consist in the arrest that followed upon this bonâ fide statement reaching the higher authority? No doubt the higher authority was ignorant of Father O'Donnell's record except that he knew that he was an officer of such a rank and of such a name and that he was charged with having used seditious language. Where, in the face of those statements, is the outrage in the higher authority issuing orders for arrest? I dispute altogether—according to the information that I have received I am entitled to dispute altogether—that his treatment under arrest was different to that which would have been meted out to any other officer who came to our overcrowded and congested barracks and military centres. Was there any outrage in handing him over at the very earliest moment that could be arranged to his own Australian authorities, who deal with all these cases of Australian officers and men in this country, and with whom we do not interfere in any way except to give them any assistance that they require? If they want a place of confinement in which to put a man the General Officer in London provides it, and if they require counsel in a case of court-martial, the War Office assists them, but purely as a matter of form and upon their request and on their initiative and as a. matter of general routine. Where is the outrage there? Was there any outrage on the part of the Australian authorities in trying Father O'Donnell by court-martial? On the contrary, we are in agreement about that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: That was the only decent thing in the whole transaction.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very important thing—in fact it is nine-tenths of the whole transaction. A man is accused of having used improper or seditious language. He is put under arrest. At the earliest moment he is brought to trial and is acquitted. That is the whole transaction. There is no brutal

    741
    outrage against liberty and freedom that can possibly be made out of the arrest of a man for a bonâ fide prima faeie case, or out, of his trial according to recognised procedure, or out of his acquittal. An innocent man sentenced to a long period of imprisonment without a trial—that is an outrage. An innocent man convicted and proved guilty on false evidence—that is an outrage. An innocent man brought to trial and given an opportunity of vindicating his character and triumphantly acquitted—that is not an outrage. I do not see how in the circumstances, after this unfortunate episode had begun, after the officer had been put under arrest, after a writ of habeas corpus had been moved for, and after publicity had been given to the matter, any authority dealing with it could have refused to try him by court-martial. Certainly the War Office would not have done so. Although we do not admit the fight of an officer to trial by court-martial, we should have said in the circumstances that it would have been unfair to this officer to deny him a full opportunity of vindicating his character. There is no outrage there, nor can there be any outrage in his being acquitted. I am asked, am I prepared to express condemnation? I am not prepared to express condemnation at any stage in this affair, although I regret, very much the course which events took. I do not see in respect of what individual or at what stage in this affair I should intervene at this moment and express condemnation and mete out punishment. I am bound to say that the impression left on my mind was that the reverend gentleman acted very imprudently in all the circumstances, and I notice, although these grave charges were brought against him, and although a lot of very painful matter was brought up, the Court did not honourably acquit him, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) has pointed out, is the usual and recognised manner in which charges of this kind are dismissed. They acquitted him, and that acquittal stands, but I am not prepared to mete out condemnation to any persons concerned at any stage in this business.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You attack him after he has been acquitted.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to say a word about the difficulty of the military
    742
    authorities in Ireland. They are very, great. Nothing is more unpleasant to our soldiers than the repeated conflicts with the civilian population, with individuals in the civilian population, into which they are led by the unhappy course of affairs in Ireland. It would be quite impossible to expect them to do their duty in all these difficult circumstances if the authorities, whenever anything occurred which gave rise to Parliamentary criticism or was the subject of comment in the newspapers, were ready to go and look for some victim on whom to pounce and of whom to make an example. As a result, you would not get that service from your military officers and authorities in all their grades which the state of affairs actually needs. The hon. Gentleman said that this was an out rage, and I observe that the Leader of the Opposition rose in his place to support the Adjournment. If you call these disagreeable experiences of the Rev. O'Donnell an outrage, what language are you going to apply to the murder of police-sergeants in Dublin? If you are going to rise in your place to support adjournments on a matter of this kind, which I regret, and which I do not in the least deny is an unfortunate episode, but which I say is trivial and petty in almost every respect, if you are going to try to make out of an ordinary episode of administration, accidental and unfortunate, in its course as it undoubtedly was, a cause of quarrel between Great Britain and Australia, and rupture the slender Imperial tie, what words have you to say of the conspiracy of murder against the police? I am not making a reproach of it. I am only warning the hon. Gentleman not to exhaust his vocabulary too soon.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: There was a time when the Secretary of State for War prepared his speeches, and when he came down here and entranced the House with epigrams which savoured very much of midnight oil. I think it is to be regretted that on the present occasion he has departed from that practice, and has appeared to regard this House as ready to accept anything he chooses to give it. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with a characteristic peroration, and I am at a loss to understand why he associated this case with a number of murders in Ireland, and why he triumphantly asked the Members of the front Opposition bench what they had to say about those murders? What in God's

    743
    name has that to do with this case? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Members on the Front Opposition Bench are engaged in a conspiracy of murder? Does he suggest that I and my colleagues are engaged in such a conspiracy? If not, what was the object of bringing in this matter? It was one of those little tricks of oratory with which the right hon. Gentleman has made us quite familiar, but which are quite as unjustified as the arithmetical calculation he occasionally indulges in on financial topics. I regret the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for many reasons, because it included some subjects which call for very serious consideration. I would ask the House to have regard in the first instance to the gross contempt which in this case of Father O'Donnell has been shown by the Government, and especially by the Secretary for War, for Colonial opinion. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has gone the best possible way to break up the Empire. I heard an hon. Member laugh. This is not a laughing matter, and if the hon. Member cannot get up and make a coherent speech, which he has never yet been able to do, at any rate he might refrain from laughing.
    What happened with regard to the Dominions? The Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth sent several cables to the Government here with regard to Father O'Donnell. How were those cablegrams treated? The Leader of the House got up at that table the other day and told the House of Commons that he did not know anything about any cablegrams from Mr. Hughes. Probably they were received, but he did not know. Today the Secretary for War told us he had never seen the telegrams, and though he believed they were received he had never read them. That is the respect which this Government is showing for the Dominions, and I ask any thoughtful English or Scottish Member what effect he thinks that is going to have on the Prime Ministers and subjects in the British Dominions all over the world. But that is not all. The Governor of Tasmania sent a telegram to Father O'Donnell with regard to the prosecution. What happened to that? It was held up by the Government. It was not delivered to Father O'Donnell until the Tasmanian Agent called at the Colonial Office and said he had received a message from the Tasmanian Government stating that the Governor's message had not been delivered. Then it was produced and de-
    744
    livered after three weeks suppression at the Colonial Office. What does the House think of that? This does not affect me, it does not affect Father O'Donnell in the slightest, but it does concern patriotic Englishmen and Scotsmen, and it is they who have to judge the seriousness of these things in our relations with the Dominions.
    The Secretary for War offered only a half-hearted expression of regret for the manner in which Father O'Donnell was treated. Indeed, I think he put it in a negative form, "I do not say," said he, "that it was not regrettable," Surely that is the most qualified condemnation that was ever pronounced upon an outrage of this kind. I may go further. He pooh-poohed the incident as one of no consequence whatever, and he suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) and those who are associated with him, have been guilty of a sort of impudence in raising this question at all on a, Motion for Adjournment. He said, and this is a fact that I would emphasise, that he had consulted the Attorney-General for Ireland, a very worthy politician, and that he never made any statement with reference to condemning the illegality. If there is one thing which the Attorney-General and his friends in Dublin castle like to talk about it is that politicians do not condemn with sufficient vehemence the murders that have taken place in that country. But what did the Secretary for War tell us to-day? His pronouncement will be read from every Sinn Fein platform in Ireland and at every meeting. He said, "I refuse to undertake to generally condemn illegalities for which I am not directly responsible." That is exactly the view held by leaders of opinion in Ireland today, and they may now claim the Secretary for War as on their side.
    The right hon. Gentleman stated that Chambers's statements to the court-martial were bonâ fide. But they were proved at the court-martial not only not to be bonâ fide, but to be untruthful. I was sitting in the Court when the judge-advocate, addressing the court-martial at the close of the proceedings, called the attention of the officers who constituted the Court to the very remarkable fact that Chambers had never produced his notebook, and to the still more remarkable fact that although he alleged he took notes of the conversation under the table in the dining room, a gentleman who was

    745
    sitting at the same table did not see him taking the notes, and nobody else in the dining room either saw him doing so. The judge-advocate told the court-martial they must have regard to these facts when deciding on the credibility of the evidence advanced by Chambers. That is not the only thing. We heard a long record tonight of Chamber's services. But there was one incident as to which the Secretary for War said nothing. He did not tell us about the occasion when Chambers was invited to retire from the officers' mess at Harwich. Perhaps he will make some inquiries, so that on the next occasion his record may be more up to date.
    The right hon. Gentleman also towards the close of his speech made what I think was a very unworthy observation; one which I believe he will regret having made. I think sufficiently highly of him to believe he will be ashamed of it. He made the point that the court-martial did not honourably acquit Father O'Donnell, but simply acquitted him. I will do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of assuming that he does not know how that was brought about. I will tell him. I heard the judge-advocate say to the court-martial when they were retiring, and because he knew their desire was to return a verdict of honourable acquittal—I heard him say, "You can return either a verdict of acquittal or a verdict of honourable acquittal, but with regard to honourable acquittal you are not entitled to find such a verdict unless there has been a charge reflecting on Father O'Donnell's personal honour." There was no such charge in this case. Speaking as a lawyer representing the War Oce, as a man with authority, he told them in the most distinct fashion that they were not entitled, as a matter of law, to return a verdict of honourable acquittal. He quoted the Duke of Wellington, who, in I forget what year, said, "You should never return a verdict of honourable acquittal unless in circumstances which provide reason for general rejoicing by the whole Army."
    Sir K. FRASER: That is wrong.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Everything is wrong. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said is wrong. That does not surprise me in the slightest. I am telling the House now what the judge-advocate said, and I challenge anyone to contradict it. He told the Court that they had no power to re-
    746
    turn a verdict of honourable acquittal. The right hon. Gentleman offers no apology, except the very half-hearted one to which I have referred. He seems to think that this is a matter of no importance whatever, an everyday occurrence. I doubt very much whether any Member in this House—I do not care who he is, or how partisan he may be, or how anxious he may be to vote with the Secretary of State for War—I do not think there is a Member in this House who believes that this is an everyday occurrence in the British Army. Where the right hon. Gentleman is right is in this, that it is an everyday occurrence in Ireland. One of the most remarkable things about the whole situation is this, that the liberty of the whole Irish people is to-day in the hands of these military martinets who have treated Father O'Donnell in this way, and there is not an Irishman living at home to-day who is not liable to be treated in the same way. The right hon. Gentleman does not care, but I can promise him this, that the people of Australia care, and, though hon. Members laughed when it was mentioned that a general election is now taking place in Australia, they will laugh in a different way when they learn the result of that election. When they learn, as they will learn, the effect which the prosecution of Father O'Donnell has had upon the fate of Mr. Hughes in Australia, they will begin to appreciate the seriousness of this question.
    There were various illegalities in this case, with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal. In the first place, no charge was preferred against Father O'Donnell when he was arrested, nor was any charge communicated to him until he was brought before the Australian authorities. He got this slip of paper telling him he was charged with conduct prejudicial to military discipline. That is not a charge. How can any man prepare a defence to that charge? It is not a charge. It is merely a general statement, and the giving of a document of a kind so vague as that is not providing the accused with any charge which he is in a position to rebut.
    Sir K. FRASER: Was he not given the particulars?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He was not, until he was brought before the Australian officer. As long as he was under the control of the Secretary of State he was never told

    747
    what the charge was. Moreover, by the Army Regulations, this charge should have been reported to Father O'Donnell's commanding officer before any action was taken. Was that Army Regulation carried out? Was Father O'Donnell's commanding officer communicated with before he was placed in custody? Of course not. The Secretary of State tells us that the first he knew of this case was three or four days ago. The first thing the Australian commanding officer knew of it was when he saw it in the newspaper. Yet, according to Army Regulations he should have been told before Father O'Donnell was taken into custody. The right hon. Gentleman told us to-clay, in answer to a question, and he repeated it to-night, because he is very anxious that it should be conveyed to Australia, that the Australian Army officer here did nothing but what was absolutely correct. Of course. No one ever suggested anything else. That has been our case all through. Our complaint is not against the Australian officer, who acted as a gentleman, and gave. Father O'Donnell a court-martial when he demanded it. Our complaint is against the officers who are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little more fully into the particulars as to how Father O'Donnell came to be placed under arrest. He has told us he was arrested on the orders of the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. Was Lord French consulted before that was done? We do not exactly know what Lord French's position is. He is at the head of the civil administration in Ireland, or such civil administration as is left, and he is also at the head of the military. Was he consulted by the military before or after Father O'Donnell's arrest, and, if so, what did he say and what action did he take? Is he entirely free from responsibility?
    Sir K. FRASER: Sir Frederick Shaw.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. I do not know who was responsible for the arrest.
    Sir K. FRASER: The Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Lord French knew all about the case, and never interfered directly or indirectly. I would ask the
    748
    House to note what a commentary this O'Donnell case is on the Government's much vaunted intention of producing a settlement of the Irish question. One thing absolutely certain in the troubled sea of Irish politics is that so long as the present Lord Lieutenant and the present Chief Secretary and the present military administration remain in Ireland you are face to race with an insuperable obstacle to the settlement of the Irish question. As long as you have a state of affairs under which—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are not dealing with those matters to-day.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I am only making a passing reference. I have no intention of debating the point. The O'Donnell case shows that as long as you have the present military system at work you will not be able to effect a settlement of the Irish question.
    Another point on which I think the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more frank was with regard to the very base, unworthy and utterly false suggestions which was made by military officers all over Ireland, which was made by this man Chambers at the beginning of the case, but afterwards abandoned by him when he came face to face with the court-martial, that Father O'Donnell was under the influence of drink. The right hon. Gentleman cannot dismiss it so airily as he sought to do to-night. That statement was made by members of his own Government in this House, and it was circulated all over the House that Father O'Donnell was arrested because, in a state of intoxication, he had indulged in disloyal expressions. It is greatly to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not frankly, straighforwardly, and freely offer an expression of regret to Father O'Donnell for the manner in which he has been treated. Apart from political feelings altogether, I think, all in this House will regard the treatment of Father O'Donnell as having been enormously aggravated by the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealtwith the case to-night. He will hear of this case again and again. He will hear of his defence to-night. The story will ring in America. It is ringing at this moment all through Amerca and all through Australia. For many a year to come the story will be told in Ireland as well.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I am sure: that I am voicing the opinion of every

    749
    hon. Member when I say that this case has caused every Member extreme regret. Everyone, especially those who have had the privilege of fighting for any considerable time with the Australian Forces, and who know what we owe to Australia, must feel that this is a most deplorable thing to have occurred. But, having said that, I frankly do not believe that there is any single resident of Australia, at any rate those who have been over here and who know the British people, who would imagine for one instant that the question of Australia came into this matter at all. When we have said that, we can properly discuss what really the right hon. Gentleman could do in the circumstances. Everyone knows that there have been courts-martial, unfortunately a very large number. There was bound to be when we had a great Army. There may have been thousands of acquittals, certainly hundreds, from courts-martial. Can it be maintained that the right hon. Gentleman should write to the newspapers or make a statement in Parliament expressing his regret because an Australian padre has been acquitted, when to thy certain knowledge English padres have been acquitted from courts-martial, and no such demand has come from any part of this House? I would ask the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) to treat this question in its proper perspective, and not to drag in Australia again and again, and to try to persuade this House that this question is going to have any real effect upon the Australian elections. It was interesting for the first time to hear the hon. Member (Mr. MacVeagh) express solicitude that Mr. Hughes should be returned as Prime Minister for Australia. I am glad to find that he has come round to my view on that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: If the War Office could have court-martialled you at the General Election they would have done it.
    General CROFT: Perhaps that is perfectly true. The hon. Member perhaps knows what the War Office thinks of me. The fact remains, that we are going to make a grave blunder if we treat this question in the manner in which the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution treated it. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke for the Liberal party (Captain Wedgwood Benn) again and again referred to the minions or myrmidons of the right hon. Gentleman, and said that they were doing this, that, or the other, as if they were
    750
    doing this under the direction of the Secretary for War. The hon. and gallant Gentleman at one time wore with great distinction the uniform of His Majesty in the Forces of the Crown, and because he was an officer it would have been a gross insult for us here to have described him as a million or a myrmidon if he did what he conceived to be his duty and if he performed the very unpleasant duty of reporting against someone who was also wearing the uniform of the British Empire. It is almost impossible to conceive that this officer, whom we are all glad to see has been acquitted, was not doing something on the occasion in question which was hardly worthy of the uniform of the British Army, or you would not have found two officers, who did not know each other, both getting up and protesting against that officer's behaviour in public.
    Mr. MacVEAG1–1: They only protested against the loud voice.
    General CROFT: Against the way he was conducting himself. I am not referring to the other suggestions, but there must have been some strong cause to make two of them in a public place approach a total stranger and request him to modify his attitude. I hope that the matter will not be proceeded with, because, if it is, it is evident that it can be wily for one reason, and that is to stir up political troubles and make difficulties where no difficulties ought to exist, and magnify this question in Australia, when every Australian ought to know that in thousands of cases innocent men have been court-martialled and acquitted, and that it is impossible to make a special exception in the case of any one man however gallant he may be or what part of the Empire he may come from.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, as I have no knowledge of the personalities or the facts except what I have gathered from the newspapers, but I do not think that the speech of the Secretary for War can remain without a reply from these benches. The word Zabern has been used frequently in the Debate. Zabern was one of the signs of that position which created the complications in Europe from which we have just escaped. Zabern gave an object-lesson to the outside world as to what militarism in Prussia meant. But there was an incident in connection with Zabern which was quite as remarkable as the con-

    751
    duct of the German militarists in the War. That was the letter, practically of approval, which the Crown Prince, as he then was, sent to the officer who was convicted of this outrage upon the civil liberties of the people. The Crown Prince wrote a letter to the officer who was the principal in this Zabern outrage. He was also present at a debate in the Reichstag, if I remember aright, in which he clamourously applauded the defence of the Zabern officers. The speech of the Secretary for War to-night, in my opinion, is exactly on a par with the letter of the ex-Grown Prince to the officers connected with Zabern. With the indulgence of the House I will prove that statement. I never heard an unwiser speech, and, what is more important, I never heard a more ungenerous speech in my life than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He wound up by dragging in wantonly the horrible series of crimes which have taken place in Ireland. What was the meaning of dragging them in?
    Mr. STANTON: It is true.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: What is true?
    Mr. STANTON: The crime in Ireland.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Does the hon. Gentleman think that I am foolish enough or blind enough or deaf enough not to know that there has been deplorable crime in Ireland?
    Mr. STANTON: You would like us to forget it—your side.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My reason for referring to that was to show the difficulties in which the military authorities are placed in Ireland, the dangerous situation which exists, and consequently the sharp and rough measures which are taken with military officers who are believed to have used seditious language.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but the Howe heard his words. They were accompanied by an allusion and almost a challenge to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who were twitted with not calling attention to these crimes while exhausting their vocabulary on this particular incident. What was the meaning of that allusion? I do not know what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but that allusion, brought in in connection with the trial of Captain O'Donnell, was
    752
    designed to bring prejudice into this discussion, and to suggest that because we take up this case we are to be held in some way responsible for the odious series of crimes in Ireland. I say that was a most ungenerous and unfair thing, unfair to us and unfair to Father O'Donnell. The right hon. Gentleman asked what outrage there has been to apologise for. I will tell the House what the outrage was. The outrage was his speech. Captain O'Donnell has been acquitted; the charge against him has been proved to be untrue. I am not going to make an attack on this gentleman, Lieutenant Chambers, who originated the case. The right hon. Gentleman has passed a eulogy upon the services of this gallant officer, as to which I am not going to make any denial or diminution.
    I must say that it appears to me very poor business for gallant officers to go around the dining-rooms of hotels eavesdropping and formulating grave charges of disloyalty on what must necessarily be imperfect understanding of what was said. If all of us had a sentence or two taken from the context of our table-talk, there is none of us could live and carry any reputation for the rest of our days. Therefore, I interpret the conduct of Lieutenant Chambers in this matter from an entirely different point of view from that of the right hon. Gentleman. My interpretation is that it is a symptom of the thoroughly morbid state of mind into which a number of military gentlemen in Ireland have got, and their desire to look around and search and find treason and sedition in every single conversation they may happen to hear. It has been stated that Captain O'Donnell was guilty of bad manners because he was talking loudly. As a matter of fact he was speaking loudly because he was talking to a deaf man. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the indiscretions of Captain O'Donnell. What were the indiscretions? Is it contended that a man is to be subject to the possibilities of imprisonment and trial by court-martial because he talks loudly in the dining-room of an hotel in Ireland? You could not have a more eloquent symptom and demonstration than this incident of the horrible state of mind which has been produced among the military authorities in Ireland.
    Why do I call the right hon. Gentleman's speech an outrage First, for the reason I have already given, that I think the winding-up of his speech was a most

    753
    unfair introduction of extraneous and prejudiced matter. But I have another reason. I have listened to all the right hon. Gentleman's answers about this case, except on one day when I did not happen to be present. I heard every word of his speech to-night, and I will tell you the opinion I would form if I were an outsider and read his speech, of the right hon. Gentleman's mental attitude towards the whole thing—"not guilty; do not do it again." That is the best he can say for Father O'Donnell. He has not a word of real, sincere and whole-hearted regret for all the incidents of this transaction. I do not want to use strong language and I hate using any language which would hurt any lady's feelings, but I must say the right hon. Gentleman descended to what I thought was one of the most ungenerous devices I ever heard in this House when he laid stress on the fact that though Father O'Donnell was acquitted he was not "honourably acquitted." My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. MacVeagh), who is a member of the Bar, gave an explanation as to the use of the word "honourably." That was a technical, legal explanation of which I am not in a position to judge, but is not the interpretation you must take for such language by the right hon. Gentleman that, though this man was acquitted, he was not honourably acquitted, and that, after all, he does not owe a whole-hearted apology to Father O'Donnell. I put it to the House, ought he to have got a sincere and whole-hearted apology or not? My hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Croft) said that there had been many courts-martial, and asked were they to review every single court-martial in the High Court of Parliament and call on Ministers to make an apology? Nobody would lay down a proposition so absurd, but this case is unique in the fact that here is a man who fills the double capacity of a fighting soldier and a chaplain, and who came across the seas in order to fight for the cause of liberty and who defended against people of his own race Mr. Hughes' appeal for Conscription. I reiterate the statement made by the hon. Members who spoke that he was subjected to unusually rigorous, offensive, and degrading treatment. A man with a record like that and a member of a force to which we owe so much as the Australian force and a man whose case has now become known to the world is not to have a full and ample reparation at least in words, from the right hon. Gentleman
    754
    who is the guardian of the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Croft) says do not talk so much about the Australian Force, but I do not think we can talk too much about what we owe to Australia and to the Australian Army, and, therefore, we are under a particular obligation to mark our reprobation of the unjust and degrading treatment to a gallant member of that force—that is my point.
    The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if nothing had happened to this gentleman out of the ordinary. I am not a master of any law, still less of military law, but the fact remains that he was kept in close confinement. As to his prison treatment, we have a conflict of evidence, and either one side or the other side is lying. A man knows whether a bed is comfortable or unhealthy. Father O'Donnell has given testimony, which has not been challenged in Court, that he was put into a filthy cell with a filthy bed. Now I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, if that statement be true, do we not owe an apology to the force and to the country from which that man came? [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen laugh at that observation. I will take another point. Is it or is it not true that the man was for several days without the opportunity of seeing his counsel and his other legal assistance? Was not that an outrage, and ought not that to be apologised for? As to the charges about the reverend gentleman's habits, all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is this, that these charges were first stated, according to the evidence of Lieutenant Chambers, in the hotel, and that these charges have been circulated wide-cast. I have heard the charge made on these benches that this was only a drunken Irish priest, and that it was absurd for us to take up the time of Parliament in discussing the case. Are the characters of gallant soldiers to be whispered away by this sordid campaign of calumny, and especially the character of a man who occupies the sacred position of a chaplain in the Army? The right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, does not come well out of this transaction. So far as he can do it, he has defended the conduct of the officers engaged in the matter, and so far as he could avoid it he has refused to say one word of sincere apology to this reverend and gallant officer. There is one little difference between the Zabern incident and this. It is quite true that the right hon.

    755
    Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, with a certain sneaking tenderness for militarism which I regret to say one can trace in most of his recent proposals and speeches, which perhaps may be intelligible in a man who has served some years of his life in the Army, has imitated the ex-Crown Prince of Prussia in practically giving, so far as he could, his apology and his defence for the soldiers who are guilty of this outrage, but in one way the Zabern incident differs from this incident. When the Zabern incident was brought before even the servile and impotent Reichstag under the Kaiser, the Reichstag for once rose to the courage of its opinions and, by practically a unanimous vote, denounced and reprobated the conduct of the Zabern officers; but here, in this British Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, and supposed to be the guardian of liberty, this outrage can take place on a gallant officer and you cannot get the House of Commons or a Minister to say a word in honest regret.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said. I can quite understand his feelings on this matter, but the Secretary of State for War has served as a soldier in the Regular Army. I served in the Regular Navy, and we both understand that it is quite necessary for the head of a fighting Service to be ready to defend with the greatest energy the doings of his subordinates in that Service. Both the Secretary of State for War and myself have been brought up from our youth to defend our subordinates to the utmost. Any accusations against them we have both been bound to refute with the greatest energy, and therefore I find myself, in this matter at any rate, in much sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope always the Secretary for War will go out of his way to defend with all the energy he can the doings of his subordinates. I hope the heads of the Air Service and the Admiralty will always do the same. But, having said that, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little stronger in his regret for the whole set of circumstances which arose, and regretted that the matter had not come before a senior officer in Dublin who had sufficient good sense to know it would be more tactful, more diplomatic, more statesmanlike, to have quashed at
    756
    once the proceedings and allowed the matter to drop. We must remember that this was a case of an officer of Irish descent, with an Irish name, and a Catholic. Would this have happened in the case of an Englishman, an officer in one of the smart regiments in this country? Would Lieutenant Chambers in that case have gone out of his way, as I think he really did? Would an officer, for example, in a Cavalry regiment—possibly the right hon. Gentleman's own regiment—have been haled up in this way? The right hon. Gentleman knows that at this moment all Irishmen, if only by descent, are hypersensitive. [Interruption.] Under the circumstances, I think the condemnation might have been more severe. Irishmen at this moment, as I say, are hypersensitive. They know that many of their race have served in the War, and they feel it to be unfair that all of their countrymen should be tarred with the same brush because of a few unfortunate and regrettable outrages in country districts in Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I regret if I strayed from the subject. I will at once return to the subject. [HON. MEMBERS "Sit down!"] May I say that the right hon. Gentleman himself dragged in these murders, which I do not think were mentioned in any speeches which preceded his speech. The case of Australia has been mentioned, and I am not going to mention it again. One might remember another great English-speaking nation—the United States of America.. At the present moment there is an intense propaganda going on there against the good name of England. The proceedings in this Chamber are not going to do much to allay that. Hon. Members who take upon themselves to. interrupt, and twit, and attempt to shout down—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying from the subject.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise again, Sir. There is this intensive propaganda going forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why don't you sit down?"] It spoils the relationship between ourselves and another great English-speaking nation. Under these circumstances I think it is even more regrettable, and only lends weight to what I say, that the right hon. Gentleman, while having

    757
    to defend, as it was his duty to do, his own subordinates in every way he could—I perfectly agree with him—sympathise with him—did not at the same time regret the occurrence—as we all on these benches do—and find himself ready to offer a more sincere—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"]regret, but must needs draw a distinction in the matter of an honourable acquittal in this most unfortunate and regrettable case.
    Mr. J. JONES: I would not have intervened in this Debate, because I think the matter has already been so well dealt with from all points of view that any remarks of mine might appear superfluous—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"]
    Mr. STANTON: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, when an hon. Member rises and declares that he has nothing really to say, he is entitled to take up the time of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is the usual form with which every Member begins.
    Mr. JONES: However that may be—
    Mr. STANTON: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks made by the other side — an hon. Member calling me names. I will hit back if you do not protect me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    Mr. JONES: If I said so much, and knew so little, as the hon. Gentleman who has interrupted me, I should never intervene in debate. I am speaking from a different point of view to previous speakers. I happen to be an Irishman representing an English constituency—
    Mr. STANTON: With a Welsh name!
    Mr. JON ES: But I am not a Welshman.
    Mr. STANTON: I know you are not!
    It being Eleven of the clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Provision for Case of Failure to Pass Legislation.)
    (1) Where either chamber of the Indian legislature refuses leave to introduce, or fails to pass
    758
    in a form recommended by the Governor-General, any Bill, the Governor-General may certify that the passage of the Bill is essential for the safety, tranquillity, or interests of British India or any part thereof, and thereupon—

    (a) If the Bill has already been passed by the other chamber, the Bill shall, on signature by the Governor-General, notwithstanding that it has not been consented to by both chambers, forthwith become an Act of the Indian Legislature in the form of the Bill as originally introduced or proposed to be introduced in the Indian legislature, or (as the case may be) in the form recommended by the Governor-General; and

    (b) If the Bill has not already been so passed, the Bill shall be laid before the other chamber, and, if consented to by that chamber in the form recommended by the Governor-General, shall become an Act as aforesaid on the signification of the Governor-General's assent, or if not so consented to, shall, on signature by the Governor-General, become an Act as aforesaid.

    (2) Every such Act shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General, and shall, as soon as practicable after being made, be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not have effect until it has received His Majesty's assent, and shall not be presented for His Majesty's assent until copies thereof have been laid before each House of Parliament for not less than eight days on which that House has sat; and upon the signification of such assent by His Majesty in Council, and the notification thereof by the Governor-General, the Act shall have the same force and effect as an Act passed by the Indian legislature and duly assented to:

    Provided that where in the opinion of the Governor-General a state of emergency exists which justifies such action, the Governor-General may direct that any such Act shall come into operation forthwith, and thereupon the Act shall have such force and effect as aforesaid, subject, however, to disallowance by His Majesty in, Council.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "safety, traquility, or interests," and to insert instead thereof the words, "maintenance or discipline of any part of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces, or for the safety or tranquillity."
    The object of the Clause is to give the Governor-General power to pass any Bill over the heads of the Indian Legislature, and that power professes to be qualified to the extent that he can only do this when he certifies that the passage of the Bill is essential for the "safety, tranquility or interests of British India, etc." The words are so general in their scope that they amount to no qualification at all. There is hardly any conceivable measure which the Governor-General if he wished could not pass over the heads of the Legislature under this provision. Therefore the Legislature has no effective power

    759
    over the matters submitted to it. The real power rests with the Governor-General, and it is very dangerous to have a state of things like that. If this body of representative Indians approach these questions with the knowledge that the responsibility is not theirs, and with a feeling that if they reject a Bill it can still be passed over their heads, the result will be that the debates will be conducted as a means of agitation and propaganda and not as a means of practical legislation. If you are to have the debates of the proceedings conducted in a practical way you can only secure that by giving the Legislature some modicum of real responsibility for the work they are doing. Why are they not to be allowed some effective responsibility for measures which really concern themselves alone and which do not affect any problem of defence or international or Imperial relations or that really affects the safety or tranquility of India as a whole. I therefore suggest that the power of the Governor-General to pass legislation over the heads of the Legislative Assembly should he limited to those matters which are really essential from the military point of view, should, in the words of my Amendment, be limited to measures which are essential for "the maintenance and discipline of any part of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces, or for the safety and tranquility of British India or any part thereof."
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend has raised a point of supreme importance. It would be very strange if now we adopted an Amendment on this Clause after not adopting a similar Amendment on the previous Clause. I cannot for the life of me see why you should make a difference between the maintenance or discipline of any part of His Majesty's Forces and other interests. The only reason for specifically excluding His Majesty's Forces would be that the Viceroy and his Government are responsible to the Secretary of State and to this House for the internal arrangements of those forces, but not for internal arrangements generally. Under the scheme of the Bill we make the Government responsible to Parliament still for the whole of the government of India. The whole theory of the Bill is that we do not establish a diarchy in the Government of India. I know that
    760
    some of my hon. Friends think that we do, but if you have an Executive responsible to Parliament not only for the maintenance of discipline in any of His Majesty's Forces, but also for the interests of India you must give them power to discharge that responsibility and to pass the legislation which they regard as essential. It is not any measure which affects the interests; it is a measure which the Viceroy can say is essential. He does not now, as he used to do, pass that legislation by means of what used to be called the "official block;" he passes it frankly as an executive order of his Government. It does not then become law until it has been before this House and the other House where any Member will have an opportunity of discharging his true functions as the trustee of the Indian electorate. He will have in order to deal with that subject the opportunity of a Repot upon the measure by a Standing Committee appointed by this House itself. Therefore, I do think that the use of the power is guaranteed both by the form and by the appeal to Parliament itself. With these guarantees I do submit, if the Viceroy and his Government, who are responsible to this House for the good government of the Empire of India, feel that legislation is necessary, they ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of getting it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I quite agree that the Viceroy ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of passing legislation which he thinks is essential to the safety of India or of the British Empire. But what is the meaning of the word "interest." It is a perfectly vague term. Every piece of legislation is held to be essential in the interests of this country. But this Clause gives the Viceroy carte blanche to introduce any legislation. I think that is too wide a power. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted it will provide a clear definition of the sort of measure the Viceroy can introduce. Would he be able to introduce a Bill like the Ballot Act which was passed through this House? Is it required to give the Governor-General power to introduce Bills of even a more general character or less urgent in their nature? Even if this Amendment is not carried, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inform the Viceroy, or anyone who is to have power to initiate such legislation, that by the word

    761
    "interests" what is meant is exactly that which the hon. Member has put down in his Amendment.
    Mr. INSKIP: Is not too much stress being laid on the wrong word? Should it not be on the word "essential" rather than "interests." And does not the word "essential" ensure all the protection which is necessary?
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27 (Supplemental Provisions as to Powers of Indian Legislature) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Composition of Governor General's Executive Council.)
    (1) The provision in Section thirty-six of the principal Act, imposing a limit on the number of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, shall cease to have effect.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member for Melton propose to move to leave out Sub-section (1)? Does he lay any stress on it?
    Colonel YATE: I do not propose to move it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "but of this total number of such Members at least half shall be Indians chosen from among the elected members of the Legislative Assembly."
    The Executive Council at the present time contains three Indian members, and this Amendment proposes to raise the number to four. But the more important part of my proposal is that these members shall he chosen from among the elected members of the Legislative Chamber. That of course is a considerable change, as at the present time they are chosen by the Viceroy, and are generally held to represent the best brains in India. We are seeking to educate Indian legislators for the future, and it is surely desirable, therefore, that they should be chosen from among the members of the Legislative Assembly.
    The choice will be a wide one. The Governor-General will be able to select his Executive Committee from among all members of the Legislative Assembly. They will have no responsibility to the Legislative Assembly. It will be for a term of years, and in spite of the fact that
    762
    they will have no responsibility yet you will get that educational advantage that is so desirable for the success of this scheme. At the end of ten years, the Indian members of the Executive will be Ministers, responsible to the Legislative Assembly. It will be a great thing if, when that state comes about, the same people can be continued in office—men again coming from the Legislative Assembly. Although this Amendment may be impracticable at the present moment, it is extremely desirable that before the period of revision comes the Viceroy should take steps to select his three or four members of the executive council from among those who are doing the work of legislation and not broadcast from among all the population of India. A man who has to face his electors at the poll has a certain commencement of that responsibility which devolves upon a Minister, who represents not only his electors but the majority party in the House of Commons. In that direction a good step might be taken along the road we all desire to travel.
    Mr. MONTAGU: This is a very far-reaching proposal. It means that if the number of members of the Governor-General's executive council is an odd number, the hon. and gallant Member desires that there shall be more than half of them Indian members.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: One-half.
    Mr. MONTAGU: You cannot have a half if the number is odd. The next effect would be that for the first time in this Statute you introduce a statutory racial qualification at a time when, according to a new Clause which has been put down by one of the hon. and gallant Member's friends, he wants to sweep away all existing racial qualifications. It would be most unfortunate to put in a statutory racial qualification. It would be an infringement of Section 96 of the original Act, which says:
    "No native of British India, nor any subject of Ms Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any office under the Crown in India."
    That Section is inconsistent with my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. My third objection is this: My hon. and gallant Friend has made many powerful speeches in the course of the last two days. Perhaps the most powerful speech of all, if I may say so—it may be because I was in cordial agreement with it—was the

    763
    speech in which, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate), he pulverised the, alternative scheme of local government which is associated with the majority of heads of local Governments. If my hon. and gallant Friend considers this Amendment with the Amendment he urged the Committee to reject, he will find he is going perilously near to asking us to accept for the central Government the very constitution he felt it necessary to ask us to reject for the local Governments. There would be the same principle of real diarchy linked in a false union. What we all desire is this: That we should appoint to the Viceroy's Executive Council Indian representatives, and we hope we shall find these Indians more and more in the Legislative Assembly taking part in political life. But that is a very different thing from accepting this Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the choice of these members of the Executive Council shall be limited to members of the Legislative Council. It would be the greatest mistake to limit the choice of the Viceroy to any Council whatsoever. He should have the widest choice of the best men he can find. As regards what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) said about racial distinctions, I would refer him to the Report of the Joint Committee on the proposition that three members of the Council should be Indians. There is the concrete proposal that we have before us. I have put down an Amendment to provide that at least one-half of the Council should be European British subjects, and, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think, as it is agreed on all hands that the central Government must remain powerful and strong, and the Viceroy must have full power, my Amendment ought to be accepted, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider that question. It seems to me essential that if we are to have seven members, four, as proposed in the Report of the Joint Committeé, should be European British subjects. We cannot afford at present to weaken the strength of the Viceroy's Executive Council. I perfectly welcome the proposal in the Report of the Joint Committee that, instead of the two Indian members now on the Council there should be three, provided it is put in that the remaining four are European British subjects.
    Sir J. D. REES: I cannot help suggesting what a tribute to the moderation of the Bill and the Report is contained in these two Amendments placed one after the other. It is an extraordinarily eloquent tribute to the skill, the moderation, justice, and the success with which the Committee has steered a course between two opposing Camps. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) knows that under his Amendment it would be quite possible for a pure-born European, born and bred in India, and of the most unadulterated European parentage, to be eligible for election to one of these Legislative Assemblies.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 29 (Appointment of Council Secretaries) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Payment of Salary of Secretary of State, etc., out of moneys provided by Parliament.)
    The salary of the Secretary of State, the salaries of his Under-Secretaries, and any other expenses of his Department may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, instead of being paid out of the revenues of India, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the salary of the Secretary of State shall be so paid.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have an Amendment on this Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move it if I do not select it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Clause pubs the salary of the Secretary of State upon the estimates of this country, and that for the first time brings India under the control of this Parliament. We can now direct Indian politics by moving a reduction of the Secretary of State's salary, just as we can move a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies or of any other Department. While we do that, the whole question of the Under-Secretary remains open. We are fortunate in having an Indian as Under-Secretary now. Unfortunately he has to sit in the Upper House. It would be wise in future, now that we are beginning responsible Government in India, to have two Under-Secretaries for India, one an Indian sitting in the Upper House and the other a Member of this House. Very few things have done more, I will not say

    765
    to reconcile India to British rule, but to please all thinking Indians, than the appointment of Lord Sinha to the past of Under-Secretary, and we ought to do all we can to make that sort of appointment a permanent part of our Constitution. Lord Sinha has done excellent work on the Committee as a member of the House of Lords, and it would be unfortunate if we went back now to the old system of an English Secretary of State and an English Under-Secretary. We shall keep up this valuable innovation that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Although it is out of order to move any Amendment, I feel it right to voice a tribute to the excellent work that Lord Sinha has done, and to express the hope that either Lord Sinha or somebody else in his position may continue to sit in the House of Lords as an Indian to look after Indian affairs.
    Colonel YATE: I can realise the point of the hon. Member's remarks. I have been reading a paper which is very much quoted to us by the Secretary of State, "The Servant of India." In that paper I saw the following extract, which is particularly applicable to what the hon Member has just said:
    "The Secretary of State's salary is now to be placed on the British estimates. It is going to be possible for Members of the House of Commons to raise a debate on any question of Indian administration in Committee of Supply. This will be an invaluable lever in the hands of the British democracy to check the vagaries of the Executive in India."
    So I congratulate the Secretary of State on the great possibilities which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has found to stimulate the Secretary of State on every possible occasion, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy the situation.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 31.—(Council of India.)
    The following Amendments shall be made in Section three of the principal Act in relation to the composition of the Council of India, the qualification, term of office, and remuneration of its members:
    (1) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall have effect as though "eight" and "twelve" were substituted for "ten" and "fourteen" respectively, as the minimum and maximum number of members, provided that the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the council at the time of the passing of this Act shall not be affected by this provision.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1), to insert the words
    766
    "The provisions of Sub-section (2) should have effect as though 'His Majesty in Council' were substituted for 'the Secretary of State.'"
    Section 2 of the original Act provides that the right of filling a vacancy on the Council shall be vested in the Secretary, of State. I desire that in future the right of filling a vacancy shall in future be vested in His Majesty in Council, and not in the Secretary of State. It is most important that the Council should be appointed by His Majesty in Council. His Majesty is the Emperor of India and is looked up to by all the Indians, and if you want to make the Indian Council a real body working under His Majesty in Council, His Majesty in Council should appoint the members.
    Mr. FISHER: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment. On reflection he will find that there is no substantial advantage in it. The Amendment, if accepted, would only create further complications without altering the situation as it exists under the text of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted His Majesty in Council would make the appointments presumably on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for India. In fact the appointments would be made by the Secretary of State for India. It is true that there would be a formal change, but there would be no other change.
    Colonel YATE: I cannot agree to that. In my opinion it would be a matter of great pride to India that these members of the Council should be appointed by His Majesty in Council. The question should be most seriously considered.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to know why the Council of India should be retained? Speaking in the Mesopotamia Debate the Secretary of State gave reasons why the Council of India should not be retained.
    Mr. MONTAGU: Can you quote?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes—
    "Even if the House of Commons has to give orders to the Secretary of State the Secretary of State is not his own master. In matters vitally affecting India he can be over-ruled by a majority of his Council."
    He goes on to say,
    "And these gentlemen are appointed for seven years, and can only be controlled by the Houses

    767
    of Parliament, by a Resolution carried by both Houses or Parliament calling for their resignation. The whole system of the India Office is so designed as to prevent control by the House of Commons.
    What I want is an explanation of that, and why, seeing that everybody in the India Office knows the right hon. Gentleman's views of this Council, he now accepts the idea of the Council of State and prevents the India Office from being, as it should be, the exact parallel to the Colonial Office. We want India to become ultimately just what Australia is to-day; we want our control over India to be as great or as little as it is over Australia. The presence of this Council of India differentiates, in a way that is not flattering to India, between the cases of India and of the rest of the Colonies of the Empire.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I feel bound, even at this late hour, to answer my hon. and gallant Friend as shortly and as conclusively as I can. The Council of India, which is now to be used is a very different Council of India from that which was then under consideration. It is to be appointed for a shorter term, and it is to be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, and, therefore, to some extent it will be controlled by Parliament. In these ways it loses many of the features I commented on in the speech quoted. Further than that, you cannot have a Secretary of State for India in the position of a Secretary of State for the Colonies until you have responsible government in India. My experience is that gentlemen in India always want the Secretary of State to interfere with the Government of India when they are in agreement with the Secretary of State, and always want him not to interfere when they are in agreement with the Government. I hope questions will not come home when a Governor in India is in harmony with his Legislature. When he is not, the Secretary of State will have to take more control over events in India than the Secretary of State for the Colonies has over the self-governing Dominions. If he is going to do that, he cannot and ought not to act without expert advice. There are not many occasions when the collective voice of the Council is of much importance one way or the other, but the individual assistance of councillors is absolutely indispensable. One of my great objections to the India Office procedure was that too
    768
    much emphasis was laid upon the collective Council. The Amendments made in other parts of the Bill will enable the Council to function much more individually. I think that the Council has been enormously improved, and the invaluable experience of the councillors is being retained. Therefore no useful object, but a great disservice to the Government of India would be achieved if it were abolished.
    Colonel YATE: May I say how glad I am at the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman to the usefulness of the Council of India? I hope, considering what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he will give favourable consideration to the other Amendments which I have on the Paper, and that he will try to get men fresh from India to the Council and substitute three years' absence from India for five.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Further Provisions as to Council of India.)
    (1) The provision in Section six of the principal Act which prescribes the quorum for meetings of the Council of India shall cease to have effect, and the Secretary of State may provide for a quorum by such directions as he may issue in this behalf.

    (2) The provision in Section eight of the principal Act which requires weekly meetings of the Council of India shall cease to have effect.

    (3) Section ten of the principal Act shall have effect as though the words "all business of the council or committees thereof is to be transacted" were omitted, and the words "the business of the Secretary of State in Council or the Council of India shall be transacted, and any Order made or act done in accordance with such direction shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be treated as being an Order of the Secretary of State in Council" were inserted in lieu thereof.

    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Melton has given notice to move to leave out Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), which are all the operating words of the Clause.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to move these Amendments. The object of this Clause is to make it possible to have a portfolio system or something approximating to it. It was the unanimous wish of the Joint Committee.
    Colonel YATE: If a quorum of three out of twelve is fixed, and if one of the three is in favour of the view of the Secretary of State, he can overrule everything where

    769
    there are only three present, as the Secretary of State has a casting vote. I think that is putting too much power in the bands of the Secretary of State, and I suggest that the present quorum should be allowed to remain.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Council would have a voice in deciding how to transact their business, and they are not likely to assent to the quorum my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 33.—(Control of Secretary of State.)
    The Secretary of State in Council may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence, direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in Council, by the principal Act, or otherwise, in such manner as may appear necessary or expedient in order to give effect to the purposes of this Act.
    Before any Rules are made under this Section relating to subjects other than transferred subjects, the rules proposed to be made shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such rules shall not be made unless both Houses by resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition, or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Secretary of State in Council may make such rules in the form in which they have been approved, and such rules on being so made shall be of full force and effect.
    Any other rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His -Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next, thirty days on which that House has sat after the rules are laid before it praying that the rules or any of them may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rules or any of them, and those rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "be" ["rules shall be laid"], to insert the words
    "submitted to a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider Indian affairs, and if approved by a majority of such Committtee shall then be."
    This refers to the Rules, and I want to have referred to Parliament those affecting the franchise proposals, so that we may have the chance of considering them when they are framed. The first part of the Clause says that the Secretary of State may "by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State," and so on. The next part of the Clause says that such Rules are to be submitted, not to a Standing Joint Committee, but to Parliament, and
    770
    I want brought into the ambit of this Clause the Rules and Regulations dealing with the franchise.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I much appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's object, but I do not think he has chosen the right way to affect it. You cannot, I think, legislate for a Standing Committee of both Houses, because a Joint Committee is set up by the vote of each House each Session. What I offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government is that there shall be a motion brought in in each House to appoint such a Standing Committee at the beginning of next Session. It is quite inconceivable that Parliament will allow these Rules to be brought before them until they have been considered by the Standing Committee which they have appointed for the purpose. This Committee will be charged by Parliament to investigate on its behalf these Indian affairs. Some of the Rules under Clause 33 are to be brought up for affirmative Resolution by both Houses, because they are intended to limit the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament, and, therefore, they ought clearly not to be made without the affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I do not think that applies to any other Rule. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend this undertaking that is due from me to him. I promise that before the Rules are made embodying the franchise, in which he is so interested, I will submit them to this House for approval, and give Members of this House an opportunity of making Amendments.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that submitting them to a Joint Committee is not much satisfaction to me, as I am not on the Joint Committee.
    Mr. MONTAGU: But how does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that Parliament will not appoint him to the next Standing Committee? That is a matter for Parliament.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. STEWART: I had a Motion down to leave out the Clause, my object being to ascertain what would happen in certain circumstances if the Secretary of State divested himself, as he proposes to

    771
    do, of his authority. As probably India will claim full fiscal autonomy under this Bill, what will be the position? Supposing India were to declare full fiscal autonomy, and try to make a bargain with some other country, giving that country better terms than she was prepared to offer this country? If the Secretary of State divests himself of all his powers, will India be able to legislate in this way, and will it not mean the breaking-up of any system of Preference, the principle of which the present Government have accepted in a tentative form? I merely suggest that, for the Secretary of State to destroy his authority in this way is altogether unnecessary.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think fiscal autonomy conies into this Clause at all; it is merely concerned with such matters as allowing the Government of India to act in administrative matters when it is in agreement with the Legislative Councils. All measures connected with fiscal questions will be Bills, and all Bills will have to receive the sanction of the Crown. The King has a veto over all legislation, and therefore nothing that can be done under Section 33 will, I think, be likely to affect that matter. I wish it were otherwise, because if there is anybody in this House who thinks we ought still to manipulate the tariffs of India in the interests of any part of Great Britain I should like to test that by a Division. My hon. Friend says, "How are we to guarantee that India will not manipulate her affairs to the advantage of somebody else?" What guarantee have we that Australia will not do the same? There is nothing which would do us so much harm as the slightest suspicion that we want to alter the tariffs of India in the interests of British trade. We have the solidarity of the Empire to depend upon, and the Imperial goodwill, which has always been developed by mutual trust, and I think my hon. Friend is perfectly right to have raised this question, which ought to be decided, but I do not think it can be decided under this Bill.
    Mr. STEWART: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his information. I was not advocating—
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am quite sure of that.
    Mr. STEWART: I merely asked, so that we should know where we stood.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member did not think I was accusing him.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Correspondence between Secretary of State and India.)
    So much of Section five of the principal Act as relates to orders and communications sent to India from the United Kingdom and to orders made in the United Kingdom, and Sections eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of the principal Act, shall cease to have effect, and the procedure for the sending of orders and communications to India and in general for correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor-General in Council or any local government shall be such as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State in Council.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel YATE: What is the result of this Clause? The Clause in the principal Act says the Council of India are to conduct the business transacted in the United Kingdom in relation to the Government of India. Am I right in supposing that the Secretary of State is outing the Council of India and putting himself in in personal charge in this matter? Is he depriving the Council of their statutory rights?
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the principal Act, as amended by this Bill, as it issued from the Joint. Committee, he will see that Clause 5 remains intact and reads as follows:
    "The Council of India shall under the direction of the Secretary of State, and subject to the provisions of this Act, conduct the business transacted in the United Kingdom in relation to the Government of India and the correspondence with India."
    That remains under the heading "Duties of Council," and that means that the statutory duty of the Council of India is being left to it under this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 34 (Correspondence between Secretary of State and India) and 35 (High, Commissioner for India) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 36.—(The Civil Services in India.)
    (2) The Secretary of State in Council may make Rules for regulating the classification of the civil services in India, the methods of their recruitment, their conditions of service, pay and allowances, and discipline and conduct. Such Rules may, to such extent and in respect of such matters as may be prescribed, delegate the power of making Rules to the Governor-General in Council or to local governments, or authorise the Indian legislature or local legislatures to make laws regulating the public services:

    773
    Provided that every person appointed before the commencement of this Act by the Secretary of State in Council to the civil service of the Crown in India shall retain all his existing or accruing rights or shall receive such compensation for the loss of any of them as the Secretary of State in Council may consider just and equitable.
    Mr. OMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "may" ["The Secretary of State in Council may make rules"], to insert the words, "when a period of two years has elapsed from the commencement of this Act."
    At this rather late hour I shall be as brief as possible, but I wish to get rid of the invidious task put upon me. These Amendments have been drawn up by a strong body of very distinguished members who were once in the Indian Civil Service who feel the extreme difficulty in which the service will be placed by this Clause. They have charged me to bring the Amendments before this House for their protection. They want protection from the form of oppression that will be found in the Government of India's letter of 5th March, 1919. I will quote (see page 17) a very few lines: "Ministers may naturally prefer their own agents and be disposed to treat lightly vested claims to more important and desirable appointments. Officers and Civil servants refusing, render themselves unpopular and will be treated with less consideration than they receive now." …An officer finding his position made intolerable should be entitled to apply to the Government of India for redress against the Minister….
    12.0 M.
    In the case of the Minister being found to be wrong in his treatment of the Civil servant a difficult position would undoubtedly ensue. The ultimate solution would be to grant retirement with proportional pension. This is really a dreadful piece of tyranny. A Minister falls out with a Civil servant, and the Central Government finds that the Civil servant is right and the Minister is wrong. The answer at present to that is that the Civil servant is to be retired with a proportionate pension. I can imagine nothing more dreadful than that one, whose life's aim has been to carry out his duty in that very greatest of services, the Indian Civil Service, who engages in controversy with a Minister and is put down by him, and who is subsequently pronounced by the Central Government to be perfectly in the right, should be offered money
    774
    —not redress—but a proportionate pension. Why should this dishonouring charge be kept in the Bill, and why should a Civil servant, who is acknowledged to be right, be offered money, not redress, in this way?
    Mr. MONTAGU: What the hon. Member is complaining of has not been adopted by the Joint Committee, and it is not in the Bill. There is in the measure quite a different procedure, giving the Civil servant a right to approach the Governor-General under Clause 36. Therefore, to postpone the making of the rules does not meet the point at all.
    Mr. OMAN: Do I understand now that the result of this proposal will now be not offering a proportionate pension but redress and reinstatement, or will it still only be this proportionate pension?
    Sir J. D. REES: As an old Civil servant I confess that I share the view which has been expressed by the Secretary of State. When this matter was very fully discussed with the intention of doing justice to Civil servants I urged that the suggestion of the hon. Member was not necessary because it was always done as a matter of course. Therefore I do not see in what respect the public service is not adequately safeguarded.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Joint Committee have recommended retirement on a proportionate pension when it is the desire of the Civil servant, and this is forced upon him. The personal concurrence of the Governor is regarded as essential in the case of orders affecting the position and prospects of officers, and that is the procedure we adopt. My hon. Friend has often asked questions on what he calls the pronouncement of the Government of India, but this is a pronouncement in favour of Civil servants which places them in the same position as those under the Executive Council with a right of appeal.
    Colonel YATE: We all know that there has been much anxiety on this point. A certain number of these Civil servants may desire to retire, and will they be allowed to take their proportionate pensions and go before this Bill comes into operation? That is a question which is very much agitating the Civil servants of India. They have a certain covenant and the Secretary of State has never told me whether those covenants are being broken by this new procedure or not. I put a question yester-

    775
    day about the taking away the appointments of Governorships from the Viceroy, and we thought that was reserved under the terms of the covenant. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to break those covenants will he say openly that they are to be broken and what steps he has taken to give compensation to those who refuse to serve under the new conditions of proportionate pensions?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I shall exercise my discretion with the advice and assistance of my Council. It must be obvious that it is far better that a Civil servant should retire than work unwillingly under the new Constitution. I want the co-operation of all those who remain in India to make this measure a success. As a matter of fact, all the information I get from India is that Civil servants, having expressed their apprehensions about certain aspects of this Bill and their preference for certain Amendments, will, in accordance with the great traditions of the Service, do their best to make it a success. So far as I have observed, the agitation seems to have been far more among ex-Civil servants.
    Mr. OMAN: I am urging that the right to retirement on fair terms should be safeguarded. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me on that point, and that Civil servants have proper redress, I shall be satisfied.
    Mr. J. JONES: Seeing that the people of India have to pay all these pensions and charges may I ask what is the annual income of the majority of the Indian people? Is it not less than £1 a year?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not relevant to this Clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    "Provided that every person appointed after the commencement of this Act by the Secretary of State in Council to the Civil Service of the Crown in India shall only retain those rights, or receive compensation in respect of them, subject to the unrestricted right of the Government of India to amend this Act respecting the Government of India, or to change the rules and regulations made under this or any subsequent Act, without involving the Crown in any liability for compensation to such persons."
    I think we should, certainly in India, on this question, carry out exactly the same principles as we do in this country. It is
    776
    well known that when you amalgamate four or five towns into one and the town clerks lose their jobs, the ratepayers have to find compensation. What my Amendment seeks to do is to prevent the creation of any further vested interests of this nature during the ten years before India gets full responsible government—at any rate, in the Provincial Legislature. It must be obvious to the Court that the great difficulty is the fact that the Indian Civil servant will now be subordinate to Indian Ministers in certain affairs, such as education, and local government, and agricultural administration. The Indian Minister in turn is responsible to the Assembly, and these are cases in which difficulty may arise in years to come. The next step forward will be to give complete responsible government to the local Legislative-Assembly. The I.C.S. will be definitely under Indian rule, just as Civil servants in this country are under the rule of the right hon. Gentleman on that bench. When that time comes these men may find that their jobs are no longer open to them. There may be retrenchment on a very large scale, and everyone who has been appointed before the passing of this Act will in that case be entitled to full compensation for the loss of his position if he is retrenched. What I seek to provide by this Amendment is that no fresh vested interests shall be created during the next ten years. People who join the I.C.S. must realise that if they are retrenched in future years they will not have a right to claim compensation. It is of great importance that this should be stated clearly, otherwise we are likely to have the greatest friction between India and ourselves in times to come. India is now reaching the stage to which Japan came after she had engaged a number of British people to teach the Japanese how to do certain work. The information imparted, the teachers were sent back. The same thing is going to occur in India. We are teaching the Indians to manage their own affairs and in time they are bound to take the places of their British teachers who have hitherto done the work and have trained them. When that stage is reached there will be great friction, especially if the Indian Civil servants feel that they are ill-treated, and we do not want them to feel that; therefore that should be made quite clear to those who go out during the next few years, that their jobs will be temporary and not permanent. The danger is that in the next few years the Indian Civil Service will

    777
    be packed with new men who will consider that they have large claims to compensation if steps are not taken to warn them that their position is not a covenant for life, but is only for a term of years in view of the possibility of retrenchment in the future.
    Mr. MONTAGU: This is a very far-reaching Amendment, because what my hon. and gallant Friend does—unwittingly, I am sure—is to empower the Government of India to amend this Bill. The Government of India cannot amend any Act. It is the function of the Indian Legislature to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. Secondly, the Indian Legislature cannot amend this Act because it is an Act of Parliament, which no subordinate Legislature can amend. He talks about Rules and Regulations made by the Government of India. The Rules and Regulations to which he refers are not Rules and Regulations made by the Government of India, but are made by the Secretary of State in Council. Those are difficulties owing to the way in which the Amendment is drafted. In the second place, he seeks to guard against a danger which I do not think exists. This Bill gives compensation to Civil servants appointed before the passing of the Bill. It does not give compensation to anybody appointed after the passing of the Bill. Every Clause as it stands is a Clause to show that that constitution is temporary and transitory and bears upon it the mark that in ten years' time—I am not looking so definitely into the future as my hon. and gallant Friend—there will be an exploration with a view to a further step forward. Therefore every Indian Civil servant, be he Indian or British, who enters the service after the passing of this Bill knows that he is going out there to help India through a transitional stage of self-government, and no question of compensation can ever arise.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not select any other Amendments on this Clause, nor on Clauses 37, 38, and 40.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 37 (Appointments to. the Indian Civil Service), 38 (Public Service Commission), and 39 (Financial Control) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 40.—(Rues under Part IV.)
    "Rules made under this Part of this Act shall not be made except with the concurrence of the Majority of votes at a meeting of the Council of India."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel YATE: With reference to my Amendment on the Paper, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept a two-thirds majority instead of a bare majority?
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 41.—(Statutory Commission.)
    (1) At the expiration of ten years after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall submit for the approval of both Houses of Parliament the names of persons to act as a commission for the purposes of this Section.

    (2) The persons whose names are so submitted, subject to the approval of, and to any alterations made by Parliament, shall be a commission for the purpose of inquiring into the working of the system of government, the growth of education, and the development of representative institutions, in British India, and matters connected therewith, and the commission shall report as to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible government, or to extend, modify, or restrict the degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local legislatures is or is not desirable.

    (3) The commission shall also inquire into and report on any other matters affecting British India and the provinces, which may be referred to the commission by the Secretary of State.

    Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "At the expiration of," and to insert instead thereof the word "within."
    Several Amendments proposed from this side of the Committee have been described by the right hon. Gentleman as being rather unreasonable in their character. I am quite sure he cannot apply that adjective to this Amendment. This matter was discussed at some length in the Joint Committee, and I believe that a feeling was shared by some members of that Committee that it was desirable something more elastic than the terms actually used in this Bill should be adopted. The proposal simply means that the setting up of this statutory Commission should not necessarily be deferred for a period of ten years. I cannot imagine that any argument on my part would be necessary to convince the Committee of the wisdom of this suggested alteration. After all said and done, this measure, which proposes to confer upon India a certain degree of

    779
    self-government, is one which no one here can foresee the result of. There has been a good deal of speculation as to how this proposal is actually going to work in India, and no very definite evidence has been submitted to us to indicate that it is necessarily going to be a successful scheme. There have been critics on both sides of the House of the principle of diarchy, and there have been critics of other very vital matters which are raised by the Bill, and I am sure, in the judgment of reasonable people, there is a possibility that, before a great deal of time has elapsed, it may be necessary to make pretty considerable changes in the scheme that we are now dealing with. This Clause suggests that, having conferred this limited amount of control upon the country for ten years, nothing more shall be done. We have had abundant evidence during the last five years that events sometimes move with extraordinary rapidity. Changes in different countries occur not in the. course of years, but of days, and all who try to estimate the many forces which are at work in the world to-day—forces which are bound to be productive of immense changes and developments which none of us can quite foresee—must admit that it is in every way likely that within a comparatively short space of time there will be changes in India which will necessitate a revision of the scheme as it is now proposed. We have been told again and again that there has been in India an extraordinary awakening of the political consciousness of the people, and yet if this Clause is allowed to go, and if the limited franchise proposals are finally adopted, it will mean that it will be quite impossible for this House to make the necessary provision for a change either in the franchise system or anything else for a period of ten years.
    Sir J. D. REES: The Government of India can make changes in the franchise.
    Mr. SPOOR: There are those who believe that the passing of this Bill will do something to allay the political agitation that has been going on in that country during recent years. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the passage of the Bill will have precisely the opposite effect. There are those who hope—and it is a reasonable hope—that political agitation in India will cease with the passing of the Bill. If we are waiting to see development in that
    780
    country, it is not desirable that agitation should cease. If it goes on, if we get an electorate increasingly educated in the exercise and use of political power, is it likely that that electorate, whether it be limited or extended by the Government of India within a shorter period than ten years, is necessarily going to remain content with the machinery we are setting up for their use? We have absolutely no right in any way to seek to tie the hands of future Parliaments. It is quite conceivable that within a short space of time there will be a change in the Government of this country. There are those who believe, and certainly those who hope, that the time is not far distant when there will be a change in the Government of this country. It is unwise on the part of this House and the present Government to fetter or in any way render more difficult the tasks that any future Government may have to perform. Probably it will be said that all that is necessary will be to repeal this Act and to introduce new legislation when such legislation is required. We are putting an unnecessary barrier in the way of possible development in the future if we carry this Clause as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman has not accepted a single Amendment that has been put forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am rather interested in these approving cheers. I do not know that they are an indication of the wisdom of those who voice them, for in legislation as in other things it is not wise to avoid elasticity, especially when we live in a world of constant change and under conditions when forces are operating the ultimate result of which no man can foresee. In asking the Secretary of State to accept the suggestion that instead of putting off the setting up of this Commission for ten years, he should provide that if the necessity arises it will be possible to set up the Commission at an earlier date. It may be that in two, five, or seven years a situation may arise in India which will demand action, and it is unwise to put anything in this Bill which will prevent the free action of Parliament. I want to look at this matter from the point of view of the people of India. There is far too much a tendency on the part of the present House to look at the matter simply from the point of view of Britain.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. SPOOR: Well, hon. Members may differ from me, but certainly it is the

    781
    opinion I hold, and an opinion which has been strengthened during the course of the two days' Debate. There is a tendency to look on that point of view of England. Let us take the kindliest view of this Bill that we possibly can. Let us say that it is—and after bearing some of the speakers I am quite prepared to believe that it is—a very sincere and honest attempt to help the people of India into a larger liberty, and that it is a sincere and honest attempt to give them the beginnings of a system of self-government. Let us hope that they will accept it in the spirit in which I am suggesting it is being given by this Committee. But, if they find included in this Bill the proposal that for ten years no. further progress is going to be possible, how are the people of India going to receive that? I do very strongly urge, and I ask with the utmost sincerity, that my right hon. Friend should give way on this one point, and should say that this Commission shall, if necessary, be set up within a shorter period. It does not mean that it will be, but, at all events, the door will be open. I am quite sure that any attempt to make this in any sense anything but a merely transitory measure, or, at all events, a measure to deal with transitory and changing conditions, would be a very unwise one. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot accept the Amendment? He knows the point that I am raising, I am quite sure, without any argument on my part. I merely state what I do in order, if possible, to secure the sympathy and co-operation of other members of the Committee in a suggestion which, I believe, is eminently reasonable.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should like very much to respond to the request of my hon. Friend opposite. He accuses me of not having accepted any Amendments. I had flattered myself up to the time of that remark—although, of course, it does not rest with me to accept or reject Amendments; that is a matter for the Committee —that I had convinced the Committee that the Amendments should be resisted. Each Amendment has been discussed honestly, and I have tried to do my best to answer the arguments that have been brought forward. In this particular case, the reason I cannot accept my Friend's view is that he still believes that this House of Parliament alters the Indian Constitution in response to Indian agitation, and he says he hopes that agitation will continue. Well, I do not. I think
    782
    the one thing that has been demonstrated to India to-night, and throughout the last two days, is the great willingness, despite an insignificant minority, to grant with enthusiasm to India as soon as may be, the stages of the surrender of her trusteeship to a well-qualified Indian Government. Where is the room for agitation? They have only got to do the work that is in front of them. They have only got to bury the old hatchet and then come again to Parliament, and I am quite sure that Parliament will act, when the allotted time comes, in the same spirit that we have adopted. It is not a question of agitation that will alter the appointed path of India. It might delay it. Why ten years' delay? You must choose some time, and some definite date. I believe that the father of this Act—the man who really made this Act possible—was the illustrious chief under whom I first served at the India Office—Lord Morley—when he and Lord Minto promoted an Act about ten years ago. It seems to Parliament, I hope, that India is ready for the next step forward, ten years after the coming into existence of the Morley-Minter measure. What does it mean? It means that before this Commission goes out there will have been held three elections on the new electorate. Is that too long a time to judge whether the electorate can hold the Ministers serving it to be responsible in the proper way? After all, it is no use judging it in one Parliament; you must have two, and are you not safer when you have three?
    If there is a remarkable and unforeseeable development in Indian conditions in the short space of ten years—because ten years is a very short time—my hon. Friend is quite wrong; it does not he the hands of Parliament in any way whatever. There can always be a Commission appointed in the interim. What this Act says is that there must be a Commission appointed at the end of ten years. My hon. Friend knows, surely, that some of his colleagues on the Committee thought the ten years too short. It seems to me as good as any other time; it is no use leaving it vague. What we want India to know is that at the definite and appointed time—unless unforeseeable circumstances arise—by Act of Parliament there will be an investigation to see whether there can be another step forward. It does not and cannot mean that in no circumstances whatever will there be an investigation, although, I believe that

    783
    ten years is the right time to hold an investigation, and although I am perfectly certain that the success of that investigation depends upon my hon. Friend's hope being falsified, and that India really settles down to work and not to agitate.
    Mr. ACLAND: I hope, in spite of his excellently-phrased speech, that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. Let us compare the probable development of India with the development of this country. I cannot tell how many stages this development may take. Suppose it takes four or five or ten years; suppose the whole development of constitutional government takes fifty years. That same development in this country has taken 700 years. Will not India be doing very well, and shall not we be doing one of the greatest works that the British Empire has ever done in carrying a country towards complete self-government, if we do it in that time? As the Secretary for State has said, we do not want any loophole in this Bill for people to think that they can help forward development except by making a success of the powers they are given. No agitation or anything of that kind will hasten it. The only thing that this Committee and Parliament can look to will be the success of the actual powers we are now giving.
    Mr. BENNETT: There was a time when I was inclined to look at this proposal somewhat in the spirit of my hon. Friend, but having heard his speech to-night I am absolutely opposed to the Amendment which he has put forward. His speech has strengthened my determination to adhere to the proposal as it stands. For what has been the outstanding feature of his speech? There is a determined attempt to minimise the value of the concessions which are embodied in this Bill. Not only now, but throughout the whole of the Committee stage of this Bill, the hon. Member has sought to minimise and belittle every effort that is being made to extend the liberties of the Indian people. He speaks of a "mere five" "a mere 2 per cent." who are enfranchised. Has he forgotten—I am sure he knows well that, by the Reform Act of 1832, 500,000 electors were added to an electorate, roughly, of 5,000. Yet we put 5,000,000 of people in India politically on their feet, and it is nothing. Further, he speaks of the possibility of agitation, not merely as a thing to be
    784
    looked forward to with misgiving, but he hopes to see the agitation. He has used the words of one of the most extreme of the witnesses before the Committee, who said that if they were not perfectly satisfied they would go on agitating. It is no part of my duty to endeavour to teach my hon. Friend what his duty as a patriotic Englishman is. But I contemplate the duty of an Englishman, standing in the House to-day, whose words will be heard in India, as being to say to the people of India: "England is making an honest effort to set your feet forward in the path of progress. We have done our best, extreme men and moderate men. We have had the most representative Committee that could possibly be put together; we have done our best to do fairly and justly and generously by India. Now, take advantage of the machinery we are enabling you to set up; take it in the spirit in which it is offered, and endeavour to make a, success of it." Had the hon. Member spoken in that way, he would have done a real service to India. But I do hope we shall have, even from those benches to-night, a disavowal of the desire of the hon. Member to see the agitation, which has prevailed for some years past, continue. It is very largely owing to the way in which the hon. Member has envisaged the near future in India that I feel it my duty to vote against his Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment itself requires only two words. The whole necessity of the Amendment arises from the fact that the Labour party may be in power in this country in four years' time. We wish to make our position quite clear. If that should be so, we hope we shall not regard ourselves as bound by this first Sub-section. We wish to protest now that when, and if, we propose to send out a Commission to India to inquire into the working of the Act some five years from now that it will not be a sufficient reply to say that we have said we have already agreed to an Act which says that the Commission shall not be sent for ten years. That is the whole object of the Amendment. I am also led to say something more by the remarks which have fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) and hon. Members during this Debate. The right hon. Member for Camborne took up an attitude which, I think, requires some comment. He said, "Oh, this is going quite quick enough.

    785
    What are ten years in the life of a nation? We had to wait twenty or thirty years between our Reform Bills. It is all going all right." But I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have some of that capacity for putting himself in other people's shoes that is possessed by other members of the Committee. Suppose he was an Indian and was being governed by Europeans, would he look at the question in quite such a complacent light? Can he wonder that when that sort of thing is said by a man in a responsible position that Indians feel somewhat indignant?
    Mr. ACLAND: I said the 95 per cent. were still illiterate, and had not any sort of training in democracy, and that they have to be gradually brought forward.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: He should put himself in the shoes of the 5 per cent. who are literate, as he is literate himself. Then the hon. Member (Mr. Bennett) talked about the continuation of agitation, and alluded to this Bill as a concession. It is exactly because you will allude to this Bill as a concession that there is likely to be a continuation of agitation. It is not a concession to agitation, or anything of that sort, but because the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, who used to be a Liberal, although he is in a Coalition Government, does genuinely believe, I am quite certain, that India ought to be self-governing in the British Empire; and because of that he has brought in this Bill. It is not a concession to agitation. It is because it is the right thing to do; it is our duty; but the hon. Member has, regarded it as a grudging kind of concession to the Indian people, something. to bribe them to be good children. It is because we have a right to do it, not because we are conceding anything to anybody.
    As regards the talk about agitation, I think it is the duty of every Indian subject, their duty to their country, to continue agitation for justice and freedom as long as they are alive. We do not, by passing this, that or the other, put an end to agitation; if agitation ends, death supervenes. We want people to agitate to better their conditions, and for freer conditions, continually, in every country. What we do want to secure, we on these benches, is that agitation shall be carried on upon constitutional lines instead of unconstitutional lines. That was the- object of the speech of the hon. Member for
    786
    Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). He wishes that agitation should continue; so do I, on the right lines. We believe that this step will involve other steps, and when the results of these steps are brought to fruition we shall satisfy India and this will be achieved partly by agitation, continuous efforts of agitation, and partly by efforts of real Liberalism by Members of this House, so that the Indians, so we think, may be fitly regarded as our fellow-subjects in the British Commonwealth.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not altogether agree with the hon, Member who has just spoken as to this not being a concession and the result of agitation. We quite accept the statement that it is not altogether the result of agitation. It is really the result of a pledge given during the War, given by the Council and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council during the War. We made this declaration, and it was received with great acclamation in India. It is simply to carry out that pledge. It is simply carrying out that pledge to put this Bill on the Statute Book. But one or two of us think it does not go far enough, and we are now being told we are extravagant and so on, but it is only carrying out some of the things promised by all the statesmen of the Allies about giving freedom to all subject peoples. The Secretary of State for India said there was an insignificant minority in India who were agitating for self-government. I wonder if he has read some of the speeches of the Secretary of State for War, one in introducing the Army Estimates, and his references to India and the Empire?
    The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is the omission of the term of ten years, and the hon. Member should address his remarks to that point.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think the minority referred to as "insignificant" is a rather larger one. If the words proposed were accepted it would be useful to the moderate party in India. A considerable minority who are called extremists, I do not know whether justly or not, say that this Bill is not sufficient to meet their legitimate aspirations. I have been urged by some of my friends, Englishmen and not in India, to try, if possible, to get the Bill rejected, and they say the Bill will do more harm than good. I met those views—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is more suitable to a speech on the Second or Third Reading. It seems to be a general speech.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 42 (Modification of Section 124 of Principal Act) and 43 (Signification of Royal Assent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 44.—(Power to make Rules.)
    Mr. BENNETT: I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name—[requiring proposed Rules to be published in India]. The object is clear on the surface, and I am quite satisfied that it can be achieved.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 45 (Amendments of Principal Act to carry Act into effect, etc.) and 46 (Definition of Official) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 47.—(Short Title, Commencement, Interpretation, and Transitory Provisions.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Government of India Act, 1919, and this principal Act, as amended by any Act for the time being in force, may be cited as the Government of India Act.
    (2) This Act shall come into operation on such date or dates as the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, may appoint, and different dates may be appointed, for different provisions of this Act, and for different parts of India.
    On the dates appointed for the coming in, into operation of the provisions of this Act as respects any executive or legislative council all the members of the council then in office shall go out of office, but may, if otherwise qualified, be re-appointed, re-nominated or re-elected, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act.
    (3) Any reference in any enactment, whether an Act of Parliament or made by any authority-in British India, or in any Rules, Regulations or Orders made under any such enactment, or in any letters patent or other document, to any enactment, repealed by the principal Act, shall for all purposes be construed as references to the principal Act as amended by this Act, or to the corresponding provision thereof.
    (4) Any reference in any enactment in force in India, whether an Act of Parliament or made by any authority in British India, or in any Rules, Regulations, or Orders made under any such enactment, or in any letters patent or other document, to any Indian legislative authority, shall for all purposes be construed as references to the corresponding authority constituted by the principal Act as amended by this Act.
    (5) If any difficulty arises as to the first establishment of the Indian legislature or any legislative council after the commencement of this Act or otherwise in first giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State in
    788
    Council or the Governor-General in Council, as occasion may require, may by Order do anything which appears to them necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel YATE: I had here again on the Paper my proposal to leave out the words "The Secretary of State" and insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty." I had a similar proposal on a preceding Clause. I would like to point out that the consideration that the King is Emperor of India seems to have been forgotten in framing these Clauses. His Majesty has visited India, and has been received and acknowledged by the people there who have shown their warm appreciation of his being their Emperor. It seems to have been overlooked that the position of India in the world has been completely changed. India has been admitted to a full partnership with us in the British Empire; she has taken her place in the Imperial War Cabinet and in the War Conference, and was an integral part of the Peace Conference in common with the other belligerents. I think it is only right that the words "His Majesty in Council" should have been inserted. We must remember the position India occupies, which is one of equality. I ask the Secretary of State for India to take this into consideration. I think this point of the date of operation of the Act should have been reserved for submission to His Majesty in Council and not to the Secretary of State.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the names of Mr. SPOOR, Colonel WEDGWOOD, and Mr. A. HENDERSON:
    (Declaration of Rights.)
    It is declared that the following rights of His Majesty's subjects in India are recognised, and that any laws which are inconsistent with these rights are hereby, to the extent of their inconsistency, repealed:—

    (a) That all Indian subjects of His Majesty and all subjects naturalised or resident in India are equal before the law, and that laws and the administration thereof shall not discriminate between status, colour, caste, or creed;

    (b) That no subject of His Majesty in India shall be liable to suffer in liberty, property, or life in respect of freedom of speech, publication, or association, nor shall the free expression of opinion in the Press be subject to restriction or penalty, save only under ordinary process of law in legal and open trial in the common Courts of the land.

    The CHAIRMAN: The first new Clause on the Paper—[Declaration, of Rights]— should really not be a new Clause. It is rather a proclamation or a preamble.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not quite normal to have in a Bill which is instituting a new constitution a Clause making a declaration of rights such as we passed in 1689? It seems to me that the analogy is complete. In granting a written constitution we should at the same time include in the constitution a declaration of rights, saying what we think are the rights of the subject under the British Crown. The Act as a Constitutional Act seems to be incomplete without some such declaration that the inhabitants of India are equal before the law, that the Habeas Corpus Act works there as in England, and that all men shall be tried in open Court by the laws of the land. I think it would be in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think not. I think it is outside this Act and might conflict with other legislation. You cannot put a Proclamation into an Act of Parliament.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I submit that it would not conflict with this Act of Parliament, though it would be inconsistent with the Riots Act and the Press Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: That disposes of the new Clauses.
    First and Second Schedules agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Friday).

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Friday).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes before One o'clock.

  BULGARIA (PEACE TREATY).
  BULGARIA (PEACE TREATY).
  AUSTRIA (PEACE TREATY).
  AUSTRIA (PEACE TREATY).
RUSSIA.
  BLOCKADE (M. LITVINOFF).
  BLOCKADE (M. LITVINOFF).
  GENERAL YUDENITCH'S ARMY.
  GENERAL YUDENITCH'S ARMY.
  ARREST OF ESCAPED BRITISH PRISONERS.
  ARREST OF ESCAPED BRITISH PRISONERS.
  MISS HOPKINS.
  MISS HOPKINS.
  UNITED STATES (INDEBTEDNESS OF ALLIES).
  UNITED STATES (INDEBTEDNESS OF ALLIES).
  BANK AMALGAMATIONS.
  BANK AMALGAMATIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  FAT STOCK SALES.
  FAT STOCK SALES.
  SUGAR RESTRICTIONS ORDER.
  SUGAR RESTRICTIONS ORDER.
  DRIED FRUIT.
  DRIED FRUIT.
  BACON AND HAM.
  BACON AND HAM.
  FISH.
  FISH.
  RABBITS.
  RABBITS.
  REGISTERED CUSTOMERS (TRANSFER).
  REGISTERED CUSTOMERS (TRANSFER).
  FROZEN MUTTON AND BACON (PRICES).
  FROZEN MUTTON AND BACON (PRICES).
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  POTATOES (SHIPPING FACILITIES).
  POTATOES (SHIPPING FACILITIES).
  MEAT CONTRACTS.
  MEAT CONTRACTS.
  LAND CULTIVATION AND STOCK RAISING.
  LAND CULTIVATION AND STOCK RAISING.
  BEER PRICES, SCOTLAND.
  BEER PRICES, SCOTLAND.
IRELAND.
  DAIL EIREANN INQUIRY, MONAGHAN.
  DAIL EIREANN INQUIRY, MONAGHAN.
  POLICE (HAND GRENADES).
  POLICE (HAND GRENADES).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  WOUNDING BY POLICE.
  WOUNDING BY POLICE.
  INDUSTRIAL COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
  INDUSTRIAL COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
DEMOBILISATION.
  1/10TH MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  1/10TH MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  CROWBOROUGH CAMP.
  CROWBOROUGH CAMP.
  TROOPS IN IRELAND.
  TROOPS IN IRELAND.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  SOLDIERS' WIVES (FREE PASSAGES).
  SOLDIERS' WIVES (FREE PASSAGES).
  OFFICERS' PAY (MESOPOTAMIA).
  OFFICERS' PAY (MESOPOTAMIA).
  CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR LEAVE.
  CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR LEAVE.
  EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTION.
  EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTION.
  DISTRICT COURT-MARTIAL, WEYMOUTH.
  DISTRICT COURT-MARTIAL, WEYMOUTH.
  BRITISH PRISONERS (LIBERATION).
  BRITISH PRISONERS (LIBERATION).
  TROOPS IN PERSIA.
  TROOPS IN PERSIA.
  BOOT STOCKS.
  BOOT STOCKS.
  ARMY PAY CORPS (CIVILIAN CLERKS).
  ARMY PAY CORPS (CIVILIAN CLERKS).
  GENERAL SIR HUBERT GOUGH.
  GENERAL SIR HUBERT GOUGH.
  AERIAL ROUTE, EGYPT AND EAST.
  AERIAL ROUTE, EGYPT AND EAST.
  AIR MINISTRY (STAFF).
  AIR MINISTRY (STAFF).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MENTAL CASES (WIVES' ALLOWANCE).
  MENTAL CASES (WIVES' ALLOWANCE).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (WAR GRATUITY).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (WAR GRATUITY).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE OFFICERS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE OFFICERS.
MUNITIONS.
  EXPLOSIVES, DINAS MAWDDWY SALE.
  EXPLOSIVES, DINAS MAWDDWY SALE.
  EASTRIGGS AND GRETNA (HOUSING ACCOMMODATION).
  EASTRIGGS AND GRETNA (HOUSING ACCOMMODATION).
  BUDDHIST COLLEGE, MANDALAY (HEADMASTER).
  BUDDHIST COLLEGE, MANDALAY (HEADMASTER).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, NORFOLK.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, NORFOLK.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EDUCATION GRANTS).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EDUCATION GRANTS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (EXHAUST GASES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (EXHAUST GASES).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PENSIONS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PENSIONS).
  INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION, 1912.
  INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION, 1912.
  FIREWORK FATALITY, STOURBRIDGE.
  FIREWORK FATALITY, STOURBRIDGE.
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
  COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE.
  COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE.
HOUSING.
  HOUSING FINANCE COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  HOUSING FINANCE COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  LARGE HOUSES (CONVERSION).
  LARGE HOUSES (CONVERSION).
  INNERLEITHEN SCHEME.
  INNERLEITHEN SCHEME.
  POOR LAW OFFICIALS.
  POOR LAW OFFICIALS.
  COUNTY SURVEYOR, CUMBERLAND (APPOINTMENT).
  COUNTY SURVEYOR, CUMBERLAND (APPOINTMENT).
COAL PRODUCTION.
  REGISTRATION OF CUSTOMERS, GLASGOW.
  REGISTRATION OF CUSTOMERS, GLASGOW.
  COAL CONTROLLER'S CALCULATIONS.
  COAL CONTROLLER'S CALCULATIONS.
  PROFITS (LIMITATION).
  PROFITS (LIMITATION).
  SUPPLIES, WOLVERTON.
  SUPPLIES, WOLVERTON.
  SEA-BORNE COAL.
  SEA-BORNE COAL.
  RETAIL PRICES.
  RETAIL PRICES.
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  BRITISH INDUSTRY (PRODUCTION).
  BRITISH INDUSTRY (PRODUCTION).
  ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION (COUNCIL'S REPORT).
  ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION (COUNCIL'S REPORT).
  BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
  BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.
  EDMONTON DISTRICT.
  EDMONTON DISTRICT.
  ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
  ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
  BROAD-GAUGE RAILWAY (CORWEN— BETTWS-Y-COED).
  BROAD-GAUGE RAILWAY (CORWEN— BETTWS-Y-COED).
POST OFFICE.
  PORTADOWN TO LONDONDERRY MAIL.
  PORTADOWN TO LONDONDERRY MAIL.
  BEARER VICTORY BONDS.
  BEARER VICTORY BONDS.
  ABERAVON PREMISES.
  ABERAVON PREMISES.
  WOMEN EMPLOYES.
  WOMEN EMPLOYES.
  STANDARD SHIPS.
  STANDARD SHIPS.
  SHIPMASTERS AND OFFICERS (UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOWANCES).
  SHIPMASTERS AND OFFICERS (UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOWANCES).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  TRANSFER OF SHIPPING.
  TRANSFER OF SHIPPING.
SCOTLAND.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  CURED HERRING INDUSTRY.
  CURED HERRING INDUSTRY.
  LEGISLATION.
  LEGISLATION.
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN STATES:
  RECIPROCAL FACILITIES.
  RECIPROCAL FACILITIES.
  CANADIAN CATTLE.
  CANADIAN CATTLE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can tell us anything definite about the course of business during the remainder of the session. There are two particular points on which I think the House would be glad to be informed. In the first place, whether the noble Earl is able to confirm what I understand is the belief in another place that the Government of India Bill will quite soon be concluded there, and that we may hope to see it in this House within a very short time. The other point refers to the Electricity Supply Bill, of which the Second Reading was adjourned yesterday. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us whether or no it is proposed to resume the discussion of that Bill at an early date. There was a suggestion, as I understand—I was unable to be in the House yesterday—that the Bill might be read a second time and then referred to a Select Committee. Whether the noble Earl is also able to give us any prognostication as to the probable date of rising of the House I feel uncertain, but I have no doubt that he will do so if he can.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I think that I am in a position to answer both the general question put by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and also the two particular questions to which he drew attention. It is the hope of the Government to prorogue Parliament on Tuesday, December 23.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Prorogue?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, to prorogue Parliament on Tuesday, December 23, with a view to taking a Parliamentary recess which it is hoped will last until the beginning of February. In
600
these circumstances your Lordships have to consider the amount of business that you will be able to discharge between this date and December 23. The bulk of the important measures which it is desired to pass in this session are already in your Lordships' hands, and several of them have reached an advanced stage. The only Bill of first-class importance which has not yet come to us is the Government of India Bill, to which my noble friend specifically referred. That Bill, I understand, is expected to leave another place to-morrow. It will then be printed and circulated to your Lordships, so as to be in your hands on Monday morning. I propose to take the First Reading of the Bill on that day. Your Lordships will require to meet on Monday in order to continue the adjourned debate on the Electricity Bill, to which my noble friend also referred, and which was adjourned from yesterday. That, therefore, will be the business on Monday. As regards the proposal to refer the Electricity Bill to a Select Committee, it is one, I think, which the Government would be very much indisposed to favour. Then, to pursue the career of the Government of India Bill, I propose to put it down for Second Reading on Thursday of next week and to take the debate upon it on that afternoon, and, if one day is not enough, to continue it on Friday. There may be one or two smaller Bills that will still come up to us from the House of Commons. The remaining measures that are before you are, I think, of a character, and have already reached a stage, which will enable us to dispose of them before December 23. I cannot at the moment think of any other point that arises, but if any is suggested by any noble Lord I will do my best to meet it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has been very kind in giving information to your Lordships as to the proposals of the Government for the remainder of the session. The first point that I should like to note is that the noble Earl very specifically said that the Government intended to prorogue on December 23, which disposes of the rumour that what was in the mind of the Government was an adjournment over the Christmas recess with the intention of finishing the present session of Parliament next year. I take it that that is a definite decision so far as matters stand at present, though, no doubt, it is open to modification if necessary.

601
Then the noble Earl went on to speak of two Bills. He spoke of the Government of India Bill reaching us—on Monday, I think it was—and the Second Reading being commenced on the following Thursday. I do not know what view your Lordships may take of the Government of India Bill when it comes before you. It has not been discussed in your Lordships' House up to now. The appointment of the Joint Committee was discussed, but your Lordships' right to discuss the Bill absolutely de novo was expressly reserved at that time. Therefore until your Lordships are in possession of the text of the Bill as it leaves another place it is quite impossible to form a conclusion as to how long that measure may take here. I am sure that the Government would be anxious to meet the wishes of your Lordships in respect to a matter of such colossal importance.
A very important but a relatively much smaller matter remains—namely, the Electricity Supply Bill. That is a Bill of considerable importance. I am sorry that the noble Earl, for a very good and sufficient reason, was not able to be in his place when that Bill was discussed last night, or he would have had the opportunity of hearing a very important contribution to the debate delivered by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Moulton) who is probably the greatest living authority on the subject. That was a very severe criticism of the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took note of how serious was its effect, and with that ready appreciation of the feeling of your Lordships which the noble and learned Lord has displayed, he was very ready to grant an adjournment so that we might further consider the Bill.
It is almost impossible across the floor of the House this afternoon to say definitely what conclusion those noble Lords who were here formed of that speech and of the criticisms then made, and what conclusion will be formed by those of your Lordships who were not here but will have the opportunity of reading the speech. The OFFICIAL REPORT, of course, was only circulated this afternoon, and will not be in the hands of the House generally for several days. In those circumstances I am quite sure the noble Earl will understand that so far as we have any authority in the matter—an authority very secondary to his own—we cannot enter into any
602
arrangement without further consideration as to what our proceedings on that Bill will be. It appears to have been, very insufficiently considered up to now, and to raise matters of very great importance. We have not yet been informed, among other things, of what urgency there may be for the passage of the Bill. All those are matters very important to consider before we arrive at a final judgment, and I hope the noble Earl will understand why I speak with so much reserve.

PENSIONS FUNDS (CARDIFF) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions for the prevention of abuse of monopoly rights.
1. For section twenty-seven of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), the following section shall be substituted:—
"27.—(1) Any person interested may at any time apply to the comptroller alleging in the case of any patent that there has been an abuse of the monopoly rights thereunder and asking for relief under this section.
(2) The monopoly rights under a patent shall be deemed to have been abused in any of the following circumstances:—

(a) If at any time after the expiration of four years from the date of the patent, the patented invention (being one capable of being worked in the United Kingdom), is not being worked within the United Kingdom on a commercial scale, and no satisfactory reason can be given for such nonworking:

Provided that if an application is presented to the comptroller on this ground, and the comptroller is of opinion that the time which has elapsed since the date of the patent has by reason of the nature of the

603
invention or for any other cause been insufficient to enable the invention to be worked within the United Kingdom on a commercial scale, the comptroller may adjourn the application for such period as will in his opinion be sufficient for that purpose:

(b)If the working of the invention within the United Kingdom on a commercial scale is being prevented or hindered by the importation from abroad of the patented article by the patentee or persons claiming under him, or by persons directly or indirectly purchasing from him, or by other persons against whom the patentee is not taking or has not taken any proceedings for infringement:

(c)If the demand for the patented article in the United Kingdom is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms:

(d) If, by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant a licence or licences upon reasonable terms, the trade or industry of the United Kingdom or the trade of any person or class of persons trading in the United Kingdom, or the establishment of any new trade or industry in the United Kingdom, is prejudiced, and it is in the public interest that a licence or licences should be granted:

(e) If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire, licence, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process:

Provided that for the purpose of determining whether there has been any abuse of the monopoly rights under a patent, it shall be taken that patents for new inventions are granted not only to encourage invention but to secure that new inventions shall so far as possible be worked on a commercial scale in the United Kingdom without undue delay.
(3) On being satisfied that a case of abuse of the monopoly rights under a patent has been established, the comptroller may exercise any of the following powers as he may deem expedient in the circumstances:—

(a) He may order the patent to be endorsed with the words "licences of right" and thereupon the same rules shall apply as are provided in this Act in respect of patents so endorsed, and an exercise by the comptroller of this power shall entitle every existing licensee to apply to the comptroller for an order entitling him to surrender his licence in exchange for a licence to be settled by the comptroller in like manner as if the patent had been so endorsed at the request of the patentee, and the comptroller may make such order; and an order that a patent be so endorsed may be made notwithstanding that there may be an agree-
604
ment subsisting which would have precluded the indorsement of the patent at the request of the patentee:

(b) He may order the grant to the applicant of a licence on such terms as the comptroller may think expedient, including a term precluding the licensee from importing into the United Kingdom any goods the importation of which, if made by persons other than the patentee or persons claiming under him, would be an infringement of the patent, and in such case the patentee and all licensees for the time being shall be deemed to have mutually covenanted against such importation. A licensee under this paragraph shall be entitled to call upon the patentee to take proceedings to prevent infringement of the patent, and if the patentee refuses, or neglects to do so within two months after being so exiled upon, the licensee may institute proceedings for infringement in his own name as though he were the patentee, making the patentee a defendant:

In settling the terms of a licence under this paragraph the comptroller shall be guided as far as may be by the same considerations as are specified in section twenty-four of this Act for his guidance in settling licences under that section:

(c) If the comptroller is satisfied that the invention is not being worked on a commercial scale within the United Kingdom, and is such that it cannot be so worked without the expenditure of capital for the raising of which it will be necessary to rely on the patent monopoly, he may, unless the patentee or those claiming under him will undertake to find such capital, order the grant to the applicant, or any other person, or to the applicant and any other person or persons jointly, if able and willing to provide such capital, of an exclusive licence on such terms as the comptroller may think just, but subject as hereinafter provided:

(d) If the comptroller is satisfied that the objects of this section cannot be attained by the exercise of any of the foregoing powers, he may order the patent to be revoked, either forthwith or after such reasonable interval as may be specified in the order, unless in the meantime such conditions as may be prescribed in the order with a view to attaining the objects of this section are fulfilled, and the comptroller may, on reasonable cause shown in any case, by subsequent order extend the interval so specified:

Provided that the comptroller shall make no order for revocation which is at variance with any treaty, convention, arrangement, or engagement with any foreign country or British possession:

(e) If the comptroller is of opinion that the objects of this section will be best

605
attained by making no order, he may refuse the application and dispose of any question as to costs thereon as he thinks just.

(4) In settling the terms of any such exclusive licence as is provided in paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, due regard shall be had to the risks undertaken by the licensee in providing the capital and working the invention, but subject thereto the licence shall be so framed as—

(a) to secure to the patentee the maximum royalty compatible with the licensee working the invention within the United Kingdom on a commercial scale and at a reasonable profit;

(b) to guarantee to the patentee a minimum yearly sum by way of royalty, if and so far as it is reasonable so to do, having regard to the capital requisite for the proper working of the invention and all the circumstances of the case;

and in addition to any other powers expressed in the licence or order the licence and the order granting the licence shall be made revocable at the discretion of the comptroller if the licensee fails to expend the amount specified in the licence as being the amount which he is able and willing to provide for the purpose of working the invention on a commercial scale within the United Kingdom, or if he fails so to work the invention within the time specified in the order.
(5) In deciding to whom such an exclusive licence is to be granted the comptroller shall, unless good reason is shown to the contrary, prefer an existing licensee to a person having no registered interest in the patent.
(6) The order granting an exclusive licence under this section shall operate to take away from the patentee any right which he may have as patentee to work or use the invention and to revoke all existing licences, unless otherwise provided in the order, but on granting an exclusive licence the comptroller may, if he thinks it fair and equitable, make it a condition that the licensee shall give proper compensation to be fixed by the comptroller for any money or labour expended by the patentee or any existing licensee in developing or exploiting the invention.
(7) Every application presented to the comptroller under this section must set out fully the nature of the applicant's interest and the facts upon which the applicant bases his case and the relief which he seeks. The application must be accompanied by statutory declarations verifying the applicant's interest and the facts set out in the application.
(8) The comptroller shall consider the matters alleged in the application and declarations, and if satisfied that the applicant has a bonâ fide interest and that a primâ facie case for relief has been made out he shall direct the applicant to serve copies of the application and declarations upon the patentee and upon any other persons appearing on the register to be interested in the patent, and shall advertise the application in the Illustrated Official Journal (Patents).
(9) If the patentee or any person is desirous of opposing the granting of any relief under this section he shall within such time as may be allowed by the comptroller or within such extended
606
time as the comptroller may on application further allow deliver to the comptroller a counter statement verified by a statutory declaration fully setting out the grounds on which the application is to be opposed.
(10) The comptroller shall consider the counter statement and declarations in support thereof and may thereupon dismiss the application if satisfied that the allegations in the application have been adequately answered, unless any of the parties demands a hearing or unless the comptroller himself appoints a hearing. In any case the comptroller may require the attendance before him of any of the declarants to be cross-examined or further examined upon matters relevant to the issues raised in the application and counter statement, and he may subject to due precautions against disclosure of information to rivals in trade require the production before him of books and documents relating to the matter in issue.
(11) All orders of the comptroller under this section shall be subject to appeal to the Court, and on any such appeal the law officer or such other counsel as he may appoint shall be entitled to appear and be heard.
(12) In any case where the comptroller does not dismiss an application as hereinbefore provided, and

(a) if the parties interested consent, or

(b) if the proceedings require any prolonged examination of documents or any scientific or local investigation which cannot in the opinion of the comptroller conveniently be made before him;

the comptroller may at any time order the whole proceedings or any question or issue of fact arising thereunder to be referred to an arbitrator agreed on by the parties, or in default of agreement appointed by the comptroller, and where the whole proceedings are so referred the award of such arbitrator shall if all the parties consent be final, but otherwise shall be subject to the same appeal as the decision of the comptroller under this section, and where a question or issue of fact is so referred the arbitrator shall report his findings to the comptroller.
(13) For the purposes of this section the expression 'patented article' includes articles made by a patented process."
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "or by other persons against whom the patentee is not taking or has not taken any proceedings for infringement." The noble and learned Lord said: When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading I indicated that there were many matters which would have to be discussed when we came to the Committee stage, but the Lord Chancellor expressed the view, from which I did not desire to dissent, that those matters could be discussed fairly and properly in your Lordships' House without the necessity of the appointment of a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord also said

607
that in his opinion the general provisions of the Bill were in favour of the inventor—I think, but I am not quite sure, he went a little further and said in favour of the poor inventor. This Amendment deals with a matter which I think would press very hardly on any inventor, and particularly on a poor inventor.
The general idea of this clause is that if the conditions under it are not fulfilled there is what is called an abuse of the patent right, and there are various penalties, all of a stringent character, among others an actual provision which enables the patent itself to be revoked. I am afraid it is rather a technical matter in some ways, but I will try to explain what is meant by the words that I propose to omit. Paragraph (b) says—
"If the working of the invention within the United Kingdom … is being prevented or hindered by the importation from abroad of the patented article by the patentee or persons claiming under him, or by persons directly or indirectly purchasing from him …"
So far I am entirely in favour of the provision, because I do not think these monopoly rights should be used for any indirect purpose whatever, and certainly they ought not to be used to prevent the working of the invention in the United Kingdom.
But we come now to the words which I propose to omit; and they are not directed against the inventor at all in the first instance. So far as the patentee is concerned the infringer is a wrongdoer, and therefore the provision is that the patentee enforces his rights against the wrongdoer, and so far as he is concerned certain penalties as regards a patentee shall ensue. Is that right? I think there is nothing less favourable to the position of a poor patentee than litigation. Whatever we may say about litigation, the trump card is in the hands rather of the financial exploiter than of the inventor himself. What reason, therefore, is there that the inventor or patentee should be driven to take action against persons on the ground that they are infringing the patent? Surely it might work intense injustice. In the first place, litigation is costly; in the second place, a person might be set up as an infringer by adverse interests, or he might be a mere man of straw, or he might be infringing to such a small extent that it would not be worth the while of the patentee to take action against him. I
608
agree that if you want to put a person (against whom the patentee has not taken any proceedings for infringement) under certain penalties for his wrong action, well and good. That might be a proper provision to insert in a Bill of this kind. But a patentee is not in the position of a public prosecutor, and I think to put an obligation of this kind upon him or to render him liable to the revocation of his patent rights is an extreme hardship.
In my opinion one of the hard features of this Bill, so far as inventors are concerned, is that it opens the door to an immense amount of litigation. Almost every clause of this Bill implies litigation. To force a man to take action whether he wants to do so or not, whatever the cost or risk may be, against a wrongdoer and, if he does not proceed against a wrongdoer, to render him liable to the revocation of his patent, certainly appears to be not only extremely harsh but unjust in principle. Why should you force him to take this action against an infringer? If you think it is wrong that a person under those conditions should import into this country patented articles, or articles subject to the patent, by all means introduce a provision to that effect. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 6 to 8, leave out ("or by other persons against whom the patentee is not taking or has not taken any proceedings for infringement'').—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MOULTON: I fully sympathise with the feelings of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken in not wishing to force litigation on any unwilling persons; but I must ask your Lordships to take a rather wider view of the dangers and also of the circumstances which surround patentees before you pronounce your opinion upon this clause. The phrase "abuse of the monopoly rights" has been introduced at the beginning of the clause as a generic term for those things that the Government, on behalf of the nation, wish to stop. The phrase is ill-suited to some of the things to which it refers; but, after all, it is a phrase that is introduced only for the purposes of the clause and we need not trouble whether it sounds like a phrase which casts blame on the individual or not. We have to see how it is used in the clause and for what purposes.
The evil which this part of the clause is intended to remedy is a very serious one

609
to the trade of England. Patents are now usually taken out in more than one country. I will take the case of a German inventor who has taken out an English and a German patent. He sells the English patent to some individual, but he keeps the German patent in his own hands. The individual who has bought the English patent cannot prevent the German manufacturer from swamping England with the patented articles manufactured in Germany except by bringing actions for infringement; because the importation of an infringing article is an infringement. Supposing he has sold the English patent to someone whom he persuades not to bring actions for infringement or who is unable to do so on account of his want of funds. The English trade finds England—in spite of an English patent which is in English hands having been granted—swamped with these infringing articles. Who can stop it? No one but the person who happens to hold the English patent. But that person may have granted many licenses; and these people who have paid for the licences see these infringing articles coining into England in multitudes, but, because they are not patentees, they cannot bring an action. The consequence is that, thanks to the English patent, Germany gets the control to the extent that the invention is not worked in England at all.
The clause, which is a very elaborate one and which requires considerable study, is aimed at stopping that; and it does it in this way. It says that if these articles are coming in, and if the person who hold the English patent will not stop them, then the Patent Office can grant a licence and give to the licensee the power to bring an action in his own name against the people who are importing the infringing article. Im other words, it gives the licensee the power to stop infringement. If the noble and learned Lord will look at paragraph (b) of the remedy he will find that this paragraph is directed against what he considers to be the injustice, apparently, of making a patentee enter into litigation. Paragraph (b) says that a licence can be granted, and that the licensee can defend the country from this importation. If you take the phrase which brings the patentee within the limits of those who abuse the patent rights, and if you take the remedy that is provided, there is no injustice. There might be an injustice if you simply said that he abused his monopoly and had not a specific
610
remedy for it. Taken as a whole, this compels no one to go to litigation who does not wish to do so; and, at the same time it protects the country against one of the most serious dangers—namely, the separation of the English from the German patent, and the German patentee, having lost all interest in the English patent, freely pours infringing articles into England. I earnestly recommend your Lordships to leave this part unaltered in view of the fact that a specific remedy, meeting the difficulty which has aroused the sympathy of the noble and learned Lord, is coming afterwards, and will remove all traces of injustice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): The very weighty speech just delivered by my noble and learned friend who, as your Lordships know, has a unique experience upon this branch of our law, must, I think, have been of great assistance to your Lordships, and I am not without hope that it may have produced an impression on the mind of my noble and learned friend who moved the Amendment. No useful purpose would be served by my repeating the arguments which have just been addressed to the House. I will, therefore, only add that. I accept and welcome them as expressing a point of view which I should have attempted, with far less knowledge, to place before the House. I would summarise there by saying that if this Amendment were accepted it would open the door to all kinds of improper arrangements between patentees and others. It might easily lead to the defeat of the whole object of the clause.
My noble and learned friend is under no delusions—we are none of us under any delusions—as to the subtlety of the German people in these matters, or as to the skill with which in the past they have been able to resort to various devices to mask the true character of their activities. It might easily be, if these words were not maintained in the clause, that it could not be proved that any person was acting under the authority of a patentee, to take one of the alternative cases dealt with, but, at the same time, the patentee would be acquiescing in the importation from abroad by such person. I would ask my noble and learned friend to apply his mind to the simple case, if he will assume the facts to take the illustration—that there is a case in which there is overwhelming ground for supposing that

611
the patentee is acquiescing in such importations from a abroad, the importations being, as the noble Lord said, the importations of a wrongdoer. If these words are not inserted, there is no means whatever of dealing with such a case even under the provisions of the Bill, and it is a case with which it is specially necessary to deal.
LORD PARMOOR: As regards the principle to be adopted, I am entirely of the same view as my noble and learned friend Lord Moulton, whose arguments I understand have been adopted by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor; but I am not satisfied either that these words are necessary, or that they would in themselves be a protection against the danger (which is undoubtedly a danger as every one knows who has dealt with patent cases) of preventing the working of an invention in this country by importation from abroad. But having regard to what has been said, and giving the due weight that I should give to the views of my noble and learned friend upon this point, I shall not press my Amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "unfairly.'' The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter which raises a question of far-reaching importance, and I think it would be well to discuss it at this stage, which appears to be the proper stage at which it should be raised. In order that your Lordships may appreciate the meaning of the Amendment I think it is necessary to read paragraph (e) to which my Amendment refers. It runs—
"If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire, licence, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process."
In my opinion no patentee is entitled to increase the area of his monopoly rights and monopoly claim beyond the terms of the patent grant. In other words, the patent grant gives not only the terms of the monopoly right, but gives the protection, and the only protection, that there ought to be as regards the enforcement and use of the monopoly right.
I should lay this down as a general principle if I might, before I come to the actual use of the word "unfairly"—that no patentee should, by attaching conditions to the purchase, hire, license, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process, prejudice in any way any trade or industry in the United Kingdom or any person or class of persons engaged therein. Surely the general statement is almost self-evident. You are not given patent rights in order to prejudice the trade and industry of the United Kingdom or of any persons or class of persons engaged therein; you are given the patent rights for what is an entirely different purpose; and the only reason for which you are given the patent right, and the only ground on which a monopoly can be sustained, is that it shall not be used to the prejudice of any trade or industry in the United Kingdom.
I move to leave out the word "unfairly." The words are "unfairly prejudiced." I do not think there ought to be any prejudice at all, and immediately you introduce the word "unfairly" you introduce not only a very uncertain factor as regards litigation (because different minds will come to different conclusions as to what is meant by the term), but, what is much more important, you give sanction to a system which is being introduced into this country—it is generally a matter of prejudice now to say it is of foreign origin, but it certainly is of foreign origin—under which, by a system of tied leases, you not only seek to preserve your monopoly right as regards the use of a manufactured article, but you seek to impose limitations on the person who is to have the benefit of the use of the patent in a large number of other directions. In fact, you attach conditions which must necessarily interfere with trade or industry in the United Kingdom and a large number of persons or classes of persons engaged therein.
I think every one of your Lordships must have had, in connection with this Bill, rival views put forward upon the position of patentees who seek to attach these conditions if the patented article is to be used for manufacturing purposes, and, particularly, I think we have all had brought before our attention the position of the British United Shoe Manufacturing Company. Their apologia is this—we are entitled to attach very severe and stringent

613
conditions to the use of articles protected by patents, because we are in the nature of benevolent bureaucrats. We do it, not to obtain benefit to ourselves, but because we believe that these conditions so attached are of benefit to the trade and industry in which we are interested.
I think that is an argument which deserves, and demands, very careful analysis. I beg to say personally that I do not think the motive is benevolent action; I think the motive is to get the greatest possible financial return from the patent rights, and, although the patentee is entitled to do that directly, I think he is not entitled to do it indirectly. The matter should really be argued on principle and apart from the special claims or position of a particular company. I dare say it has happened to your Lordships, as it has happened to me, that there has been a conflict of opinion on the point. The conclusion I have come to is this—that, as regards producers of shoe machinery in this country, they are all opposed to this system of what is called "tied leases." to which I shall have a reference to make by and by. As regards the manufacturers of this country—that is, shoe manufacturers—a very large number (I cannot say all of them) are also opposed to this principle.
May I point out to your Lordships on this matter what is the nature of this tied lease which, according to the argument of those who bring it forward, does not unfairly prejudice the trade and industry of the manufacturers of this country? I have a covenant which says, as regards repairs that "he must also exclusively obtain from the company who have the patent rights all the parts needed for repairs" and pay for them whatever price the machinery company may charge. He is also bound to go on using the patented article although, as a matter of fact, it has been superseded by better machinery. He is bound to purchase all additional machines from the same source—and there is what is called the "prohibitive clause." He may not use the machinery of any other manufacturer in the manufacture of any such machine or machines unless the machinery used has been leased by the machinery company. It is not too much to say, as regards these provisions, that they practically bring under the power of the patentee the whole industry.
I do not want to argue the general principle, although I am bound to say that I am opposed to these financial trust arrangements. What I want to say is this. Although it may be perfectly open to the manufacturer and the supplier of machinery to enter into an arrangement of this kind, if it is not contrary to public policy and thought to be for the convenience of the two parties, yet it is wholly wrong that the manufacturer should use his position as a patentee and say, "You cannot have the advantage of my patented machinery unless you come under terms of this description." It is a matter on which I feel strongly, and I shall have to ask the opinion of your Lordships' House upon it by taking a Division.
I have studied rather carefully what is called the "tied-up" system of leasing shoe manufacture machinery put forward by a manufacturing company which seeks to impose this tied lease. They say—and it is very remarkable as evidence for the action they have taken—that they have 400 machines which they manufacture, and that this tied-up lease system only affects 150 of them. Just conceive, as regards the boot manufacture in this country, there are 150 machines which are necessary for carrying on the manufacture at a commercial profit, which no shoemaker can use unless he comes under conditions to which I have called attention. Think what this really means. A monopoly right, as regards the patentee, was given in contravention of the Ordinary Statute Law and Common Law, and at the same time that this monopoly right was given an extension of it was carefully laid down and defined by the Legislature itself. It is defined in this way, that you cannot use a monopoly or patented article without the assent of the patentee, or coming to terms with him as to the amount you have to pay. Can it be legitimate to add to that the additional monopoly right, or claim that not only are you not to use it without his consent, but unless you use a patented article according to the terms of the tied lease you shall not use it at all. And this is given for all time; not only for the duration of the patent, but far beyond that, extending the monopoly not only as regards the area but also as regards time.
This is not a new matter. It has been discussed for a good many years. It is

615
necessary to call your Lordships' attention to what happened when the Act was passed in 1907. When that Act was introduced there was in it Section 38, which prohibited any conditions of this kind being attached to the sale of a patented article. The section reads—
"It shall not be lawful in any contract made after the passing of this Act in relation to the sale or lease of, or license to use or work, any article or process protected by a patent to insert a condition the effect of which will be—

(a) to prohibit or restrict the purchaser, lessee, or licensee front using any article or class of artices, whether patented or not, or any patented process, supplied or owned by any person other than the seller, lessor, or licensor or his nominees."

In other words, you were only to use your monopoly grant to protect your monopoly on the terms which the Legislature laid down. It also was illegal—

(b) to require the purchaser, lessee, or licensee to acquire from the seller, lessor, or licensor, or his nominees any article or class of articles not protected by the patent."

This is what the Act of 1907 said, as introduced; and it passed the House of Commons in that form. If it had stopped there it would not have been necessary to have addressed your Lordships at the present time.
Subsequently, in your Lordships' House, two provisoes were introduced; and it is because of the duration of these provisoes that the people interested in these financial trust companies have been enabled, in my opinion, really to undo what was intended—namely, that the monopoly right should not extend beyond the terms of the monopoly grant. The provisoes, which I think were unfortunate, were these—
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply if—

(i) the seller, lessor, or licensor proves that at the time the contract was entered into the purchaser, lessee, or licensee, had the option of purchasing the article or obtaining a lease or licence on reasonable terms, without such conditions as aforesaid."

Really that has been found to be little better than camouflage. An agreement of this kind may be reasonable in itself, yet it may be so framed as to be impossible for the manufacturer to take advantage of it as against the tied lease. The second proviso reads—
616
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply if—

(ii) The contract entitles the purchase, or lessee, or licensee to relieve himself of his liability to observe any such condition on giving the other party three months' notice in writing and on payment in compensation for such relief in the case of a purchase of such sum, or in the case of a lease or licence of such rent, or royalty for the residue of the term of the contract, as may be fixed by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade."

How does that work out in practice? There has been only one case, in which the question involved was with regard to an article costing £40. The question of compensation was raised because it was in the interest of people who want this tied lease to make the conditions as burdensome as possible. There were compensation proceedings before an arbitrator, and they cost £430. Therefore, the manufacturer who wanted to rid himself of the terms of the tied lease by paying compensation found himself forced to pay a sum of £430 in respect of machinery the total value of which was only £40. It is one of the illustrations which show that the more you introduce litigation into Acts of this kind the greater is the hardship against the comparatively poor man; and this, as I said before, is one of the factors which appear to me to be a great hardship in the present Bill. Why should you have a proviso of that kind? If the word "unfairly" is excluded here I shall be called upon in a subsequent Amendment to repeal these provisoes. The matter will arise in the schedule of the Bill, because already Section 38 is proposed to be amended in the schedule. I do not want, however, to go into technical matters of that kind, here. I am dealing with the general principle, whether a trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, ought to be prejudiced by conditions of this kind, such as are introduced into these tied leases. Are you going to extend the monopoly right by giving protection of conditions of that kind? That is a point which you have to decide and which your Lordships cannot escape deciding on the present occasion.
I am bound to admit that there seems to be no answer to the proposition as I put it. Let the monopoly grant be protected in the way the Legislature has already done—namely, that no one shall then sell or use articles without the permission

617
of the patentee, but do not add to the monopoly grant clauses of this kind which ought not to be added and which the Legislature has not sanctioned. That is the reason why I propose that the word "unfairly" should be left out. I hope that I have made my point clear. It is rather complicated and difficult, but I think it is a matter of the first importance, and I move that the word "unfairly" be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("unfairly").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MOULTON: The question before your Lordships is whether the word "prejudice" should stand unqualified, or whether it should be "unfairly prejudiced." The noble and learned Lord has appealed to your sympathy by reference perpetually to cases where, I may say frankly, I should think that the industry was unfairly prejudiced. That is not the way to decide a question of this kind. If the clause says that no trade is to be prejudiced a man might bring an action against a rival manufacturer of we will say a patent threshing machine, because the rival charged one-third of the royalty that his opponent did, and a royalty lower than the opponent could afford to charge.
LORD PARMOOR: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for a moment? That really is not so under my Amendment. That is a question of the royalties charge. It is a condition attached which I dealt with.
LORD MOULTON: One of the conditions is the royalty that is to be paid; but I could think of a condition as to the use of a patent which would similarly be perfectly fair, which any man possessing non-patented articles could fairly attach to the use of those articles which he let out, but which would seriously prejudice de facto the trade of the rival. What the word "unfairly" is put in for is to intimate that there must be something which steps out from the legitimate competition with another article. I will show your Lordships in a minute how complete is the protection against all the evils that the noble and learned Lord has referred to; but what I mostly rely upon is this: I have not to appeal to any individual cases of which I may know, and which I might
618
ask your Lordships to accept upon my assurance, but upon the general principles of legislation the word "prejudice" could not justly have a meaning which would not leave the element of unfairness. In a case like this, where we are interfering with the grant which the patentee has received from the Crown, it surely is our duty to say that all he has to take care is to impose no unfair condition—that he has not to consider whether his conditions are so liberal that they hurt a neighbour; that provided there is nothing unfair in it, there is no reason why the law should interfere.
I heard my learned friend talk about the poor man who is crushed by these conditions for the hire of machines, and from my noble and learned friend's language it is obvious to which company he refers. The crime of that company was that it came to the assistance of the poor man, and that in a great revolution in the system of manufacture it enabled the poor man to use at once, on reasonable terms, plant which he would have had no chance of obtaining on his own capital. The attack never came from the poor man, and in my whole experience I never knew a revolution like that, involving expensive machinery for a whole industry, come about so rapidly and on such reasonable terms. I do agree that, we have to take care that others cannot follow the same lines and do injustice by it. The particular company so far from doing injustice was extremely popular with those who took the benefit of its leases, but restrictive covenants have got to be most carefully watched.
Just consider how in the Act of 1907 this was done. I know of no striking cases that have come up since the 1907 Act. You were allowed to insert a condition "to prohibit or restrict the purchaser, lessee, or licensee from using any article or class of articles, whether patented or not, or any patented process, supplied or owned by any person other than the seller, lessor, or licensor or his nominees." You are not allowed to say, "You must treat with me alone." Further than that, you are not allowed to require the purchaser or licensee to acquire any article or class of articles not protected by the patent from the patentee. You could not tie him down to come to you. You could not tie him down to use your own special machinery. Those two, which are the conditions of restriction

619
to which my learned friend has referred, were deliberately forbidden, but there was a proviso, and the proviso I believe due to your Lordships' House. I will call your Lordships' attention to it, because it seems to me to go in the direction of the greatest freedom compatible with complete protection.
These permissions to attach conditions of any kind were subject to this, that the patentee had to prove that the man had at the time the opportunity of getting the machinery on reasonable terms without the conditions; in other words, it was worth his while taking the conditions although he could not have got the machinery on reasonable terms without them. What is more, if after that he repented he had the power to give three months notice in writing and get rid of the conditions, paying only such compensation as an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade thought fair for getting rid of them. It had to be shown that he could get the thing without conditions, and if he repented he could take the equivalent of the conditions, fixed by an independent authority, and so free himself. With that protection how can it be said there was any possibility of injustice.
I quite agree that there ought to be freedom in the use of patented articles; that is, that you ought to be able to get a patented article on fair terms. But that is protected by Article 38. The person who wants a special contract has to show that the public can get the article without the special contract, but if the terms of the special contract are so much better that the people would prefer them and prefer to remain under them, then it seems to me to be a perfectly unjustifiable interference with the liberty of dealing with your own property that the public should not be allowed the choice. I therefore think that the protection which your Lordships' House gave in the 1907 Act is perfectly adequate.
Let me go back to the real point that we are on now. Are we to say "unfairly prejudiced" or merely "prejudiced"? Surely with these protections, if we are going further to interfere with the liberty of commerce and competition, it ought to be because the conditions that are sought to be imposed do an unfair prejudice to someone who, like all the rest of the English nation, is entitled to pursue his own trade. Merely to say that it prejudices
620
a trade appears to me to be a latitude of expression which would lead to very serious injustice. Therefore I advise your Lordships most earnestly to leave it as it has come to us from the Commons, so that this shall only apply when there is unfair prejudice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The criticism of the Amendment to which we have just listened I confess appears to me to be shattering in its force, and still more so when it is recalled that the noble and learned Lord to whose argument the House has just had the opportunity of listening has, I suppose, conducted about ten times as many important patent cases as any advocate now at the Bar or any Judge now upon the Bench, and the Government are very fortunate indeed to have one of his high authority assent to the view taken by them of the form in which this clause is drafted. In my view his argument, founded upon the principal Act and upon the earlier Act, seems to be of overwhelming weight. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord who moved this Amendment had observed that on page 21 of the Schedule the addition made to subsection (1) of Section 3—
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, but I did not deal with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not without its bearing in this connection. It says in proceedings under this Act, "no person shall be estopped from applying for or obtaining relief by reason of any admission made by him as to the reasonableness of the terms offered to him under subsection (1) (i)." That is a provision. I say, which has some bearing even if the case put forward by the noble and learned Lord had as much substance as in my judgment, if I may say so without offence to him, it has little substance. His Amendment is most unhappily chosen to carry out his own particular purpose.
As the last speaker pointed out, the effect of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is to broaden the provisions of this clause to a degree which the Government does not contemplate, and to which it certainly will not be a party. As your Lordships have been told, the object of this subsection is to enumerate the cases in which the monopoly rights under a patent shall be deemed to have been abused, and it is a serious thing to lay it down

621
artificially that the monopoly rights of a patent shall be deemed to be abused except on real and substantial grounds, each of which can be defined in relation to its own merits.
If the Amendment were adopted the cases of the abuse of a patent under subsection (e) would be enormously and most dangerously widened. No one could support such a state of affairs. I could easily conceive many cases in which it might be contended, perhaps successfully, that there was prejudice, but in which it would be most unreasonable to argue that there was an abuse. Take the simple case of fountain pens. This is not a matter on which I can speak with authority, but to give an illustration there are, I believe, cases in which a special pen is sold only on condition that a certain ink shall be used in it, the justification of that stipulation being that mechanically no other ink could be used in it. Undoubtedly that would be prejudicial to other sellers of ink, but to say that it would be an unfair prejudice and an abuse of a patent would be most unreasonable. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord who moved this Amendment appreciated that the very words to which he objects are borrowed from two earlier Acts, and have worked with the utmost success—and in a very similar context—not, I agree, an identical context—
LORD PARMOOR: Not identical.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But in every relevant particular the same, as I will satisfy the noble Lord. In Section 24 (5) of the principal Act the following provision is contained—
"For the purposes of this section the reasonable requirements of the public shall not be deemed to have been satisfied.…"
And then you get a numerical statement under four or five heads, precisely as you get in this Bill a numerical statement under four or five heads, of the circumstances under which an abuse shall be unfair. So that the case is precisely identical, with the single and unimportant variation to which I have called attention. Under Sub-section 5 (b) you get the following provision—
"If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom is unfairly prejudiced …"
622
the very same words—
"by the conditions attached by the patentee before or after the passing of this Act to the purchase, hire, or use of the patented article or to the using or working of the patented process."
And if the word "unfairly" had been omitted there that subsection would have been just as dangerously wide as this clause in the opinion of the Government would have been dangerously wide if the word "unfairly" were omitted here. The noble and learned Lord indicated his intention of dividing your Lordships on this Amendment. He is, of course, absolutely entitled to test his opinion in the Division Lobby but I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend is far too experienced a Member of Parliament, both in the other House and in this House, to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, unless he is satisfied that his proposal has some substantial measure of convinced support.
LORD PARMOOR: As regards what has been said by the noble Lord on the Woolsack, one is perfectly familiar with the argument he has used, to which I cannot assent. The argument used is—Give a trust company or a large financial corporation powers of this kind and they will use them beneficially for the purpose of traders, particularly small traders. I entirely dissent from that. I entirely dissent from the proposition, and from the inferences which are drawn from it, but that is a matter of general discussion, and I need not re-open it. My argument was within much narrower bounds than that, and to that argument no answer at all has been given. My argument was this, That if you grant a monopoly right under legislative powers you ought not to allow any patentee to use that monopoly right for indirect and other purposes. That was the basis of my argument, and, as far as I can see, no answer whatever has been supplied, and it is on that ground that I shall certainly seek to divide. Are you going to extend the monopoly granted against the trade of this country or not? That is the wide question, and the only question, to my mind, which is involved in this matter.
There are two other points which I think ought to be mentioned. I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord that by putting restrictions on the use which a patentee may make of his monopoly right, and limiting them to the area of his patent grant, you interfere with what he

623
called free contract at all. I say you interfere with free contract by allowing a person who has monopoly rights to make a contract dealing with those monopoly rights because he holds them. There is not the slightest reason why this philanthropic contract to which my noble and learned friend referred should not be carried out under principles of free contract. The only argument is that you must not use the monopoly right to enforce terms to which otherwise traders would not submit, which is a very different proposition.
One thing I might say with reference to what the Lord Chancellor has said. What we are dealing with here is the use of patent right for the prejudice of traders or manufacturers in the purchase, hire, licence, or use of the patented article. Surely, that ought not to be allowed at all. "Unfairly" there is not introduced in the way of ordinary limitation. It is not limited enough. Are you going to allow these patent rights to be used in order that the person who has them shall attach conditions to the purchase, hire, or licence of the patented article which are prejudicial to the industry of the United Kingdom? I regret that I have not got terms of the 1882 Act, to which the Lord Chancellor referred, before me, and I am not sure whether that section is any longer in force. My idea was that it had been repealed by the 1907 Act, and repealed by the 1907 Act certainly in terms by the provisions to which I referred, and which were quoted by the noble and learned Lord. But those provisions are not sufficient. Those provisions enabled any holder of patent right practically to enforce these conditions. It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord to say that you have an alternative. You have not got a practical alternative. If a man has got four machines—patented machines I presume—and if you want to use one of them—any person has a right to use them merely under the terms of the patent grant—you are told you are not to use it or the other machines unless you have certain terms attached to them. You do not have the free choice, and you cannot have the free choice, and that is what the manufacturers feel. I am sorry on this point to differ from the noble and learned Lord, but I have also had some experience in these patent matters, and I am bound to say I take an entirely contrary position from him.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (3) (b) to leave out "A licensee under this paragraph shall be entitled to call upon the patentee to take proceedings to prevent infringement of the patent, and if the patentee refuses, or neglects to do so within two months after being so called upon, the licensee may institute proceedings for infringement in his own name as though he were the patentee, making the patentee a defendant."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is another matter which I want to bring to your Lordships' notice, because it appears to me it is one of the provisions in the Bill which presses harshly and unduly upon the inventor. If an inventor likes to grant an exclusive licence, of course, the person who holds the exclusive licence can take proceedings to prevent infringement of the patent, and also a licence may be granted in terms by the patentee, which gives the licensee a right to take steps to prevent the infringement of the patent. But this clause goes much further. It says that a licensee shall be entitled to call upon a patentee to take proceedings to prevent infringement. Surely that is very hard as regards the patentee himself. No doubt the patentee can be made a party to the proceedings, because he can be put in the position of a defendant. At the same time the position is that a licensee, who has not got exclusive rights and whom the patentee has not given a claim to bring an action in his name, can bring an action for an infringement (whether the patentee himself thinks it a right case or not), by merely adding the patentee as a defendant. I myself do not profess to think that this matter is of the same importance as the last revision, but I think it is very hard on the patentee that this power should be given. However, I am open to hear what is to be said upon it in support of the proposal.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, to leave out from ("importation") to the end of the paragraph.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MOULTON: Without a very short explanation this will be unintelligible to your Lordships, because it is purely a concession to the scruples of our Law Courts. It is proposed to give a licensee the power of defending his rights by bringing an action against an infringer; but by the law no one but the patentee can bring the action. The consequence is that the patentee is a necessary party to the

625
action, and it is a rule of the Courts that all necessary parties to the action must be present. The result is that the licensee is allowed to bring in the patentee, but he cannot bring him in as a plaintiff so he is allowed to add his name as a defendant. Adding him as a defendant is a merely formal thing; and in order to render that clear I propose that there should be inserted, at the end of the paragraph which is objected to, these words: "A patentee who shall be added as defendant shall not be liable for any costs unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings. Service upon him may be effected by leaving the writ at the Patent Office." In other words, he is a formal party. He is not liable for costs; he need take no part in the matter; and, as he probably will be resident abroad, I suggest that merely leaving the writ for him at the Patent Office will be a proper provision. If the Courts would allow it, I think the best form would be to say that in such a case the patentee need not be a party to the action, but that would clash with the Rules of Law. I think my Amendment would remove all the difficulties that prompted my noble and learned friend to move his Amendment, and if his Amendment is rejected and mine substituted for it, I believe a satisfactory solution would be reached.
LORD PARMOOR: This would quite meet my view if the words are likely to be added.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must confess that the intervention of my noble and learned friend (Lord Moulton) to-night in the debate is far more agreeable than it was last night. I would make this further observation, that I will certainly adopt his Amendment for the purposes of the Committee stage, guarding myself only in this respect that it may be that, between this stage and the Report stage, it might be proper to consider whether some discretion as to costs may be proper in a case where the patentee himself had, in the opinion of the Court, been guilty of some impropriety. The noble and learned Lord will be more familiar than I am with this kind of case, and he will no doubt between now and the Report stage apply his mind, as I will apply my mind, to that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, insert ("A patentee who shall be added as defendant shall not be liable for any costs unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings. Service upon him may be effected by leaving the writ at the Patent Office."—(Lord Moulton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to omit paragraph (d) of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: Section 27 of the principal Act, which is, being replaced by the new clause 27 now under discussion, is a very much shorter section, and its marginal note is "Revocation of Patent." Therefore the principle of revocation exists in the present law. At the same time, this new clause provides for new procedure. In paragraph (a) it provides for licences of right; in paragraph (b) it provides for the grant of an exclusive licence in certain cases; and in paragraph (c) it provides that in case an invention is not being worked owing to-shortage of capital an order may be made to grant to an applicant and to other people jointly with him (provided they find the money) an exclusive licence. Then it goes on in paragraph (d)—the omission of which I ant moving—to say that if the Controller is satisfied that the objects of the section cannot be obtained by the exercise of any of the foregoing powers he may order the patent to be revoked.
I should like to ask what cases of any importance are not covered by (a), (b), and (c)? If all the conceivable cases are covered by (a), (b), and (e), I suggest that paragraph (d) is not wanted. I think it is a mistake to revoke licences unless there is a very strong ground for doing so, and some cases can be named in which it might be an injustice. Sometimes there are a number of patents giving alternative methods of producing the same article, or having the same effect, all of which have been patented by the same man; one of which is being worked and the article is being produced, but the others are not being worked. If one that is not being worked is revoked, the value of the other patents that are being worked goes at the same time. That, I think, would be an injustice. This is not a very important point, but I should like to know why the power of revocation should be retained in this new Clause 27, and whether paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) do not cover any possible cases which can be brought.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 3 to 16, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Emmott.)
LORD MOULTON: This is a question on which I would advise the House to take the view of those who are accustomed to administer the jurisdictions under this Act. It is a question as to whether the provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) will in all cases be adequate to remedy abuses. It is needless to say that all remedies that have suggested themselves as applicable are specifically referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), but, ex abundanti cautela, the framers of the Bill have said that if there is a case in which these fail to remdy abuse it does not add at all to the list of things for which the remedies in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are to be used—but if they fail, there should, at the last, be a discretion in the Comptroller to go so far as to revoke the patent. I cannot think of any classes in which paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would not be sufficient or I should advise that that class should be specifically dealt with; but, seeing that it is only a discretionary power, I think your Lordships would be quite safe in leaving it in the hands of a tribunal which is sure to be reluctant to exercise it, in order that, if such a case arises, they might have the power. It is a matter on which, speaking for myself, I should follow the view expressed in the Bill, not (as the last speaker has said) regarding it as a very important matter, but as a reasonable precaution in case there should be something which could not be dealt with otherwise.
LORD PARMOOR: Before the Lord Chancellor answers, I may say that I have an Amendment down in similar terms to that of the noble Lord for the omission of paragraph (d). I agree with him that it is not a matter of first-rate importance, but my view that he is right has been confirmed, I think, by what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Moulton. Lord Moulton with all his experience, says that he is satisfied that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) cover all cases that you can foresee. I do not say that you can always foresee everything. Undoubtedly, the matter has been very carefully considered, and so far as I have read the paragraphs through, they appear to be exhaustive.
Then he says, Why not add this power
628
of giving what is a discretion to the Comptroller? I think the answer to that is very strong. If you have really provided for everything in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) it is a very drastic matter for any one to have his patent revoked. He has been given his grant for a period of time, whatever it may be; he has got his statutory right during that period; and I do not think that revocation ought to be at the discretion of any one, unless there is some real cause shown that there are probable cases in which the revocation might be useful and might be utilised. That is one of the provisions of the Bill which I think tell hardly, certainly against the inventor. Why, if he is subjected to the penalties and provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), should he also be subjected to the risk of revocation? It is a serious matter for him. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that no ground has been shown for its retention, and I think the noble and learned Lord gave strong grounds to the contrary.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: As an inventor and patentee—I have taken out eight patents this year, and I mean to take out the same number every year—I think there is no necessity for the paragraph. The previous paragraphs have already provided for everything that is necessary, and to give such a power of revocation without some special reason for it, seems to me to be penalising the inventor unnecessarily. I should, therefore, support the omission of the paragraph. It might—I do not say it would—lead to evils which are not apparent on the face of it.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): I am very glad to have the powerful support of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Moulton) against this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said he desires to leave the matter in the discretion of the officials as it is now. The argument of my noble friend Lord Emmott was this. He said, "You have provided in the earlier portions of the clause different remedies for the different mischiefs that might arise as regards the non-use of patents; you have provided in certain cases for 'licences of right'; and you have provided in certain cases that exclusive licences should be granted; what other cases are there left for which provision should be made by the

629
more severe remedy of the revocation of the patent?"
Before I say a word on that subject may I point out what is the history of the clause? Before the clause appeared in this Bill the Comptroller bad only one remedy—that is to say, he could revoke the patent. These other provisions are inserted in order that the milder remedies may be used in these cases of difficulty. Now my noble and learned friend wants to cut away the remedy of revocation, which was the only remedy before the Bill was brought in. I submit that it would be unwise to cut away this old remedy.
My noble friend asks, What are the cases which are not met in paragraphs (a) (b), and (c) but which could be met in (d)? I think there are such cases. May I give an example of the kind that I mean? Suppose you have a German who has a patent which he does not want to work and does not want to say very much about, because there is another patent dealing with the same matter, in which he is interested and which is bringing him in a certain amount of money. You are there, by the English law, protecting this patent. Certain remedies are provided in the way of giving an exclusive licence to other people. What has this particular German done in this case? He really has made use of the laws of this country to conspire against the advancement of trade in this country by deliberately preventing an advantageous patent from being worked.
If this case is brought before the Comptroller, why should this man get the advantage of having money paid him for licences granted under this patent? Is it not really a case of the abuse of monopoly and of the abuse of the rights which he is granted under the law? Is it not fair, in cases of that class, not merely to give some particular person or persons the right over payments to this man for working the patent, but to say, "You really have abused your right under the Patent Law, and we are going to revoke the patent." I submit that in cases of that kind, and in other cases which no doubt will occur to your Lordships, that the right should be retained.
May I read the first words of the paragraph—
"If the comptroller is satisfied that the objects of this section cannot be attained by the exercise of the foregoing powers. …"
630
Therefore, before use of the extreme remedy is made, he has to satisfy himself that none of the previous remedies can meet the case. That, I submit, is sufficient protection against any sort of arbitrary use of this power of revocation on the part of the Comptroller.
LORD PARMOOR: In answer to the noble Viscount I should like to say that revocation at the present time is not applicable to these matters which are called the "abuse of monopoly" under this Bill. Of course, there are terms on which patents can be revoked. They are well known and very special, but they are not as regards the abuse of monopoly right with which we are dealing here. It would be quite novel as regards these matters.
LORD EMMOTT: I must confess I am not at all convinced by the arguments used against the Amendment. No real case has been brought forward, with all due deference to the noble Viscount, who instanced two patented articles, one being used and the other not being used. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) you have ample powers of dealing with that case, and you would not need the power of revocation which would never be used. The reason I brought it forward is this. The Bill is said to be an attempt to help poor inventors. What is there in the Bill which does that? If the power of revocation is not really required I maintain that it should be struck out. If it is required, let it be kept in; but no case has been made out that it is required.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Surely the last observation made by Lord Peel ought to have dispersed any apprehensions in the mind of the noble Lord. My noble friend called attention to the fact that there is nothing to which this sub-section can apply, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Moulton, also called attention to the fact that all human ingenuity, when exercised, is both fallible and incomplete. Nothing is a more common thing in our experience than that cases have been overlooked. The long series of supplementary legislation which has been passed is full of cases where some one has failed to foresee a contingency which nevertheless soon happened. This subsection cannot operate unless such cases arise.
LORD EMMOTT: it is a bureaucratic remedy; and I hate bureaucracy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Had the noble Lord put his argument in that form, which apparently is the real one, my noble friend would have addressed different arguments to your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3) (e), to leave out "he may refuse" and to insert "under the above provisions of this section he may make an order refusing." The noble and learned Lord said: This is merely a formal Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("he may refuse") and insert ("under the above provisions of this section he may make an order refusing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "may if he thinks it fair and equitable" and to insert "shall." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment which I have put down in the hope of protecting the inventor. The words of the subsection are: "but on granting an exclusive licence the Comptroller may, if he thinks it fair and equitable, make it a condition that the licensee shall get proper compensation." I think in all cases where an exclusive licence is granted proper compensation, fixed by the Comptroller, ought to be given. It should not be a matter within his discretion. The words "fair and equitable" leave it in his discretion. I do not see what discretion there ought to be. An exclusive licence is granted and proper compensation should be given. The words amount, after all, to the outlook of a particular person, whereas under circumstances of this kind a patentee ought to be protected and ought to have proper compensation.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("may if he thinks it fair and equitable") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MOULTON: I hope that these words will be left in. If a patentee uses his patent for the purposes of hindering trade and brings this penalty upon himself by his misbehaviour, I cannot see why you must pay him all he has expended in making his invention, of which he refused
632
to allow the State to have the benefit. I quite agree that fair and equitable compensation should be given, but to say that it must automatically be given, when it is a case of punishment for misuse of the special rights he has been given would, I think, be a very grave blot on the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I could not add a single word to the admirable statement of the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Moulton) why it is not possible to accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: Where I think Lord Moulton is wrong is that he seems to assume that the grant of an exclusive licence is in the nature of a penalty. It need not be so at all. I shall not press the matter to a Division against the views expressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (8), to leave out "on" [appearing on the Register"] and to insert "from." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("on) and insert ("from").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (11), after "section," to insert "or made on an application to amend the specification." The noble and learned Lord said: The effect of the Amendment is to make an appeal from the Comptroller go before the Court and not before the Law Officers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would it save time if I pointed out to the noble and learned Lord that this Amendment has no reference to the matters dealt with in this clause? If he will look at Section 21 of the Act of 1907 he will see that it deals with the amendment of specifications, and an appeal is provided in that section to the Law Officers. If he desires to change this appeal to the Court, an amendment should be made at a later stage.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble and learned Lord is right, and I will reserve the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provision, as to patents endorsed "licences of right."
2. For section twenty-four of the principal Act the following section shall be substituted:—
"24.—(1) At ally time after the sealing of a-patent the comptroller shall, if the patentee so requests, cause the patent to be indorsed with the words 'licences of right,' and a corresponding entry to be made in the register, and thereupon—

(a) any person shall at any time thereafter be entitled as of right to a licence under the patent upon such terms as, in default of agreement, may be settled by the comptroller on the application of either the patentee or the applicant:

Provided that any licence the terms of which are settled by agreement shall be deemed, unless otherwise expressly provided, to include the terms and conditions specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection as if they had been imposed by the comptroller thereunder in like manner as if the terms had been settled by the comptroller:

(b) in settling the terms of any such licence the comptroller shall be guided by the following considerations—

(i) he shall, on the one hand, endeavour to secure the widest possible user of the invention in the United Kingdom consistent with the patentee deriving a reasonable advantage from his patent rights;

(ii) he shall, on the other hand, endeavour to secure to the patentee the maximum advantage consistent with the invention being worked by the licensee at a reasonable profit in the United Kingdom;

(iii) he shall also endeavour to secure equality of advantage among the several licensees, and for this purpose may, on due cause being shown, reduce the royalties or other payments accruing to the patentee under any licence previously granted:

Provided that in considering the question of equality of advantage the comptroller shall take into account any work done or outlay incurred by any previous licensee with a view to testing the commercial value of the invention or to securing the working thereof on a commercial scale in the United Kingdom:

(c) any such licence the terms of which are settled by the comptroller may be so framed as to preclude the licensee from importing into the United Kingdom any goods the importation of which, if made by persons other than the patentee or those claiming under him, would be an infringement of the patent, and in such a case the patentee and ail licensees under the patent shall be deemed to have mutually covenanted against such importation:

634

(d) every such licensee shall be entitled to call upon a patentee to take proceedings to prevent the infringement, of the patent, and it the patentee refuses, or neglects to do so within two months after being so called upon, the licensee may institute proceedings for the infringement in his own name, as though he were patentee making the patentee a defendant:

(e) if in any action for infringement of a patent so indorsed the infringing defendant is ready and willing to take a licence upon terms to be settled by the comptroller no injunction against him shall he awarded, and the amount recoverable against him by way of damages (if any) shall not exceed double the amount which would have been recoverable against him as licensee if the licence had been dated prior to the earliest infringement:

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply where the infringement consists of the importation of infringing goods:

(f) the renewal fees payable by the patentee of a patent so indorsed shall as front the date of the indorsement be one moiety only of the fees which would otherwise have been payable.

(2) The comptroller shall, before acting on any request to indorse a patent made by the patentee under this section, advertise such request in the Illustrated Official Journal (Patents), and shall satisfy himself that the patentee is not precluded by contract from making such request, and for that purpose shall require from the patentee such evidence, by statutory declaration or otherwise, as he may deem necessary:
Provided that, a patentee shall not be deemed to be so precluded by reason only of his having granted a licence under the patent where the licence does not limit his right to grant other licences.
(3) Any person alleging that a request under this section has been made contrary to some contract, in which he is interested may apply to the comptroller within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and the comptroller, if satisfied of the truth of such allegation, shall refuse to indorse the patent pursuant to the request or shall cause the indorsement, if already made, to be cancelled.
Any order under this subsection shall be subject to appeal to the court.
(4) All indorsements of patents under this section shall be entered on the register of patents and shall be published in the official journal of the Patent Office, and in such other manner as to the comptroller may seem desirable for the purpose of bringing the invention to the notice of manufacturers.
(5) If at any time it appears that in the case of a patent so indorsed there is no existing licence the comptroller may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the patentee and of payment by him of the unpaid moiety of all renewal fees which have become due since the indorsement, after due notice cancel the indorsement, and in that case the patentee's rights and liabilities shall be the same as if no such indorsement had been made."
Lord Parmoor Lord Parmoor had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out paragraph (d) of subsection (1). The noble and learned Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment. But I should like the same words introduced here to protect the patentee against costs inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, at end, insert ("A patentee who shall be added as a defendant shall not be liable for any costs unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings. Service upon him may be effected by leaving the writ at the Patents Office").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "Official Journal of the Patents Office" and to insert "Illustrated Official Journal (Patents)." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a verbal Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 5, leave out ("Official Journal of the Patent Office") and insert ("Illustrated Official Journal (Patents)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "of" ["and of payment"] and to insert "on." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a verbal Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out the second ("of") and insert ("on'').—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment of s. 11 of principal Act as to opposition to grant of patent.
4. For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section eleven of the principal Act, which relates to the opposition to grants of patents, the following paragraphs shall be substituted:—
"(b) that the invention has been published in any complete specification or in any provisional specification followed by a complete specification deposited pursuant to any application made in the United Kingdom within fifty years
636
next before the date of the application for the patent the grant of which is being opposed, Or in any document (other than a British specification) published in the United Kingdom prior to the application; or
"(bb) that the invention has been claimed in any compete specification for a British patent which though not published at the date of the application for a patent the grant of which is opposed will be of prior date to such patent; or"
and after paragraph (d) of the same subsection the following paragraph shall be inserted—
"(e) that in the case of an application under section ninety-one of this Act a specification describes or claims an invention other than that for which protection has been applied for in a foreign state or British possession and that such other invention forms the subject of an application made by the opponent in the interval between the leaving of the application in the foreign state or British possession and the leaving of the application in the United Kingdom."
LORD MOULTON LORD MOULTON rose to move an Amendment which was not on the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If this is one of the Amendments of which the noble and learned Lord spoke to me I propose to accept it, if he will say a word or two in explanation.
LORD MOULTON: If your Lordships will look at Clause 4, paragraph (b), you will see that it is proposed to extend the material that may be brought before the Patent Office before a patent is granted. Up to this time it has been restricted, I believe, to specifications of patents actually granted in the United Kingdom. It is thought that that is making them do their work in blinkers, and that that which has been "published" in the United Kingdom should be capable of being brought by the opposers before the Patent Office, in order that they may not grant a patent which as soon as it is challenged in Court will be declared to be invalid. It will put a great deal more work on the Office, but I think it is a very wise concession on their part. I have, however, an observation to make on the language which they have adopted.
This clause says that for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the principal Act the following paragraph shall be substituted: "(b) that the invention has been published in any complete specification or in any provisional specification

637
followed by a complete specification deposited pursuant to any application made in the United Kingdom Within fifty years next before the date of the application for the patent the grant of which is being opposed, or in any document (other than a British specification) published in the United Kingdom prior to the application." That sounds quite right. If it is in a document published in the United Kingdom it will be fatal to the patent and therefore ought to be a ground of opposition.
But the framers of the clause have forgotten the extraordinary meaning that is given in our Courts to the word "published." A private letter from one person to another is a publication. It would be a publication of a libel, and it would be a publication of an invention, and it is clear that we do not want to put upon the Patent Office the task of going into an investigation as to whether a certain document was actually in existence at a certain date. What is meant is what in the common parlance is styled "publication." I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with the Solicitor-General, who has charge of the drafting of this Bill, and he quite agrees that leaving the word "published" alone would be unwise, and he suggests that after the word "or" should be inserted the words "has been made available to the public by publication in any document." I think that will accomplish the object of the clause much more satisfactorily, and I move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, after ("or") insert ("has been made available to the public by publication").—(Lord Moulton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, at the beginning insert ("or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Terms of patent.
6.—(1) The term limiting the duration of patents shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen years, and accordingly in subsection (1) of section seventeen of the principal Act, for the word "fourteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen."
(2) Any patent the original term of which had not expired at the elate of the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if the term mentioned therein was sixteen years instead of fourteen years, subject to the following conditions:—

(a) any licence existing at that date which has been granted for the term of patent shall be treated as having been granted for the term as so extended if the licensee so desires;

(b) if the patent would apart from this section have expired on or before the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty, the patent shall during the period of extension be subject to all the provisions by this Act substituted for section twenty-four of the principal Act (except subsection (5) thereof) as if the patent had been endorsed "licences as of right."

(3) Where any party to a contract with the patentee or any other person entered into before the nineteenth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen, is subjected to loss or liability by reason of the extension of the term of any patent under the provisions of this section, the court shall have power to determine in what manner and by which parties such loss or liability shall be borne.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1), after "The term limiting the duration of patents shall," to insert "be calculated from the date of the patent grant and shall". The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter which is perhaps not of first rate importance, but I think it will be a distinct improvement on the existing law. The object of my amendment is this: At the present time the patent grant dates from the time of the application. Now, there is very often a long period between the application and the grant, sometimes amounting to nearly a year, and in many cases to a considerable number of months, and of course nothing can be done really until the patent grant has been obtained. I suggest that the patent grant is a much more certain date to take than the date of the application for a patent. I do not think it is a matter of first rate importance, but I hope that the Amendment may be considered. Of course the effect would be to give a rather longer term than if it were calculated from the date of the application, but I do not think myself that the extension from fourteen to sixteen years is any too much, although in substance you get

639
nearly another year between the date of the application and the grant of the patent. A great many people have called my attention to this matter, and it is my experience that you get a better and more certain date if you take the date of the grant and not the date of the application.
Amendment moved.
Page 10, line 26, after ("shall") insert ("be calculated from the date of the patent grant and shall").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MOULTON: I am very sorry so frequently to differ from my noble and learned friend, for whose opinion I have such great esteem, but I think this is a matter of grave importance. If you want to increase the period of a patent do it by increasing the length of the grant, as it is proposed to do in this Bill, but it is most important that the date of that grant should not be capable of being altered by the way in which proceedings are carried on in order to obtain the patent. That is the first evil of the American system.
Let me tell your Lordships a case that I know of. There was a very great invention made. It was discovered that, although it was quite a novel invention in one respect, it infringed an obscure invention that was ante-dated. So long as that patent remained unrevoked of course the owners of it charged royalty. The proceedings for getting the grant of the second patent, although I believe the application dated only a year afterwards, were prolonged for seventeen years, and then when the first patent had expired the second patent matured to a grant, and they practically, therefore, by delaying the proceedings, gave a monopoly of thirty-four years. I know of my own knowledge two patents, one of 1904 and the other of 1905, in which the interference proceedings are not yet finished. No person dare use the invention because some day the grant will be made, and the infringing articles cannot be used. It is of the greatest importance, and it is the interest of everybody, that the proceedings should not be prolonged, and seeing that in these proceedings it is the patentee who is the mover, nothing will make him show the diligence that he should show so much as the knowledge that it will be of benefit to him to get the grant earlier. If you wish to increase the length of his grant do it, but do not change the date.
640
Let it be from the date on which the application is made—the date which is ultimately attached to the grant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.: I find myself, as usual in this matter, in such complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that it is only necessary for me to point out, what indeed he has already said more elaborately, that the Amendment would have the effect of prolonging the period of the patent for such time as is consumed by the applicants in obtaining the grant of their patent. It is already proposed, as is well known, by this Bill to extend the term of patents for two years, and if my noble and learned friend's Amendment were also accepted it might quite easily prolong the period of protection for a further two years—not in every case, but in some cases. I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend himself would not desire that all the mischiefs of such a state of things should arise, and I would suggest to him that his main point, which is on the length of time of the protection, might be argued when we come to the more important Amendments that deal with the subject.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I should like to say that I entirely differ from Lord Moulton, because delay in taking out a patent grant comes, in my experience, from office matters and not from the patentee at all. I do not, however, press the Amendment after what has been said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had on the Paper the following proviso to be inserted at the end of subsection (1): "Provided that in every case where the patentee has been hindered in the use of his invention during the war, and in consequence of causes arising out of the war, that in such cases in calculating the terms limiting the duration of any patent, the period from the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, to the official date for the termination of the war, shall not be included or taken into account except in the case of patents owned or controlled by persons who are, or were, subjects of the States with which His Majesty's Government has been at war."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment at this point, in regard to which I happen to have precedence, raises a most important

641
question—perhaps the most important question upon the Bill—but there is another Amendment down in the name of my noble friend Lord Grey, which puts the claim in a rather wider form than mine, and it appears to Die, as a matter of Parliamentary convenience, that it would be more convenient if the noble Lord moved his Amendment first.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Do I understand that my noble friend withdraws his Amendment?
LORD EMMOTT: No, certainly not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: You do not move it?
LORD EMMOTT: I do not lose my chance of speaking. I can put my case on the other Amendment, but it seems to me, as a matter of fact, that the real point is this. I should somewhat queer the pitch for my noble friend opposite if I argued on the narrower lines of Inv Amendment. I think, as a matter of Parliamentary convenience, he should have the first turn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not in the least desire to urge my noble friend to queer anybody's pitch, but I was not quite clear whether he meant to move his Amendment or not.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord does not move his words, leaving Lord Grey to move his?
LORD EMMOTT: I can suggest mine as an alternative.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert—
("Provided that in calculating the term limiting the duration of any patent, the period from the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, to the official date for the termination of the war, shall not be included or taken into account:
"And provided further that where any patents have lapsed under the principal Act daring the period in question, no penalties for infringement shall be recoverable by the patentee from the infringer in respect of such infringement until the patent or patents have been reinstated, after which any person desiring to continue such use of the patented invention, such person shall only do so on payment of royalties to be settled in default of agreement by the Board of Trade.")
The noble Earl said: I am not sure that the Amendment down in my name does not cover almost too wide a ground; still I have placed it upon the Paper in view of the source from which it was asked that it should be moved, namely, the British Commonwealth Union, a body whose arguments are properly entitled to be heard in your Lordships' House. The effect of this Amendment would be a complete moratorium in favour of holders of patents, and I gather that the main object in asking your Lordships to consider such a suggestion is that such a moratorium, as I understand, has in fact been granted to patent holders not only in France but also in Belgium. That is one ground on winch the suggestion is made that patentees should be similarly considered here. The other grounds upon which this is urged refer more to Section 7, and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to refer to that section in speaking upon this Amendment. If I may have the indulgence of the House I would tell your Lordships what those who have asked me to move this Amendment say. They say that Section 7 subsection (2) of the Bill purports to deal with the hardships and losses suffered by the holders of British patents by reason of the war. The relief offered thereby is wholly inadequate, and is an instance of legislation the benefit of which can only be obtained by the wealthy. This amounts to a denial of the rights to the working man or poor patentee. Under Section 7 subsection (2) the patentee, in order to obtain relief, must apply to the courts and show cause. The expense in each case attendant upon such an application would probably amount to £1,000. That is prohibitive to the poor man. In another place Sir Auckland Geddes stated that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of assisting and encouraging poor inventors. This Amendment will largely help to achieve that object. I do not wish in any way to press the Amendment upon the House, but I should like it to be considered in view of the quarter from which it is suggested. I am quite aware that many patent holders have derived great gain from the fact of the war, and therefore it would perhaps not be reasonable to suggest that they also should receive an extension when they have benefitted from the war and not suffered from it. But if the Government do not feel able to accept this, I do not wish to press it.
Amendement moved—
Page 10, line 29, at end insert the said provisoes.—(Earl Grey.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much struck by the fact that the noble Lords who have put down Amendments on these matters do not seem very pleased with their Amendments. My noble friend Lord Emmott rather refrained, I think, from dealing with the exact words of his Amendment, and my noble friend opposite moves his Amendment with a good deal of apology. Because I think he says himself there are one or two very serious objections to it, and he has pointed them out in very forcible language. Let us see what he means to do? He says—
"In calculating the term limiting the duration of any patent "—
I do not know how that is to be done, or who does the calculation. He goes on—
"the period from the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, to the official date for the termination of the war "—
and of course, we have not got anywhere near that at present—
"shall not be included or taken into account."
It must be obvious to your Lordships, as I think it was to my noble friend, that it would be absolutely impossible to accept an Amendment of that kind. That says that all patents running during the war up to this time should have another five years' prolongation, although it is common knowledge that the people using numbers of these patents have made vast sums arising directly out of the war.
The effect, therefore, of this Amendment is simply to give to a great number of profiteers a larger opportunity of profiteering. My noble friend, therefore, will hardly expect that the Government will give any assistance to a course of that kind. A general prolongation of patents in that way will, I think my noble friend sees, be entirely impossible. But his Amendment goes much farther than that because it says that
"Where any patents have lapsed under the principal Act during the period in question, no penalties for infringement shall be recoverable by the patentee from the infringer in respect of such infringement until the patent or patents have been reinstated."
What is the position? A certain number of patents have lapsed, we will say in August or September, 1914. Therefore,
644
the invention is then perfectly free. Anybody can make use of it or take it up. And people have spent sums of money and developed businesses on the strength of the fact that they can use these inventions perfectly freely.
Now my noble friend wants to turn round and say that these articles shall, as it were, be re-patented. I submit it is impossible to restore patents that have lapsed. New interests may have been formed, new businesses started, money lent on the security of these patents, and it is really impossible to try and restore this situation and go back and re-patent inventions which have already been allowed to be free. Indeed, I am not quite sure what happens in these cases, for he goes on—
"After which any person desiring to continue such use of the patented invention, such person shall only do so on payment of royalties to be settled in default of agreement by the Board of Trade."
I am not certain whether the people using the inventions can still go on using them after this has been passed, or whether they have to wait until the royalty has been settled by the Board of Trade. But the general objections to the words are so strong that perhaps I need not deal with that particular point.
LORD EMMOTT: I am afraid I have made rather a mistake in not moving my own Amendment. I did not know that my noble friend opposite was going to move his with so little recommendation of its actual form. The arguments used against his Amendment do not apply to mine. Here is a great grievance. It cannot be got rid of by the language used by the noble Viscount. There are a large number of people who have suffered by the war, and in consequence of the war. The fact that others have gained in regard to other patents by the war merely makes the injustice suffered by the men whose patents have been abridged by the war the more acute. There is a very real case of grievance there. Men, either patentees themselves or the owners of works which were using patents in force, had their works taken for munition purposes. Their staff was largely depleted in order to recruit our fighting forces. They were unable entirely during the war to use their patent and they have not had a fair run for them because the war lasted four or five years. I quite admit there is one argument as

645
regards both Lord Grey's Amendment and my own which may be used, namely that the words "the period from the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen to the official date for the termination of the war" may be rather too wide, and it would be better to state a specific period of four or five years, or something of that kind. That, however, is a minor point. What I say is that there is a very real grievance, and I have heard nothing from the Government showing that they have any idea that there is such a grievance or that they have any intention of remedying it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was dealing with this Amendment and this Amendment alone, and on the other Amendment of my noble friend (Lord Peel) which, I submit, deals much more closely with the subject I certainly intend to state the whole case. But I really cannot state the whole case on an Amendment which does not meet it in any way and under which there are objections so grave, that I think it had better be withdrawn.
LORD EMMOTT: What does the noble Lord desire? I am willing to do anything. If the noble Lord opposite will withdraw, I can move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite ready for any course, but it was by the wish of the noble Lord himself that he gave way to the noble Earl. I am inclined to think personally that we could develop the case more fully on the Amendment of Lord Parmoor.
EARL GREY: I should not have accepted the offer of Lord Emmott to move my Amendment first if I had not understood that it was open to discuss his Amendment after. In the circumstances I should like to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Emmott's Amendment, which came first, was not moved. I had to take that first. After Lord Grey's Amendment, if we follow the usual course, we would take Lord Parmoor's Amendment.
LORD EMMOTT: Have I not a right to move my Amendment?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Unless the House is willing that the noble Lord should move it, regarding it as an Amendment without notice, he has not tree right.
LORD EMMOTT: Other Amendments have been moved this afternoon without notice.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Certainly, if it is the wish of the House that it should be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But surely that was only done on a written Amendment of which I had had notice, and of whose tenour there was some means of apprising the House. I had unfortunately to leave the House just now on some public business, but I ant told that Lord Emmott was quite plainly left the alternative of moving his Amendment or leaving it to be put by other speakers. If, having had that alternative and being himself extremely experienced in Committee, he did not move, I should think it is extremely unlikely that your Lordships—unless your Lordships think it could not be raised on another Amendment, and it could undoubtedly—would allow this to be a locus pœnitentiœ.
LORD EMMOTT: There is no sort of question about what would have been the procedure in the other House. My Amendment could have been moved there.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: After the House had gone past it?
LORD EMMOTT: Amendments can be moved in Committee without notice. My Amendment is down on the Paper, and if this Amendment were withdrawn I should have been perfectly in order in moving mine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord was in an authoritative position in the other House and I was not; but if my noble friend tells me that in the other House, after having been invited to move an Amendment he said he did not move it, and a later Amendment had been taken, I do not agree that he would have been allowed to go back again to his Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have never known of a case where an Amendment on the Paper was not moved and a subsequent Amendment on the Paper was moved, that we then went back to the Amendment that was not moved before.
LORD EMMOTT: It was my ignorance of the procedure of your Lordships' House. Had I understood what was involved in it I should not have withdrawn my Amendment. In the circumstances, I suppose I can speak on the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Certainly. But I understand that Lord Grey's Amendment is now, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to insert a new clause after Clause 7. The noble and learned Lord said: Every one will agree with what has been already stated that this is a very important and difficult subject. We want to retain the rights of those who were deprived of what their rights would naturally have been during their period of national service. At the same time, there is a great difference in the conditions in various cases, and I think we have carefully to safeguard rights which have grown up in the meantime.
The new clause which I propose has been drafted with very great care, and I may say at once that the objection raised against it (which I do not think is a valid objection) is that there would be a difficulty in the Comptroller's Office. We all know that the Comptroller has very adequate assistance in these cases, therefore I think his Department might deal with the matter. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that in France they have had the same difficulty, and I have had forwarded to me the terms of the method by which they have dealt with this difficulty there. The terms of the French provision are substantially the same as those which I propose in my new clause. I do not mean to say that this ought to be a necessary guide in the matter, but it shows that another Government, which must have met with practically the same difficulties, have found a solution on substantially the same grounds. I do not want to stand to the exact terms of my Amendment, and if after hearing it read the Government can assent to the principle of it and leave it over for further consideration, that will be sufficient. It is an extremely difficult and complicated matter; you cannot deal with it en gros (as it were); you have to deal with it in much greater detail.
I will now read my proposed new clause and comment upon it as I go along. Subsection (1) provides that where by reason of national service in connection with the present hostilities a patentee has been wholly or partially prevented from dealing with or developing his invention during performance of such national service, he may apply to the Comptroller in the prescribed manner for an extension of the term of his patent. Therefore there must have been national service, and interference with the development of his patent invention during the performance of such national service. Those two limitations of course are quite right.
Subsection (2) provides that the application shall be made as soon as may be after the termination of such service. It is right that the matter should be settled as quickly as possible.
In subsection (3) I provide that the Comptroller shall advertise the application in the prescribed manner, and within such time as may be prescribed any person interested may give notice of opposition at the Patent Office, and the Comptroller shall if required hear the opponent and the patentee. The object of this is to deal with the fear which, I think, Lord Emmott expressed—namely, that you must have regard to rights which have sprung up in the interim and give due weight to them.
Subsection (4) proposes to enact that if the Comptroller be satisfied that there has been no undue delay in making the application and that the circumstances warrant an extension of the term of the patent, he may make an order extending the term, and such order may be made subject to such terms as the Comptroller may see fit. I think a matter of this kind can properly be left to the discretion of the Comptroller who has great knowledge in these matters.
Subsection (5) of my proposed clause runs: "The extension of the term of the patent shall be such as in the opinion of the Comptroller, having regard to all the circumstances, compensates the patentee, but shall in no case exceed the period during which the patentee was, while performing national service, prevented from dealing with or developing his invention." That absolutely excludes what has been called the profiteer; and although you may give the patentee an extension over the whole time he was engaged on national service, whereby he was prevented

649
from developing his patent, within the Comptroller's discretion in a proper case a smaller term may be given. Obviously this is the extreme term that ought to be given in order to compensate him.
The sixth subsection provides that an application may be made in respect of a patent which has already expired, but in such event the Comptroller shall consider the interests of persons who may have availed themselves of the subject-matter of the patent after the same had expired and any order made by the Comptroller may be subject to provisions protecting such persons. Undoubtedly there is a difference in the case where the patent has expired and in cases where it is still in operation; but, even where it has expired, if it has expired during a period of national service when advantage could not be taken of the patent rights, I think the person who has been engaged in such national service ought to be protected. These are limiting words. The clause could be taken without subsection (6), though I think that subsection should be inserted.
Subsection (7) provides that an extension of the term of a patent under this Act shall be without effect on any proceedings under section eighteen of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, save that the date of the expiration of the extended patent shall be the date from which the limiting period for presenting any petition under that section, shall be, reckoned. That is merely a formal matter of administration.
Finally, subsection (8) provides that any decision of the Comptroller under this suction shall be subject to an appeal to the Court. I believe that all your Lordships are in sympathy with the idea of giving protection of this character. With regard to the particular proposal, all I can say is that it has been carefully considered and that it is put in a limited form. If it cannot be accepted, at any rate I hope that it, may be the basis of a proposal which the Government can accept.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
".—(1) Where by reason of National service in connection with the present hostilities a patentee has been wholly or partially prevented from dealing with or developing his invention during performance of such National service, he may apply to the comptroller in the prescribed manner for an extension of the term of his patent.
650
(2) The application shall be made as soon as may be after the termination of such service.
(3) The comptroller shall advertise the application in the prescribed manner and within such time as may be prescribed any person interested may give notice of opposition at the Patent Office and the comptroller shall if required hear the opponent and the patentee.
(4) If the comptroller be satisfied that there has been no undue delay in making the application and that the circumstances warrant an extension of the term of the patent, he may make an order extending the term, and such order may be made subject to such terms as the comptroller may see fit.
(5) The extension of the term of the patent shall be such as in the opinion of the comptroller having regard to all the circumstances, compensates the patentee, but shall in no case exceed the period during which the patentee was, while performing National service, prevented from dealing with or developing his invention.
(6) An application may be made in respect of a patent which has already expired, but in such event the comptroller shall consider the interests of persons who may have availed themselves of the subject matter of the patent after the same had expired and any order made by the comptroller may be subject to provisions protecting such persons.
(7) An extension of the term of a patent under this Act shall be without effect on any proceedings under section eighteen of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, save that the date of the expiration of the extended patent shall be the date from which the limiting period for presenting any petition under that section, shall be reckoned.
(8) Any decision of the comptroller under this section shall be subject to an appeal to the Court."—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD EMMOTT: I should like cordially to support the proposed new clause, though I do not think that it goes as far as I should like to go in regard to this matter. I believe that it would leave a great many cases of hardship and unfairness still not dealt with; but, perhaps, of all cases that of the men who have been doing national service is the strongest.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has made a more carefully considered proposal than the other Amendment, because, as he said, this is more strictly limited. Before I deal with the general proposition I want to make a small criticism on the form, and to ask a question. I am not quite certain what the noble. Lord means by "national service." I do not know that it has a strict definition. Men, of course, have been called up and have gone to fight during the war. In those cases if patents have not been developed no doubt it would be due to national service, but does

651
the noble Lord insist on the fact of the performance by the individual of this national service? I was thinking of a case where a patent was being worked or developed in a particular factory and the factory was seized by the Government in order to make munitions or something of that kind. In that case it would not appear necessary that the individual himself had performed, or had gone to perform, national service.
LORD PARMOOR: It would not cover that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand the proposal is intended to be as limited as it appears to be on the face of it.
LORD PARMOOR: That is the intention, certainly. The words "national service" are put in with that object.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am glad that the noble Lord has explained that. I think that both Lord Parmoor and Lord Emmott, in their speeches, have treated the subject as if the Government had made no provision in the Bill for people who suffered in that way. That is very far from being the case. There are objections, as everyone can see, against the general extension of patents for five years. As a matter of fact, the period during which patents are to be extended is two years.
LORD PARMOOR: That is all round.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes. I do not lay more stress upon it than this—that it is convenient for the future that the period of the patent should be extended by two years. I want to point out that these patents to which my noble friend is referring—not those which have expired, but those which are in existence—do get the benefit of the extra two years and, therefore, a considerable advantage.
But they get far more than that, because, if your Lordships will look at Clause 7, you will see that there is to be added as an amendment to Section 18 of the principal Act, which relates to the extension of the period of patents, the words in subsection (2)—
"At the end of subsection (4) of the same section there shall be inserted the words including in particular any loss or damage which may have been occasioned by the patentee, as such, by reason of hostilities between His Majesty and any foreign state, except in cases where the patentee is the subject of any such foreign state.' "
652
It is the fact that these words are general. They apply to future wars, but they apply just as much to the late war. Therefore, not only do these gentlemen who may have been injured get the extra two years for their patents, but also an opportunity, by ordinary application, of having their patents extended, if they can show that, they have suffered loss or damage in consequence of the hostilities. I submit that their case is pretty well provided for.
A different suggestion is made by my noble friend, who wants all these cases tried by the Comptroller. I believe they may involve some 60,000 or 70,000 patents. Here, of course, is a question of procedure. I understand that it would be quite impossible for the Comptroller and his staff to deal with these cases. They would be completely flooded under. Really it is an impracticable plan which is suggested by my noble friend. There is another criticism which might also be made. It is rather difficult to tell at present how much these patentees may have suffered, because, though it is quite true they may have suffered during the war, in the period after the war, when certain other things were required, they might get very great advantages. Therefore, you might have to set an advantage on the one side against a loss on the other.
Besides, under the proposal made by the Government, patentees no doubt will apply to the Court at different times, and it will be much more convenient if their applications are spread over a certain number of years than if you flood one individual, the Comptroller, with all these patents at one particular time. Moreover, the Court will be in a much better position to ascertain what damage they have really suffered, because, if they apply towards the end of the period when the patents expire (which is the usual practice under the 1907 Act) the Court will be able to take all the circumstances of the case into account, and to balance the damage they may have sustained during the war against the advantage they may have enjoyed after the war, and to come to a much more satisfactory and fair judgment.
I submit, therefore, that on the whole the Government plan is in many ways a better one than that suggested by my noble friend. In the second place, I think the plan of my noble friend is not practicable;

653
and, thirdly, that taking the operation of the different clauses together, the patentees really will get substantially what my noble friend thinks they ought to get—their two years and, on their application at different times towards the end of the period when the patent expires, some further extension, when the Court is able to go into the whole question and see what damage they have sustained.
LORD PARMOOR: I think I ought to answer shortly one point made by the
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 8:
Right of Crown to use patented inventions.
8. At the end of section twenty-nine of the principal Act the following words shall be inserted:—
"And the terms of any agreement or licence concluded between the inventor or patentee and any person other than a Government Department, shall be inoperative so far as concerns the making use or exercise of the invention for the service of the Crown:
Provided further, that where an invention which is the subject of any patent has, before the date of the patent, been duly recorded in a document by, or tried by on behalf of, any Government Department, such invention not having been communicated directly or indirectly by the applicant for the patent or the patentee, any Government Department, or such of their agents, contractors, or others, as may be authorised in writing by them, may make use and exercise the invention so recorded or tried, for the service of the Crown, free of any royalty or other payment to the patentee, notwithstanding the existence of the patent. If in the opinion of the Department the disclosure to the applicant or the patentee, as the case may be, of the document recording the invention, or the evidence of the trial thereof, if required, would be
noble Viscount. That is the practical one. I have made enquiries and I do not think that the difficulty would arise in the form he suggests, particularly having regard to the assistance which the Comptroller has. Subject to that, I hope the House will accept the new clause.
On Question, whether the proposed new clause shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Grey, E.

Erskine, L.

Rotherham, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Glenconner, L.

Strachie, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Moulton, L.

Sydenham, L.

Emmott, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L. [Teller.]

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Loch, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Avebury, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Balfour, L.

Rathereedan, L.

Lytton, E.

Charnwood, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sinha, L.

Strafford, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Churchill, V.

Sumner, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Faringdon, L.

Wavertree, L.

Killanin, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

detrimental to the public interest, it may be made confidentially to counsel on behalf of the applicant or patentee, or to any independent expert mutually agreed upon. In case of any dispute as to the existence or scope of any record as aforesaid, or as to the use of an invention, or the terms of its use, the matter shall be referred to a judge of the High Court for decision, who shall have power to refer the whole matter or any question or issue of fact arising thereon to be tried before a special or official referee or an arbitrator upon such terms as he may direct.
The right to use an invention for the services of the Crown under the provisions of this section shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, the power to sell any articles made in pursuance of such right which are no longer required for the services of the Crown."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out e 8, and to insert the following new clause—
8. For section 29 of the principal Act the following section shall be substituted:—
"29.—(1) A patent shall have to all intents the like effect as against His Majesty the King as it has against a subject:
Provided that any Government department may, by themselves or by such of their agents, contractors, or others as may be authorised in writing by them at any time after the application make, use or exercise the invention for the

655
services of the Crown on such terms as may, either before or after the use thereof, be agreed on, with the approval of the Treasury, between the department and the patentee, or, in default of agreement, as may be settled in the matter hereinafter provided. And the terms of any agreement or licence concluded between the inventor or patentee and any person other than a Government department, shall be inoperative so far as concerns the making, use or exercise of the invention for the service of the Crown:
Provided further, that where an invention which is the subject of any patent has, before the date of the patent, been duly recorded in a document by, or tried by or on behalf of any Government department, such invention not having been communicated directly or indirectly by the applicant for the patent or the patentee, any Government department, or such of their agents, contractors, or others, as may be authorised in writing by them, may make, use and exercise the invention so recorded or tried, for the service of the Crown, free of any royalty or other payment to the patentee notwithstanding the existence of the patent if in the opinion of the department the disclosure to the applicant or the patentee, as the case may be, of the document recording the invention, or the evidence of the trial thereof, if required, would be detrimental to the public interest, it may be made confidentially to counsel on behalf of the applicant or patentee, or to any independent expert mutually agreed upon.
(2) In case of any dispute as to the making, use or exercise of an invention under this section, or the terms therefor, or as to the existence or scope of any record or trial as aforesaid, the matter shall be referred to the court for decision, who shall have power to refer the whole matter or any question or issue of fact arising thereon to be tried before a special or official referee or an arbitrator upon such terms as it may direct.
(3) The right to use an invention for the services of the Crown under the provisions of this section shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, the power to sell any articles made in pursuance of such right which are no longer required for the services of the Crown."
The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendments made to Section 29 of the principal Act by Clause 8 of this Bill, and those contained in the Schedule, have become somewhat involved. It is difficult for the legal mind even to pursue them. I have given some attention to this matter since attempting to correlate the old and the new legislation, and propose by this Amendment to consolidate all the Amendments proposed in the present Bill by repealing Section 29 of the principal Act and re-enacting it in the amended form. The clause on the Paper contains slight modifications of the proposals already contained in the Bill. A subsequent Amendment to Clause 22 is proposed to postpone the operation of the tribunal to decide cases of dispute until such time
656
as the Royal Commission at present sitting to consider awards to inventors has finished its task.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out Clause 8, and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MOULTON: By the desire of the authorities of the Patent Office I bring forward an Amendment to the Amendment. It is to add to subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause 8 these words: "The Court Referee or Arbitrator, as the case may be, may, with the consent of the parties, take into consideration the validity of the patent for the purpose only of the reference and for the determination of the issues between the applicant and such Government Department."
This refers to a practical difficulty. The Government cannot try an action as to validity and it will not allow this procedure to come into operation on Patent the validity of which has not been declared. The great Dobell case was an action brougt against a person of the name of William Anderson, who was really a high official in the Government service, and was a case to establish the validity of the patent before there was any question of remuneration for using the invention. They want to get rid of that. At the same time they do not want the arbitrator, the referee, or the court, in such a proceeding to make a decision which would be binding as a legal decision on all courts and all parties, and, therefore, on the one hand they say that if the parties wish it the tribunal must take into consideration the validity but their doing so is only for the purpose of determining the issues raised therein, and it shall have no effect other than with regard to this. It is a most reasonable proposal and will greatly add to the usefulness of the clause.
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
At end of subsection (2), insert: ("The Court Referee or Arbitrator, as the case may be, may, with the consent of the parties, take into consideration the validity of the patent for the purpose only of the reference and for the determination of the issues between the applicant and such Government Department").—(Lord Moulton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The vigilance of the noble and learned Lord has detected an omitted case in the clause as

657
drafted by me, and I shall be glad to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
New clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power of court to grant relief in respect of particular claims.
9. After section thirty-two of the principal Act the following section shall be inserted:—
32A. If the court in any action for infringement of a patent finds that any one or more of the claims in the specification, in respect of which infringement is alleged, are valid, it shall, subject to its discretion as to costs and to such terms as to amendments as it may deem desirable, grant relief in respect of any of such claims which are infringed without regard to the invalidity of any other claim in the specification. In exercising such discretion, the court may take into consideration the conduct of the parties in inserting such invalid claims in the specification or permitting them to remain there."
LORD MOULTON: The Amendment w hick I propose to this Clause is simply for the purpose of preventing an ambiguity in the Act as it will be when it is incorporated with the Act of 1907. In the Act of 1907 it is said that if there is any Amendment the Court can only grant damages prior to the Amendment in case it gives a particular certificate, one part of the certificate being that the clauses which have been struck out have liven framed with reasonable skill and knowledge. If the present Bill were passed in die form in which it now stands it would be difficult for a Court to be sure whether that certificate had still to be granted, or whether the words that it may grant relief in respect of any of the claims which are infringed, and which are found valid, are independent of giving such certificate. In my opinon, it was intended that this clause should give power, quite independently of the clauses in the earlier Act, to deal with the valid claims in the patent before it and to give damages with regard to them, subject to the discretion as to costs and various I other things. Therefore I advise the House to consent to the insertion of the words, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in Section 23 of this Act," because they will remove the ambiguity.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, at begining insert ("Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in Section 23 of this Act").—(Lord Moulton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My next Amendment is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, after ("costs") insert ("and as to the date from which damages shall be reckoned").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Chemical products and substances intended for food or medicine.
11.—(1) After section thirty-eight of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted:—
"38A.—(1) In the, case of inventions relating to substances prepared or produced by chemical processes or intended for food or medicine, the specification shall not include claims for the substance itself, except when prepared or produced by the special methods or processes of manufacture described and claimed or by their obvious chemical equivalents: Provided that in an action for infringement of a patent where the invention relates to the production of a new substance, any substance of the same chemical composition and constitution shall in the absence of proof to the contrary be deemed to have been produced by the patented process.
"(2) In the case of any patent, for an invention intended for or capable of being used for the preparation or production of food or medicine, the comptroller shall, unless he sees good reason to the contrary, grant to any person applying for the same, a licence limited to the use of the invention for the purposes of the preparation or production of food or medicine but not otherwise; and in settling the terms of such licence and fixing the amount of royalty or other consideration payable, the comptroller shall have regard to the desirability of making the food or medicine available to the public at the lowest possible price.
"Any decision of the comptroller under this subsection shall be subject to appeal to the court."
(2) This section shall apply only to patents applied for after the passing of this Act.
LORD MOULTON: I think there will be no objection on the part of the Government to the Amendment which I wish to propose. It adds to subsection 2 of Clause 11, which provides that "the Comptroller shall have regard to the desirability of making the food or medicine available to the public at the lowest possible price" the words "consistent with giving to the inventor due reward for the research leading up to the invention." I think your Lordships will feel that that is only fair and equitable.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, at end, insert ("consistent with giving to the inventor due reward for the research leading up to the invention"—(Lord Moulton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment of s. 41 (2) of principal Act as to anticipation,
13.—(1) At the end of subsection (2) of section forty-one of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be added:—
"Provided that the protection afforded by this subsection shall not extend to a patentee who has commercially worked his invention in the United Kingdom for more than six months prior to such publication as aforesaid."
(2) This section shall not apply in the case of patents granted before the passing of this Act.
LORD MOULTON: Clause 13 has, I think, been drafted in forgetfulness of a point in the settled law with regard to patents, which is this, that any commercial user before the application for the patent invalidates the claim to a patent. The clause as it at present stands refers to a protection which by the Act is given to a person against an unintentional disclosure, but it says that the protection afforded "shall not extend to a patentee who has commercially worked his invention in the United Kingdom for more than six months prior to such publication as aforesaid." As a matter of fact, the law has always looked very sternly upon commercial user before taking out the patent. I therefore suggest that the clause should stand like this: "who has commercially worked his invention in the United Kingdom, otherwise than for the purpose of reasonable trial prior to the application for the patent." I have consulted the Solicitor-General, and he thinks that that is the proper form, and I can assure your Lordships that that will give protection against a very serious risk '"that patentees are running. Many of their inventions can only be tried on the scale which is necessary to give them an effective trial if they are to be commercially used. I will give an instance. There was the case of a rotary printing press for the rapid delivery of newspapers. A certain person invented a process. It was very skilful and he sold the machine, but he sold it on terms of trial. It was not known whether it would succeed, so there was a trial, and
660
that trial according to English law being for the purpose of perfecting the invention would not have invalidated the patent. Unfortunately he tried it on the issue of au evening paper, and that issue was sold, and because it was sold it was held that his patent was invalid, although it was absolutely necessary he should make a trial on that scale before he could tell whether his invention was a true invention. Therefore if we adopt the words which I have suggested I think it would be a very great improvement.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, after ("United Kingdom ") leave out the words to the end of the subsection and insert ("oth rwise than for the purpose of reasonable trial prior to the application for the patent.")—Lord Moulton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Registration of designs to bind the Crown.
15. After section fifty-eight of the principal Act the following section shall be inserted:—
"58A. The registration of a design shall have to all intents the like effect as against His Majesty the King as it has against a subject:
"Provided that the provisions of section twenty-nine of this Act shall be read as though they applied to registered designs."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a drafting Amendment in the proviso to Clause 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("be read as though they applied") and insert ("apply to registered designs as though those provisions were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Registration of assignments, etc.
16. At the end of section seventy-one of the principal Act, which relates to the entry of assignments and transmissions in registers, the following subsection shall be inserted:—
"(4) Except in applications made under section seventy-two of this Act, an assignment, transmission or mortgage of, or any other instrument affecting the title to, a patent or the copyright in a registered design, or any interest therein, or a licence to use a patent or registered design, shall not be admitted in evidence in any court unless it has been entered on the register of patents or the register of designs as the case may be."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "or unless the Court otherwise directs." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is proposed to meet an objection which has been raised that an instrument affecting title to a patent might sometimes be required to be produced in Court in matters entirely unconnected with the patent. Therefore it is proposed to give the Court discretion in the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("or unless the court otherwise directs").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, That Clause 16, an amended, stand part
LORD MOULTON: I am going to propose the omission of this clause, not from any hostility to the aim of the clause, which is a very worthy one—namely, to get the register complete at as early a date as possible—but for the purpose of bringing forward on Report a clause which will evade the legal difficulties that I foresee, and which will carry out the object of the Government. Therefore I move that this clause be omitted from the Bill for the purpose of a clause effecting the object being brought up on Report.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 16.—(Lord Moulton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I assent, to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Registration, of patent agents.
18. For section eighty-four of the principal Act, which relates to the registration of patent agents, the following section shall be substituted:—
"84.—(1) No person shall practise, describe, or hold himself out, or permit himself to be described or held out, as a patent agent, unless—

(a) in the case of an individual, he is registered as a patent agent in the register of patent agents;

(b) in the case of a firm, every partner of the firm is so registered;

(c) in the case of a company which commenced to carry on business after the seventeenth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen, every director and the manager (if any) of the company is so registered;

662

(d) in the case of a company which commenced to carry on business as a patent agent before that date, if a manager or a director of the company is so registered:

Provided that in the last-mentioned case the name of such manager or managing director shall be mentioned as being a registered patent agent in all professional advertisements, circulars or letters in which the name of the company appears."
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (1) (b), after the first "firm," to insert "other than a firm of solicitors." The noble Lord said: I will explain this Amendment in very few words. There are some solicitors who are members of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents who believe that this clause as drawn will deprive them any longer from being called patent agents. Paragraph (a) as it stands would certainly not deprive them, but would include them. Paragraph (b), however, says—"in the case of a firm, every partner of the firm is so registered." Some of these gentlemen are members of firms of solicitors, and are the only ones who are chartered patent agents. They think that words should be put in to make it quite clear that they shall not be prevented from calling themselves patent agents. The words that I suggest, "other than a firm of solicitors" would, I think, do that, and I wove them. I suppose that it would equally serve the purpose if it read—"in the case of a firm of patent agents." At any rate that is the point, and I am sure the Government do not wish to deprive these people of their right to be called chartered patent agents, and it should be made quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, after the first ("firm") insert, ("other than a firm of solicitors").—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not quite sure what my noble friend wants. Firms cannot call themselves patent agents unless in the case of the firm every partner is registered as a patent agent. Surely he does not want firms whose partners are not patent agents, or all of whom are not patent agents to be registered as patent agents. Surely nay noble friend does not want to give a special privilege to firms of solicitors that is not possessed by other people. If one member of a firm is a patent agent he can call himself a patent agent. He is not prevented by this from doing so, but why a firm of

663
solicitors should be allowed to call themselves patent agents if only one member of the firm is a patent agent and registered as such I do not know.
LORD EMMOTT: That is not what I am asking for. These people fear—I cannot say whether rightly or not, because it is a matter of legal construction—that they will be unable, if this Bill is passed, any longer to call themselves patent agents. They are individual members of a firm of solicitors, being the only ones who are at present patent agents. The point is whether they can still continue to call themselves so. I suggest that if my words are not right, these words might be adopted —"in the case of a firm of patent agents." That would make it clear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is clear that any firm cannot call themselves patent agents unless every partner of the firm is so registered, although the individual member of the firm can call himself a patent agent if he is so registered, but the firm cannot call themselves patent agents unless every partner of the firm is so registered.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that what the noble Viscount says must be true, but it does not prevent a member of a firm of solicitors from being a patent agent. The firm, however, is not to be registered as such if it is really a solicitor's firm.
LORD EMMOTT: As long as the position is right, I accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "business" to insert "as a patent agent." The noble and learned Lord said: Some question has been raised as to whether the clause as at present drafted is clear as to the business which a person could carry on in order to qualify for registration. The words proposed to be inserted will, I think, make that clear, and will carry out your Lordships' purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line37, after ("business") insert ("as a patent agent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to omit from the
664
proviso the word "managing." The noble and learned Lord said: It was decided to delete this word in Committee in the other House, but by an oversight it was left in.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, leave out ("managing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19, 20, and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Short title and commencement.
22.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Patents and Designs Act, 1919, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 and 1919.
(2) The provisions by sections one and two of this Act substituted for sections twenty-seven and twenty-four of the principal Act shall not come into operation until such time, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, as may be fixed by order of the Board of Trade, except so far as the provisions so substituted for the said section twenty-four are by subsection (2) of section six of this Act applied to the patents therein mentioned; save as aforesaid this Act shall come into operation on the passing thereof.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "mentioned," to insert "and the provisions of this Act relating to the terms on which an invention or registered design can be made, used or exercised by or on behalf of a Government department shall not come into operation until such time as may be fixed by order of the Board of Trade" The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is necessary in order to defer the coming into operation of the Tribunal to decide cases of dispute under Section 29 of the Act until such time as the Royal Commission at present sitting to consider the awards to inventors has completed its work. If it were not inserted there would be a conflict of jurisdiction in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 18, after ("mentioned") insert ("and the provisions of this Act relating to the terms on which an invention or registered design can be made, used or exercised by or on behalf of a Government department shall not come into operation until such time as may be fixed by order of the Board of Trade").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

MINOR AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL, ACT.

Section Amended.

Nature of Amendment.

Section 5

In subsection (1) for the word "six" there shall be substituted the word "nine."

Section 6

In the proviso to subsection (3) for the words "treat the claim" there shall be substituted the words "allow an application"; and after the words "included in the complete specification "there shall be inserted the words" to be made and treated."

In subsection (4) for the words "A refusal of the comptroller to accept a complete specification shall be subject to appeal "there shall be substituted the words, "An appeal shall he from the decision of the comptroller under this section."

In subsection (5) for the word "twelve" there shall be substituted the word "fifteen."

Section 15

In subsection (2) for the words "on the ground of fraud" there shall be substituted the words "by the court on the ground that it has been obtained in fraud of the first and true inventor or where the grant has been refused by the comptroller under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section eleven of this Act or revoked on the same ground under the provisions of section twenty-six of this Act."

In the same subsection after the words "grant to him a patent" there shall be inserted the words "for the whole or any part of the invention,' and after the words "patent so revoked" there shall be inserted the words" or as would have been borne by the patent if the grant thereof had not been refused."

Section 29

For the words "by themselves, their agents, contractors, or others "there shall be substituted the words" by themselves or by such of their agents, contractors, or others as may be authorised in writing by them."

For the word "use" there shall be substituted the words "make, use, or exercise." The following words, at the end of the section, viz., "or, in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Treasury after hearing all parties interested," shall be omitted.

LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, in the last, paragraph of the Amendment in the Schedule to Section 6, to leave out "fifteen" and insert "eighteen." The noble Lord said: In the old days delay in the acceptance of a complete specification delayed the appearance of the illustrated abridgement of specification, but this is no longer the case; therefore there is no reason for the period being so short even as is suggested in this Bill, although I know the Bill gives some relaxation in the matter. At present it not infrequently happens that the examiners search for novelty designs for three or possibly four months, and if a complete specification is filed nine months after a provisional specification this leaves only two months in which the result of the search can be communicated to the applicant. If he resides abroad, or is absent from home, particularly if he is at a great distance, this is not sufficient. Many commercial people who have seen me in regard to this matter are strongly in favour of the fifteen being made into eighteen, and the eighteen into twenty-One.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("eighteen").—(Lord Emmott.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, and those standing in Lord Emmott's name to lines 41 and 42, would have the effect of prolonging the period of provisional protection and the sealing of the patent for six months beyond the present period. The Bill proposes to extend this period by three months, and the Government, after forming the best opinion that they can, are very unwilling to extend this period. It is very undesirable that the period of provisional protection should be unduly prolonged, since the public have no means whatever of ascertaining what inventions are the subject of protection until the complete specification is both accepted and published. It may easily happen that there are conflicting applications, and the public and inventors are entitled to know at the earliest possible moment what their position is. I am sure that Lord Emmott is well aware that under the Rules under the Act the extended period for which he asks may in any case be obtained on payment of certain prescribed fees. It would be very unfortunate in our judgment if this time were further extended. If a really grave individual case arises it can be met

667
on the payment of additional fees, and the balance of public interest in my view is considerably against this proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the first paragraph of the Amendments in the Schedule to Section 15, to leave out "first and true" and insert "true and first." The noble and learned Lord said: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, leave out ("first and true") and insert ("true and first").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question; Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to delete from the Schedule the Amendments to Section 29. The noble and learned Lord said: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20 leave out lines 45 to 53 inclusive.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, after line 1, insert:

Section 34

For the words "inspection or account" there shall be substituted the words "or inspection."

Page 21, after line 18, leave out ("insert") and insert ("there shall be inserted the following paragraph").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert—

Section 45(1)

After the word "inventor" where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or the reading of a paper by an inventor before a learned society or the publication of the paper in the society's transactions."

In proviso (a) after the word "invention" there shall be inserted the words "or the persons reading such paper or permitting such publication."

At the end of proviso (b) there shall be inserted the words "or the reading or publication of such paper."

The noble and learned Lord said: These Amendments are proposed to meet a point raised in Lord Queenborough's Amendment,
668
which is down on the Paper to Section 45. Lord Queenborough was not here to move it, but in point of fact the form suggested in his Amendment, was objectionable but, there was some substance in his proposal. The object of the Amendments is to protect inventions disclosed by a person reading a paper before a society prior to application for the grant of a patent. A similar protection is at present accorded to a person exhibiting an invention at an exhibition prior to filing an application for a patent, and it seems a reasonable extension of that principle.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, after line 23, insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH had on the Paper an Amendment to insert—

Section 68

For section sixty-eight of the Principal Act, the following sections shall be substituted:—

"(1) A file shall be kept at the Patent Office in respect of every applicant for a patent, and there shall be inscribed therein a copy of every application, specification and drawing submitted to the Patent Office in reference to such application together with the copies of any declaration or correspondence in connection therewith and of every other material document or the result of any proceedings relating thereto.

"(2) The file shall also contain the reports of examiners made under this Act, and the results of searches made under section seven and section eight hereof.

"(3) The file shall at all convenient times be open to the inspection of the public on payment of the prescribed fee.

The noble Lord said: I was requested to move this Amendment, and was told that there was no great objection to it, but after mature reflection I think that perhaps it is best to leave well alone, and therefore I do not move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, after line 1, insert:

Section 91

In subsection (5) for the word "and" there shall be substituted the word "or."—[The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to insert

Section 92

For subsection (2) the following subsection shall be substituted—

"(2) Subject to general rules and to order of transfer made under the authority of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, and the Acts amending it, the jurisdiction of the Court under this Act shall, as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time by general order direct, be exercised by such judge as the Lord Chancellor may assign to exercise that jurisdiction and an appeal shall not lie from any decision of such judge except in the case of an order revoking or confirming the revocation of a patent."

The noble Lord said: I understand that a Judge could be appointed to decide the matter. I would like to move the Amendment and leave it to the Lord Chancellor's discretion to bring it into the Bill if the Government see fit.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, leave out lines 2 to 9, and insert the said words.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is very easy to make an error on these points, but the noble Lord is not quite right in saying that at the present time an application has to be made to the Courts. Under Section 92 (2) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, where the decision of the Comptroller is subject to appeal or a petition may be referred or presented to the Court the appeal has to be made or the petition referred or presented to such Judge of the High Court as the Lord Chancellor may select for the purpose, so that under the existing law I have the power to select a Judge from the High Court to deal with these matters. A great deal of support has, from time to time, been given to the alternative proposal that one Judge shall be assigned to deal with these matters permanently. That proposal on reflection has not commended itself to any of my predecessors, and I confess I entertain a great deal of doubt about it myself.
It must be remembered that if a special Judge is selected to try all these matters and is kept in one Court several consequences follow, or may follow. In the first place, if you take a Chancery Judge under the linked system, which all Chancery Judges believe to be indispensable, you
670
must have two Judges. In the second place, there is very good reason for doubting whether there would be enough work for one Judge to be kept constantly employed; and, in the third place, great practical inconveniences may arise. Supposing, for instance—and this has happened not infrequently—that a Judge is assigned for this special work, and after he has tried it for eighteen months it is discovered that his anticipated proficiency in such matters, or his acceptableness to the legal profession as a whole has not matured, it would be very difficult indeed to depose him in favour of another Judge. I myself am strongly of opinion that the present system is, on the whole, preferable and that the tradition of the English Bench is adhered to advantageously that there shall be versatility and elasticity on the Bench and, as at present advised, I confess I am opposed to this proposal.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to insert:

First Schedule

In paragraph (b) substitute £25 for duly £50; in paragraph (c) substitute £50 for £100; in the table of annual fees substitute £5 for £10, £7 10 s. for £15, and £10 for £20.

The noble Lord said: I think this refers to the schedule of fees in the 1907 Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, after line 17, insert the said words.— (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord will perceive that this is not a matter which could possibly be dealt with in this House, and certainly not at this stage, but I will see that the views which he holds upon this point shall be considered by the appropriate branch of the Department.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I simply want to point out that, as compared with other countries, these fees are exceptionally high, and in some instances they may be very burdensome on the patentee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he knows that this House cannot originate any financial changes.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: thought I could express the reasons for and against.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only pointing out that the Amendment cannot be dealt with by this House.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: There is no objection to my expressing the reasons for or against?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On a point of order—and I give my opinion as an individual Peer—I do not think that, interesting as that expression would be, the noble Lord can, so to speak, hang up in the air, with no contact with any subject, observations on any matter, however valuable. I personally regret it very much.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: Then I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that at this stage of the evening it would be fair to ask your Lordships to enter into the consideration of a measure which, although not so difficult as the one just dealt with, has its own complications. Therefore, I will not ask your Lordships to go into Committee to-night.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I have introduced many uncontroversial Bills to your Lordships, but this is probably the most uncontroversial I have had the honour to propose. It merely increases the rate of unemployment insurance benefit from 7s. to 11 s. in the case of adults, from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. in the case of those of seventeen or eighteen. It has been found possible to do this because there is an accumulated sum owing to risks not having had to be fulfilled, and the interest on that sum, plus the premiums now payable, are considered ample, on revised data, to meet the risk. That is guaranteed by the Government Actuary in a Report., and if your Lordships are content to take that from me I do not think I need read that Report to you.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

A MONDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.