Sitting of 22 May 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—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, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
Stocksbridge Gas Bill, Read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS PASSPORTS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether passports to Jersey and the Channel Islands are still necessary; and, if so, for what reason?
  The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations passengers to all places outside the United Kingdom must be in possession of passports. This includes the Channel Islands. I would add, however, that passports for the Islands are issued freely on application.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: When will the censorship be abolished in these islands?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.
  Colonel YATE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what "freely" means? I know people who have applied for months and cannot get them.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understood they were given almost as a matter of course, but I will inquire.

  BRITISH INDEBTEDNESS TO UNITED STATES.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information on the statements which have recently appeared to the effect that negotiations are being carried on in Paris for paying off Britain's indebtedness to the United States by the disposal of British securities in the South American Republics?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has no knowledge of the statements in question. They have no foundation in fact.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DEPENDENT PARENTS.
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Pensions Minister whether the parents of a single man killed in action are entitled without further inquiry to a pension in respect of their son if he was under the age of twenty-six on enlistment, but if the soldier was over twenty -six on enlistment the parents have to answer satisfactorily a series of questions as to their dependence, etc., and generally plead poverty before they can receive a pension; if so, will he state the reason for this discrimination; and whether he will consider the desirability of paying the pension irrespective of the age upon enlistment?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Under the Royal Warrant of April, 1918, a claim for parents' pension must be based either on actual dependence or on pecuniary need and infirmity or age. Provision has, however, since been made, by means of the 5s. flat-rate pension, to meet the case of the young man who by his early enlistment has been prevented from giving his parents the expected support. But if a man has reached the age of twenty-six without assisting his parents it may reasonably be assumed that he does not intend to do so

    537
    unless and until they are in need and incapable of self-support through infirmity or age, when they become eligible for pension under the Royal Warrant.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he can now state the names of the members and the terms of reference of the Committee to consider the question of pensions for Woolwich Arsenal employés?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I am unable at present to make a statement on this subject, but I hope to do so shortly.

  PENSIONS MINISTRY (STAFF).
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that married ex-Service men are holding responsible positions in the Ministry of Pensions as proposers, approvers, and correspondence clerks at 54s. a week, less insurance and receipt stamps, whereas in pre-war times clerks doing this class of work would receive 50s. to 63s. per week; and if he will state what proportion of his staff receiving salaries over £5 per week served with the Expenditionary Force?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The "approvers" referred to are Grade II. clerks who are paid at the rate of 63s. a week. The "proposers" are normally also Grade II. clerks, although they are sometimes paid as Grade III. clerks at 54s. a week during the period of probation. Correspondence clerks are usually Grade III. Clerks in receipt of 54s. a week are employed upon duties of a simple routine character, such as, before the War, would probably have been performed by assistant clerks in receipt of £55 per annum. The present rates of pay are fixed by the Treasury for all London Departments for the class of work performed. Of the present headquarter staff of about 14,500, there are 3,020 males. Of these 484 draw £250 a year or over, sixty-one of these are established Civil servants of whom two have served with the forces. Of the remaining 423, 78 per cent., or 330, have served with the forces.

  IRELAND.

    BOOKS SUPPRESSED.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the "Grammar of Anarchy" and the "Handbooks for Rebels" are still suppressed by the Government in Ireland?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRE-LAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right Gentleman tell me why these volumes are suppressed, seeing that they merely contain reports of speeches delivered by members of the War Cabinet and their friends?
    Mr. SAMUELS: This question has been addressed to me and answers given before, but having regard to the tendency to anarchy and rebellion already existing in Ireland it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that neither handbooks for rebels nor grammars of anarchy are required.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the Attorney-General aware that "The Grammar of Anarchy" is a title taken from a speech of the Prime Minister? Can he tell us, therefore, what is wrong about the title, seeing that the title is taken from a member of the Government?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Of course my hon. Friend has studied these books.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: This is a very important matter. I have studied them myself; I have read them from cover to cover, and there is nothing whatever in them except extracts from speeches delivered by the Cabinet. I want to know, have the Cabinet sat down at a round table to decide that they should suppress the reports of their own speeches?

    CORK ASSIZES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any arrests have been made in connection with the attacks on the American Government aerodrome in county Cork?
    Mr. SAMUELS: No attacks have been made on any American Government aerodrome in county Cork.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me on what charge two policemen were sent to prison for breaking into an aerodrome?
    Mr. SAMUELS: If the hon. Member puts down a question I will answer it. I think he refers to a case where two men were convicted at the last Cork Assizes.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Quite so; but were not these two men policemen?
    Mr. SAMUELS: They were policemen—a great exception to the splendid discipline of that force.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Was it a Government aerodrome or an American aerodrome?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: The sort of outrages we have in Ireland!

    PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the necessity of at once remedying the unfair incidence of taxation in respect of the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Irish district asylums, and of amending Section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 3 898, under which the grant is limited to 4s. per head, which was about one-half of the then cost; whether he is aware that since 1898 the cost to the local ratepayers has more than doubled, whereas the Government contribution has fallen to 3s. 6d. per week; and whether the Government intend to take-any steps to remedy the grievance?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been called to this matter. As stated in reply to a question by the then hon. Member for North County Dublin, on the 21st January, 1918, this matter cannot be dealt with except in connection with a general revision of local taxation arrangements throughout the United Kingdom, which would involve legislative proposals such as cannot be undertaken at the present time.

    UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY.
    Mr. HARTSHORNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state on what charge, and on what evidence, Messrs. Thomas O'Reilly, Bernard Reddin, and J. O'Brien, were sentenced in county Cavan, on 27th September, to one month's imprisonment?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Messrs. Thomas O'Reilly, Bernard Reddin, and Andrew O'Brien were arrested on a charge of unlawful assembly and inciting to a breach of the peace at Ballyconnell, county
    540
    Cavan, on the 19th August last. They were tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Cavan on the 25th September, 1918, and convicted. The evidence showed that the police were stoned, booed, and called "blood suckers" by a crowd of persons who also booed and manifested hostility to certain persons who had hired motor cars to the police. The defendants were each ordered to enter into recognisances himself in £50 and two sureties in £25 to keep the peace for twelve months, or in default one calendar month's imprisonment. They refused to give bail and were committed to gaol accordingly.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Attorney-General tell me whether it is a fact that the only evidence given against these men was that they sang the Soldier's Song?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Certainly not. The information before me shows that stones were thrown at the police.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Not by these men. The right hon. Gentleman does not answer my question. Was not the evidence that the disorderly conduct consisted in the singing the Soldier's Song?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The charge was one of unlawful assembly and inciting to a breach of the peace.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I asked what was the evidence on which the charge was supported. Is it not the fact that the evidence simply was that they sang the Soldier's Song?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Certainly not. I gave the evidence. The information was that the police were stoned and booed and called "blood suckers" by a large crowd.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the Attorney-General give a straight answer to a straight question? Was the evidence given against those men that they sang the Soldiers' Song?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have no information about that. I dare say they did.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I have. I can give it.

  EGYPT.

    ALLEGED ATROCITIES
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to

    541
    the circular issued by the Egyptian Association in Great Britain from the address of the Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, London, and signed by H. Y. Awad, the hon. secretary, enclosing extracts from the report of the Giza Provincial Council, supplied by Mr. Tadros J. Makar, who, it is said, was just returned from Egypt, and charging the military authorities in Egypt with gross atrocities; whether he will call on Mr. Awad, Mr. Makar, and all the people mentioned in the Giza Provincial Council's report to substantiate their charges before a judicial Court in Egypt; and, failing their substantiation of the charges in question, will he have them prosecuted and punished?
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a circular purporting to be issued by the Egyptian Association in Great Britain, Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, accusing British troops in Egypt of infamous atrocities, including murder, pillage, and arson; and whether he will take immediate steps to prevent the further publication of this circular and to bring those responsible for its publication to justice?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Steps have been taken to stop the circulation of the leaflet referred to, and the question of prosecuting its authors is under the consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the stopping of all these atrocity stories from all countries at the present time?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: We will consider the stopping of every publication that transgresses the law.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the persons responsible for running this mischievous and pernicious organisation?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question.

    EDUCATION OF CHILDREN.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked whether any support from public funds is given to any school in Egypt which has for its object the education of children of Englishmen engaged in the public service in Egypt; whether the only schools in Cairo
    542
    before the War where a European education could be obtained by English children were State-supported German, French, and Italian schools; and whether he will examine the question with a view to assisting British parents in the Egyptian service to educate their families in Egypt?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I understand that previous to the War the only British schools in Egypt were the Victoria College in Alexandria, which owed its existence to private generosity, and a day school in Cairo. Since the War, a new English school has been started in Cairo, which has over 100 pupils, and has been of great assistance to British parents.
    His Majesty's High Commissioner reported at length in 1916 on the serious lack of educational facilities for British children in Egypt, and he was assured that the whole question would be carefully and sympathetically examined at the end of the War. It is now being so considered.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) ACT, 1918.
  Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether e has yet appointed a joint committee for Derbyshire, especially the districts of Matlock and Darley Dale, under the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act, 1918; and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the employers and workmen on the said committee?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: A joint committee has been appointed under the only scheme at present in force under the Act, to deal with all cases arising under the scheme in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and the southern part of the West Riding, but so far as the Home Office is aware there are no works affected by the scheme in the Matlock and Darley Dale districts. I will forward to the hon. Member the names and addresses of the employers' and workers' representatives on the committee.
  Mr. WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men from works at Matlock and Darley Dale have waited on me and want to claim compensation, but have no means of doing so?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not aware of that. If any hardship arises with the administration of the Act and if the hon. Member will address facts to the Home Office, they will remedy it if it can be remedied by the Act.
  Mr. WHITE: You shall have them at once.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary what is the position of men who were working for private employers under the control of the Home Office Committee for the Employment of Conscientious Objectors; whether this Committee is still in existence; and whether it still has any power to control the employment of conscientious objectors who were working under what is known as the exceptional employment scheme?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under the recent Government decision men employed under the Committee, whether at a work centre or under a private employer, have been discharged and are now free, so far as the Committee is concerned, to take up any employment they may be able to obtain. The Committee still exists as there are various matters to be wound up; but it does not now exercise any control over the employment of other conscientious objectors.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we understand that these people will not be re-arrested by the Army authorities, although the Home Office frees them?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a question that must be addressed to the War Office, if they are still under the War Office. I speak only for the Home Office.

  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
  Mr. JAMES BROWNasked the Home Secretary how it is proposed to administer the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Bill, 1919, concerning the members of ships' crews and passengers; whether it is proposed to revert to the practice that obtained under the Aliens Act, l905; whether it is the intention to continue the present arrangements or to create a permanent staff of officials under the sole control of the Home Office; and,
  544
  if so, what would be the cost to the State as compared with the cost under the Aliens Act, 1905?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The work of the staff engaged in the administration of the new provisions with regard to aliens at the ports will be much greater in amount than that which was required under the Aliens Act of 1905. It will also in many respects be very different in character, and the organisation of the staff, which must in the main be under the direct control of the Home Office, will necessarily be largely based on the experience gained during the War. I am not at the present moment in a position to make any detailed statement in the matter.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Order in Council so long promised will be circulated?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope that particular Order in Council will be circulated before the Committee meets to consider the Aliens Restriction Bill
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will he give it to us a week or two before that Bill goes into-Committee?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say, because I do not know when the Aliens. Restriction Bill will come before a Committee.

  GOLD COAST COLONY (OIL SEEDS TAX).
  Lieut. - Colonel Lord HENRY CAVEND1SH-BENTINCKasked the-Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give an assurance that no steps will be taken to force upon the people of the Gold Coast Colony and Protectorate the Preferential Tax on oil seeds, against which there was a solid vote of the whole body of unofficial members of the local Legislature?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): It is the fact that the Second Reading of the measure to which my hon. Friend refers was opposed by the unofficial members of the Gold Coast Legislative-Council, but there is ground for supposing that this was due to a misunderstanding as to its objects and effects, and I trust that the discussion on the later stages of the measure may show that this was the case.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this tax, and the idea underlying it, is intensely unpopular amongst the native community there?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we understand that the Colonial Office have not overruled the local Legislature and are re-submitting the Bill to the local Legislature?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes; it came up for Second Reading and will come forward for discussion at a later date.

  AUSTRALIA (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what classes of manufactured goods have been prohibited by the Commonwealth Government of Australia from entry into that country since the Armistice was signed; and whether the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia permits the prohibition of any or all manufactured goods from Britain into Australia in normal times?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As far as I am aware, the only manufactured goods the entry of which into Australia has been prohibited by the Commonwealth Government since the signature of the Armistice are dyes other than those of British origin, and sheep dips. The answer to the last part of the question is that under the Commonwealth Constitution Act the regulation of trade and commerce falls within the sphere of the Commonwealth Government's powers

  ALLOTMENTS.
  Sir K. WOODasked the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been decided that the tenancies of allotments under the control of his Department are to cease at the end of this year; whether he is aware that allotment-holder shad been led to believe that they would have tenure until the expiration of two years from the end of the War; that in anticipation of this period of tenure the holders have incurred considerable expense in the interests of food production, and that the proposed termination of tenure at the end of this year will inflict
  546
  hardship on these people; and whether he will take steps to secure these holders in their tenure for at least two years from the end of the War?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I have decided. after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, that the tenancies shall cease on the 29th February, 1920. The assignment of the ground has been to the local borough councils, who were informed that the Government reserved the right to resume possession of the ground at the end of any calendar year subject to two months' previous notice. I must presume that the allotment-holders knew the conditions when they accepted the allotments.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst allotment-holders on account of his decision to evict them at the period mentioned, and will he be prepared to receive a deputation from the National Union of Allotment Holders on the subject?
  Sir A. MOND: I dare say there is some dissatisfaction felt by allotment-holders, but, as my office has never had any communication with allotment-holders, but with local authorities, I should think the deputation's grievance would be really against local authorities and not against my Department, and I see no object in receiving a deputation on the subject.

  ALBERT EMBANKMENT, LONDON.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the First Commissioner of Works when the portion of the Embankment between St. Thomas's Hospital and the river will be reopened to the public?
  Sir A. MOND: The question of reopening of the Embankment between St. Thomas's Hospital and the river to the public is a matter entirely for the London County Council, and has nothing to do with my Department, but I have ascertained from the council that directly the broken material is removed the Embankment will be reopened.

  BURTON COURT, CHELSEA (TEMPORARY BUILDINGS).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state for what purpose a tower is being

  547
  added to the temporary buildings now-being erected upon Burton Court, Chelsea?
  Sir A. MOND: The so-called tower is the superstructure erected to carry the tanks required for the supply of water to the heating system in the buildings.
  Sir S. HOAREasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received any complaint from medical authorities as to the temporary buildings that have been erected upon Burton Court, Chelsea?
  Sir A. MOND: A complaint was received a short time ago from the Deputy-Surgeon of the Royal Military Hospital at Chelsea that the temporary hutting then being erected would affect the health of the occupants of the park-keeper's lodge. This was fully investigated, and it was found that the complaint was not justified.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the First Commissioner of Works(1) which hotel was vacated prior to moving an Air Force staff to 4, Thurloe Place, the floor space of the building vacated, and the floor space of the building commandeered in exchange; whether the hotel vacated has since been utilised;(2) whether his Department or that of the Office of Works was responsible for the commandeering of 4, Thurloe Place for the use of the Royal Air Force after the premises had been sold by the Office of Works to a crippled Army officer, in view of the fact that responsibility for this transaction is repudiated by both Departments; (3) on what date 4, Thurloe Place was taken over by the Royal Air Force; and on what date, and upon whom was notice of the intention to do this served on the owner of the premises by either the Air Ministry or by the Office of Works?
  Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The Covent Garden Hotel and four other buildings were vacated by the Air Force on removal of the Headquarters of the South Eastern Area to Thurloe Place. The net floor space available at the hotel and these buildings for office accommodation was about 20,000 square feet, that at Thurloe Place 39,000 square feet, of which about one-half is temporarily occupied by the National Health Insurance Commis-
  548
  sion. I understand that the Covent Garden Hotel is being prepared for reopening. The Air Force occupy these premises by virtue of an Order under the Defence of the Realm Act, which was originally issued by the War Office for the purpose of housing the Central Prisoners of War Committee. I would add that the Air Ministry have acted throughout in this matter in consultation with the Office of Works. The sale of the premises was effected not by the Office of Works but by a controller appointed under the Board of Trade in whom the premises being enemy property had been vested. The Air Force took over these premises from the Central Prisoners of War Committee on 25th March, 1919. As the case was one of continuance of Government occupation under an existing Order no notice of requisition was called for.
  Major LANE-FOX: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the present owner of these premises was allowed to purchase them without previous notice that commandeering was going to take place, and may I also ask why it is necessary for larger premises to be taken for the Air Force, in view of the obvious curtailment of their activities?
  Mr. PRATT: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put these questions on the Paper.
  Major LANE-FOX: They are on the Paper.

  MILITARY EXPEDITIONS (COST).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will grant a Return showing the cost to this country by loan or grant, including outsiders, of each of the expeditions as follows: Archangel and Murmansk, Koltchak, Denikin, Ukraine, Finland, Esthonia and Lettland, and Roumania?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I wrote to my hon. and gallant Friend about this question yesterday, explaining that it was impossible to furnish the information he wants at the present time owing to the difficulties involved in its preparation.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from that that it is impossible for the Financial Secretary to supply the lump sum totals of subventions, whether in cash or arms?
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that I discussed this matter with him, and I understand that he wants the total cost which will eventually fall on the country. That, I am afraid, I cannot give him at the present time. As he knows, accounts have to be kept in accordance with directions from Parliament, but they are not kept in such a form as to enable the information to be given expeditiously.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can he give me information of the subventions, both in cash and in materials, leaving out the question of British troops?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think we could with regard to materials. I dare say we could in regard to cash, and if that will content my hon. and gallant Friend I will see if that can be done.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not that the Government wish to keep the country dark as to the amount of money being spent on these expeditions?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, that is really not the case. I have answered many questions by my hon. and gallant Friend during the last four years, and I do not think there is a single occasion on which an answer I have given contained any basis for such a suggestion.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether this is not a question of great importance to the finances of the country, and whether it is not, therefore, the duty of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to be able to give the country an account of the expenditure on these expeditions?
  Mr. FORSTER: It is undoubtedly of great importance, and I think I have given a perfectly straightforward answer.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MAIZE.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Food Controller if he will state when maize will be decontrolled?
    The MINISTER for FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I am unable to make an exact statement on this subject at the present time, but I can. assure the hon. and gallant Member that control of maize will not be
    550
    maintained for a day longer than is necessary. I will make an announcement upon the subject as soon as possible.
    Mr. JOHN JONES: Can he tell us when steps will be taken to stop the people from being robbed?
    Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the Food Controller if he is taking the necessary steps to inform the corn markets and consumers of the amount of maize now available and the amount in sight for shipment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No special steps are taken to issue exact statements of this character. I may say, however, that the general position in regard to the amount of maize now available and in sight for shipment is well known to the trade.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to inform the dealers in corn and maize as to the possible shipments that may be expected, with a view to enabling them to carry on their business in a, businesslike way?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am informed that they well understand the position, but if they desire any special information which it is possible for me to impart I shall be very glad to do so.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the Food Controller if he will state the total quantity of maize now in Government charge in this country; and how much is the produce of the British Empire?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The total quantity of maize now in Government charge in this country is 94,368 quarters of 480 lbs. Of this quantity 18,200 quarters are the produce of the British Empire.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it a fact that his Department prohibited the importation of certain shipments of maize in order to bolster up the price to consumers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the Food Controller whether the British Government has received representations from the Union Government of South Africa with a view to encouraging the shipment and development of the maize trade between that country and Great Britain; and If any requests have been made to facilitate

    551
    the shipment of large quantities of maize now stored in South Africa and awaiting shipment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I may say that the bulk of last season's crop of South African maize has been purchased by the British Government, and that steps are now being taken to secure considerable quantities of the present crop. I have not received any requests to the effect stated in the last part of the question. I am informed that the remaining stocks of last season's crop awaiting shipment at South African ports are very small. Tonnage is being provided for the shipment of these stocks at the earliest possible date.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Whenever possible will preference be given to British-grown maize over foreign?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think I have covered that point in my reply to the question on the Paper.

    BEER SUPPLIES.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. RENDALL:
    34. To ask the Food Controller whether he is aware that the members of the Sound well (Bristol) Silver Roach Angling Association complain that on Saturday last they found posted on the Riverside inn where they arrived the familiar notice, "Closed. No Beer"; can he estimate the number of barrels of beer the present standard barrelage can be diluted to produce; and how much less is the total number of barrels so diluted than the number at the disposal of licensed victuallers before the War?
    Mr. RENDALL: In putting this question, may I say that the words "after walking five miles on dusty roads" have been left out after the word "Association."
    Mr. ROBERTS: I had visualised them. I have not previously had my attention called to the particular case to which the hon. Member refers. The barrelage which would be produced if all brewers in the United Kingdom practised the extreme degree of dilution which is at present permitted—namely, to a gravity of 1010—would be at the rate of approximately 110,000,000 barrels of fluid, or about three times the quantity produced before the War. The hon. Member will, however, I think, agree with me in doubting whether this would prove an acceptable beverage.
    Mr. J. JONES: Can he arrange for the abolition of this dirty water and give us decent beer?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am a believer in good beer myself, and in response to a private notice question I will have to make an announcement a little later on.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    FISH DELIVERIES.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the loss caused to fish merchants owing to the delay in delivery from King's Cross Station to Billingsgate of their consignments; and will he cause inquiries to be made as to the reason of these delays and endeavour to effect an improvement t
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have received a complaint in regard to this matter from the Grimsby United Fish Merchants and Fish Curers' Association, and am making inquiries.

    UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TRAINS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can request the Railway Executive Committee to see that the Underground Electric Railway Companies of London, Limited, increase the number of coaches on their trains during the so-called slack, the three-coach trains usually running at those hours being totally inadequate for the amount of passengers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Railway Executive Committee do not control the tube railways, but I am bringing my hon. and gallant Friend's question to the notice of the London Electric Railway Company, and will inform him of the result.
    Mr. J. JONES: Can he arrange for the derelict motors that are now in various depots being used to help the congestion of the traffic?
    Mr. SPEAKER: They can hardly run on the Underground Electric Railway.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER COACHES.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay a White Paper upon the Table, giving the number of new

    553
    passenger coaches which are actually on order, from outside makers other than the works of the railway companies themselves, by each of the railway companies entering London?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade are not in possession of this information, but are inquiring whether any such figures can be given. As, however, my right hon. Friend pointed out on Monday, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Gilbert), the repair of existing stock is of more immediate importance.

    REDUCED FAKES (CHILDREN).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will con-eider the issue of reduced railway fares for the conveyance into the country of poor children of the big cities, who otherwise will lose their day's outing, since the existing rates make travelling prohibitive?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton.

  COAL SUPPLIES.
  Mr. SITCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Coal Controller has received any complaints from the Halstead Co-operative Society regarding the supplies of coal they have been able to obtain; whether he is aware that this society have been only able to receive since the 13th January last 343 tons, although they have over 500 customers to supply; and whether the Coal Controller can take any action to meet this complaint?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will make inquiry into this matter and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  LONDON TRAFFIC FACILITIES.

    TRAMWAY TRAILER-CARS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER- SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has power to compel the London County Council to provide open
    554
    summer trailer cars behind their tramcars with a view to decreasing the congestion prevailing at the present time?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has no power to compel the London County Council to run open trailer cars. The council have been authorised by Parliament to run trailer cars on certain routes, and, as the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, do, in fact, run them.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the hon. Gentleman make representations to the London County Council that the number of these cars is nothing like sufficient, and request them to furnish more?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that it was only after considerable trouble with the police authorities that authority was given for running any of these trailer cars at all, and is he aware that the police try to hold them up?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That has nothing to do with the Board of Trade. As I have said, there is no power to compel the London County Council to run trailers, but, of course, I can make representations if my hon. Friend wishes.

  BOARD OF TRADE (DEPARTMENTAL RE-ORGANISATION).
  Sir ALFRED YEOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the small number of promotions and allowances granted in the past to the staff of the Mercantile Marine section of the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen as compared with those granted to the Royal Naval Reserve section, he will take steps to secure that under the forthcoming re-organisation of that office an adequate proportion of promotions will be granted to the Mercantile Marine section, as requested in the petition addressed to him in December last by the staff officers, second division, and assistant-clerks in that section?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the Committee which is considering the future organisation of the office of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen by pledging myself to make promotions from particular sections.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if Mercantile Marine masters and officers and men who have been left without employment owing to their ships having been sunk by the enemy are entitled to receive unemployment pay in the same way as munition workers who have remained in the country during the whole period of the War and been enabled to earn high wages without any personal risk; and, if not, whether he will take the matter up with a view to the anomaly being rectified?
    The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I have been asked to reply to this question. In Great Britain, masters, officers and men of the Mercantile Marine are eligible, when unemployed, for out-of-work donation on the same conditions as other civilian workers; these include a condition that a recipient of donation must, before the 25th August, 1918, have been an insured contributor under the health insurance provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911. This condition, however, rules out all masters and officers who have Been exempt from insurance in respect of receiving remuneration of more than £160 a year.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these masters and officers to whom he has referred are out of employment, owing to the large number of steamers that have been sunk, and will he, under the circumstances, see whether something cannot be done to give them some remuneration, taking into consideration the excellent work they have done in troublous times?
    Sir R. HORNE: I agree they deserve every sympathetic consideration, but the rules of the unemployment donation must be observed, though I think these officers might well be considered otherwise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Leader of the House consider the giving of a bonus to these torpedoed officers, the same as is given to the War Office staff, who have not been to the front?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I would like notice of that question.

  FOREIGN IMPORTS (BOX BOARDS).
  Mr. LYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it may be assumed that the object of the Regulations recently issued prohibiting the importation of box boards beyond 75 percent. of the 1913 figure is to protect the British box-making industry; and, if so, will any other trade which can show that it is suffering from foreign importation receive similar protection?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, with the qualification, however, that the protection is temporary only, and is designed to provide an interval during which the industry may recover from the disorganisations which it suffered as a result of the War. As regards the second part, I should be glad to receive particulars of any cases which the hon. Member has in mind.
  Mr. LYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what period he has in his mind when he says that this is a temporary expedient?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman has read the Debate he will have found that the whole question has got to be reconsidered before September.

  PEACE TREATY.

    "DAILY HERALD"ARTICLES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the articles in the "Daily Herald" from Mr. H. N. Brails ford, narrating interviews with and supporting the views of prominent German politicians who have taken an active part in the provocation of the great War and its methods of prosecution, and in particular this correspondent's dispatch of 29th April urging the acceptance of the pro-German point of view in the pending Peace negotiations; and if, in view of the responsibility of the German people for the outbreak of war and the methods by which it was waged, and the fact that a state of war still exists, the Government will take steps, while allowing such anti-British articles to be published, to insist upon the insertion of an official note condemnatory of their spirit and accuracy?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this ques-

    557
    tion. I have seen the articles referred to, but I do not think that the views expressed will carry much weight having regard to the source from which they emanate. It is impossible to give effect to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the latter part of the question.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it to be understood that my hon. Friend thinks that these insidious remarks and these insidious statements made in the paper referred to are not detrimental to the interests of this country?

    EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Peace Treaty with Germany has yet been signed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; the statement which appears in the Press as to the extension of the period is correct.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of that fact, I take it that we may assume there are only seven more days before the Treaty will be signed—if it is signed—and in view of the statement that when it is signed this House will have no power to alter it, can he now see his way to give some opportunity to the House, before it is signed, of elucidating the financial clauses of the Treaty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can well understand and sympathise with the desire of the House to have a discussion on this subject, but, apart altogether from the question of whether it is desirable to have a discussion at all, until we know what the action of the Germans is going to be, the House must remember that we did not win this War entirely by ourselves, and we cannot make peace by ourselves. The question whether or not there should be a discussion was considered by the heads of the five Great Powers, and they unanimously came to the conclusion that a discussion until we knew the German answer would do harm, and we agreed definitely, so far as the power of the Government was concerned, that there would be no discussion. In these circumstances, I have no option but to say we cannot have one.
    Lieut.-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can it be derogatory to the British interests for the German people to know that the British House of Commons insists on the
    558
    enemy countries paying the whole war debt when and if they are in a position to do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the House will agree that in any case it would be a great mistake to discuss parts of the Treaty, and that if we discuss it at all we must discuss it as a whole. As I have pointed out, all the Allied Governments, rightly or wrongly—and I think rightly— have come to the conclusion that discussion would do harm until we know what action the Germans are going to take. In that case, so far as Government action is concerned, it is quite impossible for us to consent to a discussion.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will it not be too late when we know what action the Germans are going to take?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course it will be too late, but surely my hon. and gallant Friend must be aware that no Treaty could ever be made if it were to be made by a large body like the House of Commons. It can only be done by representatives who are trusted by them, and when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was last here I remember distinctly his saying this to the House: "Now is the time; it will be too late if you do not now show your confidence in those who represent you."
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as we are concerned, we do not know the exact terms of the Peace Treaty, notwithstanding the fact that it has been communicated to the people of Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have dealt with that so often that I can say nothing more. I thoroughly sympathise with the House of Commons in its desire to see the full terms of the Treaty. I have told the House so on more than one occasion. But surely, in a case of this kind, we must leave the decision to the men who are entrusted with the duty.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: In order to clear up this point, was the undertaking given by the Government that this House should discuss the Treaty in order to have an opportunity of making alterations or merely to discuss it before ratification?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no; long ago many questions were put to me on this subject, and I gave exactly the same answer as to-day. I gave an undertaking

    559
    that no ratification would take place until this House had approved. More than that, in my opinion, it is impossible to do.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of this remarkable statement, I am sorry to say that at the end of Questions I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to it.

    INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS' LOSSES.
    Captain HACKINGasked the Prime Minister whether any and what provision is being, or will be, made, either in connection with the terms of Peace or otherwise, for compensating civilian British subjects interned in Germany for the serious business and other losses sustained by them consequent upon internment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what is contained in Section 8 of the summary of the Peace Treaty which appeared in the Press.
    Captain HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the declaration of war, the British and American Consuls requested the British civilians to stay in Germany, promising them transportation in a few days?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, but undoubtedly the point raised in my hon. Friend's question does represent a very great hardship, but he, I am sure, will not forget that similar losses were suffered by many hundreds of thousands of men who had to remain in their own country.

    GERMAN NEWSPAPERS (EXTRACTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether translations of those extracts of the German newspapers which contain the Peace terms, or portions of the Peace terms, can be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons or circulated to hon. Members at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

  CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the difficulty which has arisen
  560
  already, and which will become urgent in the near future, with regard to the prosecution of claims in the Courts of law by private persons against Government Departments; if these claims have to be begun now by a Petition of Right against the Crown, which requires the actual signature of His Majesty before leave is given to proceed with the claim; if, now the Government is undertaking business of all kinds, it should submit to the ordinary right to sue and be sued in the usual way as if it were an ordinary company, firm, or person; and what steps the Government proposes to take in the matter before the new Bills before Parliament become law and action is taken with regard to them?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The abolition of Petition of Right would be an important change in constitutional law, and I do not see anything in the considerations suggested in this question to justify such a change.
  Sir A. FELL: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of very numerous cases that arose under the Government insurance, and the people who sent in claims were told that if they did not agree to the claim they must present a Petition of Right?
  Sir G. HEWART: I am not aware of these particular cases, but I am aware that there are many cases of the kind.
  Sir A. FELL: And they must all be presented by a Petition of Right?
  Sir G. HEWART: Yes, as the case stands.
  Sir A. FELL: That is impossible.

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS (RELEASE OF PRISONERS).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the forthcoming Peace celebrations, arrangements can be made for the release of all naval and military prisoners undergoing sentences for Service crimes and of all juvenile first offenders?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall bring the suggestion of my hon. Friend to the notice of the Committee which is considering this matter.

  RUANDA AND URUNDI (BELGIAN MANDATE).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has made representations to Paris as to the feeling caused in this country, both among commercial men and among the Aborigines Protection Societies, at the suggested placing of Ruanda and Urundi under Belgian mandate?
  Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMASasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is in possession of information respecting native trouble during the Belgian military occupation of Ruanda and Urundi; whether he is aware that, if the Belgian claim to a mandate in the aforesaid districts were conceded, it would result in interference within the British sphere of influence, and involve complications in administration, communications, veterinary and medical controls, and the strategic situation; and whether, before such claim is conceded, an opportunity will be given to discuss the proposal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is still under discussion in Paris, and my hon. Friends may be sure that all the considerations referred to in the questions are not being overlooked by the British representatives.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the War carriers recruited for those places had to be retained under British control in order that they might be decently looked after; will he remember that the record of the Belgians on the Congo is not one to warrant an extension of their control over the black races?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. and gallant Member must see that this is not a question to which he can expect that any reply can be given.

  CABLE FACILITIES.
  Mr. SHAWasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the loss of business by firms in this country owing to the congestion of the cables; and whether, with a view to relieving the congestion and expediting the sending and receipt of messages, the present embargo against business telegrams in code will now be removed?
  Mr. FORSTER: His Majesty's Government is most desirous of abolishing all restrictions at the earliest possible moment, but it is at present impossible to fix the date, which must depend on the peace negotiations.
  Mr. FRANCE: Is there any military reason why business telegrams should not now be sent in code, and would not facilitating certain of these messages prevent congestion?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; all that is being considered, not only by the Government of this country, but by the Allied Governments. In their opinion the restriction is necessary.
  Mr. SHAW: Will this matter be reconsidered immediately on the signature of the Peace?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, that is so.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the increase in the cost of living has made it necessary to raise the amount of the Old Age Pension, ho will consider the desirability of raising the limit of the private income which may be enjoyed in conjunction with an Old Age Pension'?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): A Committee is now sitting to consider this and other matters relating to Old Age Pensions, and I do not propose to introduce any changes pending the receipt of their Report.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Can evidence be submitted to the Committee with reference to these points?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I assume it was for questions of this nature that the Committee has been called together.
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that many aged men have, owing to the conditions caused by the War, obtained temporary employment and, now that hostilities have ceased, are being discharged to make room for those whose places they have been temporarily filling during the War; whether the present method of calculating the means of applicants for an Old Age

  563
  Pension in the absence of other means for ascertaining the income as provided by Section 2 (1) (b) of the Old Age Pension Act, 1911, is, in many cases, a source of hardship to such applicants; and whether he will take steps to introduce legislation to secure an amendment of that Section?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford on the 15th instant.

  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (STRIKE).
  Mr. HIRSTasked the Prime Minister whether a purely industrial strike of the employés of the Suez Canal Company has recently been declared; whether members of a unit of the Army, called the Egyptian Labour Corps, have been employed to take the place of the coolies employed in coaling who have been involved in this strike; if so, whether this has been done at the request of the Suez Canal Company or whether at the request of the Egyptian Government or at whose request; and whether, in view of the repeated pledges that men under military discipline will not be employed in industrial disputes between masters and men, he will give orders that the members of this unit must be immediately withdrawn?
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: General Allen by has reported that a strike of the employés of the Suez Canal Company broke out on 13th May, and that following upon this all classes of low-skilled and unskilled workmen in Port Said ceased work. The strike has since spread to Suez and Ismailia. In view of its vital importance, the service of the Suez Canal must be maintained, and this is now being assured with naval and military assistance, but I have no information as to whether, and, if so, to what extent the Egyptian Labour Corps has been employed in this connection.

  TRANSVAAL (INDIANS)
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Report of the South African Parliamentary Committee on the disabilities of the Indians in the Transvaal recommends that no new trading licences shall be granted to Indians, and also that the hold-
  564
  ing of land by Indians, even in corporate form, should be made illegal, and asks for immediate legislation; and what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take to protect the rights and opportunities of vote less British subjects in South Africa?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am aware of the Report referred to, but it does not, as I understand, contain any recommendation regarding trading licences such as is suggested. With regard to the holding of land, the object of the Bill framed by the Committee is, I understand, to prevent what is regarded as an evasion of the law, which has been in force for many years in the Transvaal. Existing rights are, however, to be protected. The Secretary of State has not yet received the text of the Bill, but he has been in communication with the Governor-General, and as at present advised does not think that it is necessary to approach the Union Government on the subject.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the India Office been approached by the Colonial Office on this question of safeguarding the rights of our Indian fellow subjects?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: My hon. and gallant Friend should, I think, address that question to the India Office.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I asked whether the Colonial Office had approached the India Office, not whether the Indians had approached it?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give notice of that question, I will look into it.

  IMPORTS (PROHIBITION).
  Mr. LYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of those articles in respect of which there is, at the present moment, either complete or partial prohibition of importation?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to a similar question by the right hon. Member for South Molton, which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for Monday last.

  PUBLIC SERVICES (APPOINTMENTS).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the important

  565
  appointments which will fall to be made in connection with the Government's proposals with regard to transport, electricity, and other public services, he will arrange for the appointment of a small independent committee to deal with the filling of the principal positions so as to ensure insistence upon the requisite qualifications in regard to the persons to be appointed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a practicable one.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask how it is proposed to select all the high officials that are bound to be required for these important Departments; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already a solicitor to one of the railway companies has been given a very important post in the Ways and Communications Department?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The filling of these posts will certainly be a very responsible duty. I do not see how it is possible that anyone should accept that responsibility except the Government of the day.
  Mr. DEVLIN: How long will it be before there will be nobody in the country who has not a Government job?

  RULES OF PROCEDURE.

    ATTENDANCE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the small attendance at important Debates in the House resulting from the sitting of Grand Committees during the afternoon, he will again consider the suggestion made to the Government early this Session that on two or three days in the week the House should adjourn after questions during the period that Grand Committees are sitting?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I do not think that the experience we have had this Session would justify us in making the change suggested.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government really expect Members of this House to be in two, if not three, places at once?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, we have not that expectation. This is hardly the time to argue the merits of the system; but I
    566
    would point out to the hon. Member that the work which is necessary to be done this Session could not possibly have been done by any of the ordinary methods. I have watched the proceedings of the Committees upstairs very carefully, and, on the whole, the success of this experiment has exceeded my anticipation.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: That is not the view of the House !
    Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Is it only to be for this Session?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to-the fact that one of these Select Committees, consisting entirely of English Members, adjourned to-day, refusing to go on with any business because the proceedings were not being reported?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am not aware of that.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is a fact!

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING PRIVILEGES).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the increase in the cost of living has made the position of many Members of Parliament extremely difficult; and if he is prepared to recommend without further delay free railway passes to and from their constituencies, or any other concessions which will facilitate the carrying out of their present arduous duties?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I promised yesterday, I shall give consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving this privilege to local councillors?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that is a suggestion which will help.
    Major E. WOOD: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a definite statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, I must consult the Government in the matter, and that will take time; but there is no object in undue delay.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a small deputation of Members who are suffering very acutely in this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact, I have promised to see some Members of the House on the subject this afternoon.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to make a statement before the Whitsuntide holidays?

    AMERICAN TEMPERANCE ADVOCATES (PASSPORTS).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether a prohibition has been placed upon the entry into this country of American temperance advocates and American temperance literature; whether he is aware that the Rev. D. M. Gandier, California, and Miss Anna Gordon desired to leave America for Scotland to participate in a local option campaign, but were refused passports, the explanation given being that the British authorities did not desire the presence of temperance agitators; and whether, if this is correct, he will give the reasons for this policy on the part of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have no information on this subject, which was one entirely for the American authorities.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May we take it definitely that no representations have been made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiry; my information is that representations have not been made.

    INLAND REVENUE COMMISSION (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the war bonus paid to employeés of the Inland Revenue Commission is regarded by the Lords of the Treasury as profit under the Superannuation Act, 1834, c. 20; and whether the intention of the bonus was to meet the increased cost of living?
    Mr. BALDWINIt was notified to Departments on the 31st July last that the Treasury had decided that from the beginning of the financial year 1918–19 war bonus might be disregarded in the calculation of the profits of present and former
    568
    office for the purpose of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834. This decision is applicable to the Inland Revenue, as to other Departments. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONERS).
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists amongst Civil Service pensioners who left the service before 1st March, 1915, and who have, in consequence, been debarred from participating in the recent increase of pensions; and whether steps will be taken to permit all pensioners to share in the increased benefits?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As my right hon. Friend explained in reply to a question of the hon. Member for Islington East on the 9th ultimo, the arrangement made with representative associations of the Civil Service was that, within certain limits, war bonus should reckon for pension. He cannot extend the arrangement to cover the case of pensioners who were not in receipt of war bonus at the time of their retirement.

    POOR LAW CHILDREN.
    Major BIRCH ALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state the number of Poor Law children in separate Poor Law institutions for the sick, separate Poor Law institutions for the mentally deficient, and non-Poor Law institutions on 1st January, 1919?
    Major ASTOR: As the answer is rather lengthy, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate the information which he asks for.
    The. following is the Answer referred to:
    The number of children in the several classes of institutions on the 29th December, 1918, in England and Wales were:

    Separate Poor Law institutions for the sick

    7,187

    Separate Poor Law institutions for the mentally infirm

    1,154

    Non-Poor Law institutions (other than County Borough Asylums, and similar institutions)

    10,556

    Lunatics in County and Borough Asylums and similar institutions

    937

    HOUSING.

      LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board if the London County Council has submitted any further plans to his Department for there building of the Tabard Street clearance scheme in South London; when such plans were submitted by the council; what new housing accommodation they provide; if they have been approved by his Department; and on what date?
      Major ASTOR: Further plans were received by the Board on the 12th instant for the erection on a part of the site of buildings containing ninety tenements, and estimated to afford accommodation for 500 persons. The plans have not yet been approved, but they are under consideration.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any scheme from the London County Council for the further development of the Old Oak Common housing estate; and will he state what date such scheme and plans were received from the council; and if his Department has yet approved the same, and on what date the council was advised of the approval?
      Major ASTOR: So far as I am aware, no scheme for the further development of the Old Oak Common estate by the London County Council has yet been submitted to the Local Government Board. Arrangements have been made with the London County Council for the utilisation of a small part of this estate for the erection of model houses based on the plans which gained awards in the competition instituted by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
      Sir A. YEO: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that in the plans or schemes the children are not prevented from living in these houses?

    BURIAL CERTIFICATES (MIDWIVES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to an inquest held recently on a stillborn child by the Southwark coroner, when certain malpractices were disclosed over the burial certificate given by the midwife; and whether, in view of these disclosures, he proposes to recommend the alteration of
    570
    the law in order to prevent the continuance of the practice of allowing midwives to give certificates for burial purposes?
    Major ASTOR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative-My right hon. Friend will consider the advisability of altering the law.

    CAUSTIC POTASH (SOAPMAKERS' FEDERATION).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that the Soapmakers' Federation is offering German caustic potash 90-92 per cent. at the price of £100 to £105 per ton; whether a price exceeding £40 a ton renders this chemical impracticable for general consumption; and if he will say what effect the policy of aiding Germany to dispose of her produce at inflated prices will have on the value of the indemnity to be paid by her?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): A proposal on the lines suggested in the question is now being considered by the Board of Trade in conjunction with the Ministry, but no decision has been reached.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary if he will state the name of the contractor and the nature of the contract, approximating £4,000,000 in value, referred to in the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, where a contract had been reported by the financial authorities of the Ministry of Munitions to carry an excessive price; on whose decision did the Ministry decide to waive its statutory powers to investigate the books in favour of placing the contract at fixed prices, which were known to be excessive; and what action he proposes to take to protect the interest of the taxpayer?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is now before the Public Accounts Committee. Until that Committee reports no statement can be made on the particular cases cited in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report.

    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (SALE).
    Mr. ROYCEasked the Parliamentary Secretary whether his attention has teen called to a sale by public auction at Butterwick, near Boston, where certain living huts, store sheds, buildings, and equipments realised £2,400; and whether the same were disposed of by tender for the sum of £540?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not understand my hon. Friend's question. Perhaps he will be so good as to give me further information.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (NEW TONNAGE).
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLEWHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller what tonnage of new ships has been laid down and completed between 1st January and 1st May, 1919, and what was the total tonnage of British shipping available for service afloat on 1st May, 1919, as compared with the same tonnage on 1st May, 1917?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): Mercantile steam tonnage completed in the United Kingdom between 1st January and 1st May, 1919, amounted to 328,251 tons gross. Full particulars of tonnage laid down during this period are not available, but approximately 450,000 tons gross were laid down during the three months January to March, 1919.
    British mercantile steam tonnage of 500 gross tonnage and over at 1st May, 1919, amounted to 15,750,000 gross tonnage, of which approximately 1,500,000 was undergoing repair. The corresponding figure at 1st May, 1917, was 16,650,000 gross tonnage, of which 300,000 was repairing.

    CONCRETE SHIPYARD, BARNSTAPLE.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that two expert shipwrights, appointed by the Ship Constructors' and Shipwrights' Association, have made a Report upon the Barn-staple concrete shipyard, in which they state that the sole product of a yard which cost £500,000 was a 1,000-ton barge, and
    572
    that the vessel broke her back on launching and had to be blown up to get her out of the way; that the Report urges the necessity of an inquiry; and whether he is prepared to institute such inquiry forthwith?
    Colonel WILSON: I have not seen the Report referred to, but should be glad if the hon. Member would let me have a copy. The cost of the yard was some £30,000 and not £500,000 as stated. The first vessel was launched, but sustained damage in launching, and some days afterwards went aground in a very unfavourable locality and broke her back. The second barge was launched on 2nd April, and it is expected to take delivery of her shortly. As at present advised, I am doubtful if an inquiry would disclose any facts not already in the possession of the Department, but I will consider the matter further on receipt of the Report.
    Mr. ROSE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not the Department so much as the public who require information about this sort of thing, and, in view of the public necessity, knowing some-tiling about the way in which public money has been wasted, will the hon. Gentleman give us an idea as to whether the Department will cause an inquiry, not by Whitehall experts, but by people who know something about this business?
    Colonel WILSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the whole situation with regard to concrete ships, and every fact is before the Department As regards this particular case, we do not think any further inquiry is necessary.

    PHYSICAL TRAINING (INSPECTORS).
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Education what decision has been come to with reference to the strengthening of the staff of inspectors of physical training; whether one man inspector for boys and one woman inspector for girls for each inspectorial division have now been appointed; and, if not, how many still remain to be appointed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I am in communication with the Treasury on this subject, but I do not consider that so large an increase of the inspectorate for this purpose as is suggested in the second part of the question is necessary.
    Colonel YATE: What increase does the right hon. Gentleman consider necessary?
    Mr. FISHER: I say that a certain increase is necessary.

    LINSEED OIL (SALE TO GERMANY).
    Sir R. COOPERasked whether a sale of 30,000 tons of linseed oil to Germany has recently been arranged, at £57 a ton, the ruling price in this country at the time the sale was negotiated; whether, in consequence, the price in the United Kingdom has advanced to £80; and whether this arrangement is to the advantage of British industry and trade?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As part of the arrangements made at the Brussels Conference for Germany to be supplied with 70,000 tons of edible fats, a sale of 25,000 tons of linseed oil was arranged at £78 a ton. At that time we had a surplus stock of linseed oil in this country, which was previously offered to the trade at a lower price. The rise in price of linseed oil has been caused by neutral and enemy purchases in the countries of origin.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that this surplus stock was offered to the trade on the strict condition that it should not be exported, and did not that policy have the effect of compelling British manufacturers to pay £96 per ton for linseed oil whilst our enemy has got it at £78?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that the hon. Member is correct.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that they had so much of this oil that they could not store it?

    ROYAL DOCKYARD, DEVONPORT.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the rumour, since formulated into a public statement, that some 5,000 men are to be shortly discharged from the Royal dockyard at Devonport, and can he give the House any information on the subject?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir. My attention has been
    574
    drawn to the statement that it is contemplated within the near future to reduce the number of employés in Devonport Dockyard by 5,000, and I recognise it as the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Silver-town Division on the authority of the men who had consulted him, at a deputation to myself on 14th instant. I said then, and now repeat, that I knew nothing about reductions on anything like so large a scale. My hon. Friend the Member for the Silver-town Division had waited upon me with a view to finding some means of mitigating the hardships involved in reductions; this, I said, I would try to do, and inquiries in that direction have been set on foot.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the dimensions which are proposed with regard to these reductions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That will depend upon the amount of work, but it will not be on anything like so large a scale as 5,000.
    Mr. J. JONES: Ts he aware that my statement arose as the result of a discussion which took place at a meeting of the Plymouth trades union at which the men reported through the Trades Council that from the whole of the area of Plymouth and Devonport it was given out that there was going to be 5.000 discharged before the end of the financial year?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend had that authority to repeat the statement, but what I am anxious to say is that the reductions will not be in that proportion. Some reduction will be necessary and we must do all we can to mitigate the hardship.

    BEER SUPPLIES
    Mr. SEDDON(by Private Notice) asked whether the Government are aware of the great discontent caused in various parts of the country by the present shortage of beer, and whether they propose to take any steps to relieve the situation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir. The subject has again been considered by the Government and it has been decided to increase the standard barrelage from 20,000,000 standard barrels to 26,000,000 standard barrels, which at the present sanctioned gravity of 10.40 would give approximately

    575
    35,000,000 bulk barrels. Of the 26,000,000 standard barrels, some 2,500,000 will be reserved for allocation by the Ministry of Food to areas where the population has increased. The present prices will remain and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in due course, make proposals to this House for the additional taxation consequent on the increased barrelage.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. DEVLIN: At an early stage of the Session the question was raised as to whether it would not be possible or convenient to give another fifteen minutes to questions. You then stated, Mr. Speaker, that the tremendous number of questions on the Paper was largely due to the newfound zeal and interrogatory enthusiasm of new Members and that it was possible, after a short experience, that the activities of new Members would decrease as the Session proceeded. I do not think our experience has borne out that prognostication upon your part, Mr. SPEAKER, and therefore I ask you whether it would be possible now to take the opinion of the House as to whether it would not meet the universal convenience of hon. Members as well as the public interest by giving another fifteen minutes to questions and answers? I may say that, in my judgment, Question Time is the most fruitful time in the business of this House. It is a great advantage to the Members of the House to have this information given in a succient way by Ministers. I know myself that when unsatisfactory answers are given sometimes, good results have come from the question. I think the judgment of the House ought to be taken as to whether these additional fifteen minutes ought to be given.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before you answer that question, may I put to you another question? I suggest, instead of complying with the hon. Gentleman's request, that you should consider the advisability of making it more publicly known that there are certain regulations governing the putting of questions in Parliament. There is, especially, the rule that every Member must or should be answerable for any statement which he makes in putting a question. If the Regulations were more generally known, I think fewer questions would be put.
Mr. DEVLIN: You would be ruled out every time yourself.
Mr. SPEAKER: The matter does not rest with me. It is laid down by Standing Order No. 9 that no questions shall be taken after a quarter to four o'clock. If the House chooses to alter the Standing Order, of course it will be my duty to comply with it, but I have no power to override it.
Mr. DEVLIN: May I respectfully point out that an opportunity might be given, either by you or by the Leader of the House, for the Members of the House to express their opinion as to whether it would not be possible to change that Standing Order?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is always possible for the House to change it; all that I am saying is that it does not rest with me. I cannot issue an edict. With regard to whether my prognostication has turned out correct or not, I think, if the hon. Member will look at the questions, he will find that every day we should easily have got through the questions on the Paper if it had not been for supplementary questions, and those I could not foresee.
Mr. DEVLIN: I regard the supplementary questions as more important even than the questions themselves. I would like now to address myself to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I know that in all these matters he is perfectly agreeable to meet the convenience and the general desire of the House, and he can easily see that in all parts of the House there is a strong desire that there should be a longer period given to questions and answers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I would like to have his view upon the matter.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is quite right. I think it is a question which the Government ought to deal with in accordance with the wishes of the House, but I am not sure that he has correctly interpreted the wishes of the House. I recognise the value of questions, even when they are not always agreeable, but, so far as I can judge, we have in the last month or two got through a larger number of questions than almost ever before. I do not think it would be worth while suggesting a change this Session, and, if hon. Members would be content to have a fewer number of questions, I do not think that there would be much inconvenience.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the Leader of the House tell us what business we are going to take next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: In consequence of the announcement made in answer to a question with regard to beer, my right hon. Friend will have an additional Financial Resolution to propose either on Monday or Tuesday—he does not yet know which. Apart from that, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, we hope to take the Housing Bill, with which we shall begin and continue until it is finished. We hope also in those three days that we shall be able to take the Land Acquisition Bill, the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, and possibly some other smaller measures. On Thursday it will be Supply, the Army Estimates.
Sir H. HARRIS: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the Recess?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I have been carefully considering this matter with my Noble Lord (Lord Edmund Talbot), and I am in a little difficulty about it. I feel, as was indicated at Question Time, that Members have been subjected to very unusual pressure this Session, and I am inclined to think that even in the interests of business it might be advantageous to have a fairly long Recess, so that Members might come back to their work with renewed vigour. On the other hand, we have a great deal of work to do, and I should therefore be obliged if the question were put again on Monday, when I will give a definite answer.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon Gentleman so adjust the time of the House as to avoid the necessity for an Autumn Session, which is very injurious to the public service and also leads to extravagance in the public finances?
Mr. BONAR LAW: My Noble Friend knows that I and everyone who has been in the Government think that it is very bad not merely for Ministers, or chiefly for Ministers, but for the Civil servants to have continuous sittings of the House, but whether or not it will be possible to avoid an Autumn Session this year it is quite impossible to say now.

STANDING COMMITTEES (OFFICIAL REPORTS).
Mr. TURTON: May I ask for your guidance upon a matter incidentally referred to by the hon. Member opposite. Grand Committee D, which is charged with the Acquisition of Land Bill, feel very strongly indeed the injustice that they wore not allowed to have an Official Report made of their proceedings, and to-day, by way of protest, they adjourned the proceedings. I have reason to believe that it is the intion of the Committee to continue to adjourn until such time as an Official Reporter is provided. I need hardly point out the extreme importance of the matters which are coming before that Committee, but, without disparagement to another Committee, Committee C, presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macmaster), I think, considering that that Committee, which is in charge of the Civil Service Estimates, is allowed the advantage of having an official report, although the Committee meets very seldom and for very small periods, the least that we can ask is that you will order and direct that an Official Report shall be made of the proceedings on this Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I ask for your guidance, advice, and assistance?
Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will use all the resources of the House to prevent this attempt to stop the business of the nation?
Mr. MACMASTER: There was the same demand in Committee 0 for an Official Report, and after some time an Official Reporter was provided. We have only had two Official Reports, and the Committee stands adjourned till next Monday, when it is expected that the Official Report will be continued. I cannot help deprecating this comparison of one Committee with another to the disparagement of one, and I may say that a very serious matter has occurred in connection with the Committee over which I preside calling for the attendance of Ministers, and it would be inconvenient if at this stage the reporter was withdrawn.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: May I submit to you and the authorities that there is very great difficulty in any body or Committee attempting to discriminate between the relative importance of different Bills before

579
the Grand Committees, and, unless arrangements can be made for a general report being issued, I expect, from what I hear on the Chairman's Panel of the experience of various chairmen, that there will be a difficulty as between one Committee and another. It is not only the reporting, but also the actual printing of the proceedings that is frequently the difficulty. I do not think Members attach so much importance to having the Report the very next day as they do to having a record of what takes place, particularly having regard, I will not say to the growing system, but the frequent system adopted by Ministers in charge of Bills of promising to consider on Report on condition that the Amendment is withdrawn. In that respect I consider that the interests of this House at large are concerned, and that there ought to be a proper record kept of such promises which do not appear on the Minutes. Members are entitled to have such a record for guidance on Report. Therefore if it is not possible to issue the proceedings the very next day, if they were issued two days later it would suffice. All that is required is that the record should be kept.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will consider with the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), the Chairman of the Publications and Debates Committee, as to whether arrangements can be made to meet the desires of hon. Members to see their speeches in print But I would remind the House that there are really very grave difficulties. Our official staff is limited. At the beginning of the Session it was only just capable of dealing with the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings here, and you cannot suddenly extend a small Department of that sort. It requires very skilled men to report Debates, especially Debates in Committee when a Bill is going through fast, dealing with a number of Amendments, Amendments to Amendments, new Clauses, Amendments withdrawn, rulings, and so on. You require a specially skilled staff for that purpose. We have not got one, and, therefore, to adjourn from day to day, in order to provide reporters, will not produce a reporter. The reporter does not exist; he is not to be found, and that, therefore, seems to be an absolutely futile remedy. The only thing possible is to introduce some reporters from outside.
580
That we have been trying hard to do, but they are not to be found. We have approached the leading newspapers, and they have nobody on their staffs whom they can spare. We have approached some of the chief agencies, and they have nobody. Therefore, it is impossible to provide suitable men for the purpose. The next best thing is to provide men as nearly suitable as possible. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Or women!"] Where are the women who have been trained in taking down Parliamentary proceedings? They do not exist yet. They may come into being later on, but they are not here at this moment. We will do our best, and I have done my best, to supply the wants of A Committee and B Committee, and I have also found a reporter for C Committee; but what was the result? As soon as the reporter got there, the C Committee sat a very short time. I think there were ten columns produced, and the greater part was taken up with discussion on points of Order and the question of adjournment. The next day the same thing happened. There were nine columns produced, and a considerable part of that was taken up in discussing points of Order and the question whether the Committee should adjourn or not. Then look at the expense! It is not only the expense of reporting: there is the expense of transcribing, the expense of printing, of paper, of sewing and publishing. In the interests of economy I have done my best to damp down this desire for reports. The official proceedings are reported, but, of course, if hon. Members insist on having reports, well, I will, as I say, in communication with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford, and in consultation with the Editor of the Debates, do my best to supply them. But hon. Members must be content with what they can get. There must, I am afraid, certainly be some delay before the report can be produced. I assure hon. Members it cannot be done in a moment.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: The more limited point would be met if there were in attendance some shorthand writer, who could take down, when a Member required it, before he withdrew his amendment, a note of that particular item as a record against the Minister of a promise to bring it forward. In that way it could be embodied in the Official Note which the Clerk keeps, and it would be shown that the amend-

581
ment was withdrawn under conditions of that sort. I think that would meet a great deal of the difficulty, although, of course, it would not meet everything.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be very invidious to draw a distinction and to say that the only person whose statement you do not trust is the Minister, and you must take down what he says. If you are going to have a report, you must have a proper report. I will do my best to get it. I cannot do more than that, and I cannot produce it at a moment's notice.

WAR INDEMNITY.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the absence from the Peace Treaty with Germany of any definite provision for the reimbursement of the cost of the War as distinguished from reparation for damage to persons and property.
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, less than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. John William Wilson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Stratford Urban District Council Bill, Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bankers' Guarantee Trust (Transfer) Bill
[Lords Reported, without Amendment;
Report to lie upon the Table, Bill to be read the third time.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir. SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (at the conclusion of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill): Mr. Bartley Denniss, Major Henderson, Major William Murray, and Mr. Strauss; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill): Sir Francis Blake, Major Courthope, Sir Alfred Warren, and Major Edward Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Mr. Bottomley and Sir John Butcher.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time upon Friday, 30th May, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, —
Wages (Temporary Regulation) Extension Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Falmouth Docks Company to make additional works and to raise further capital; and for other purposes."[Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the transfer of the undertakings of the Longwood and Slaithwaite and the Kirkheaton, Dalton, and Lepton Gas Companies to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Huddersfield; to make further provision in regard to the gas undertaking of the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses; and for other purposes."[Huddersfield Corporation Gas Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Conservators of the River Medway; to make further provisions with reference to the tolls and

583
charges to be taken by the Conservators; to provide for the appointment of additional Conservators; and for other purposes." Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords],

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords], Huddersfield Corporation Gas Bill [Lords], Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords].
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  MR. MONTAGU'S STATEMENT.
  Order for Committee read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  This is the sixth time it has fallen to my lot to initiate the discussion on the Indian Budget, and I devoutly hope that it may be the last. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain that in one moment. This is the first time in the history of Indian affairs in my memory that the House of Commons has agreed to the discussion of the Indian Budget so early as before the end of May, and I take that as a happy prelude to the day when we shall have substituted for this meaningless process of Budget Debate a more proper procedure of Debate on the India Office Estimates, which I trust at an early date will be substituted for the Indian Budget discussion. I cannot understand why my salary should be charged to the Indian taxpayer, and be beyond the control of this House, while the salary of my right hon. Friend on my left (Mr. Fisher) is a subject over which the House of Commons has proper control. I am not going to discuss the financial situation in India. Hon. Members—I fear there are very few—who are interested in that absorbing topic—will have presented to them the Budget statement of my hon. Friend (Sir James Meston). I will merely say on that topic that the currency position in India was a source of great anxiety to the Government throughout the War, an anxiety that might have brought disaster to India if it had not been for the timely help of the American Government and the American Parliament by the passage of the Pitman Act. The currency situation is now causing us renewed anxiety owing to the increase in the price of silver which has necessitated a rupee of 1s. 8d. It is a difficult matter to decide how long we shall go on purchasing silver in a rising market, and I have decided to appoint a new Currency Commission to investigate the situation caused by the rise in the price of silver in a limited world supply. I propose to publish the names of that Commission in due course;
  622
  they will be representative of British and Indian commerce, and they will be presided over by Sir Henry Babington Smith, who has kindly consented to offer his unequalled knowledge to this very responsible body.
  I would like the House to be good enough to listen to me while I try to sketch the position in India to-day. If we are considering only the position of India vis-à-vis the great nations of the world, the situation is a bright one. After having taken up the challenge which Germany and her Allies presented to the civilised world, after having devoted her invaluable troops and her limited resources to the Allied cause, India has won for herself a place in international discussion equal to that of the British Dominions, and greater than the position occupied by any Power in the world, except, of course, those who are colloquially known as the Big Five. Not only has she separate access to the Peace Conference, not only have her representatives received from the King power to sign on his behalf peace with His Majesty's enemies, but as members of the British Empire Delegation they share in the task of concerting the policy of the British Empire. I can only say on behalf of my colleagues, His Highness the Maharajah of Bikanir, and Lord Sinha, and myself, that we have devoted ourselves in Paris with all the more concentration to the interests of the Indian Empire, because we realise we are the representatives of a people not yet unfortunately self-governing. It must have been a satisfaction to the House of Commons to learn that India was to be an original Member of the League of Nations, and that Indian representatives are to sit in the far-reaching and important international labour organisation which is to result from the Peace Treaty. I can only repeat that these things, together with the place occupied by my friend and colleague, Lord Sinha in the House of Lords, commit this House and Parliament to the view that this position is only justified if you can raise India to the position of a sister nation in the British Empire, and it is wholly inconsistent with a position of subordination. And I must go one step further. I would say to our colleagues who have sat with us round the Conference Table representing the great Dominions of this Empire, that the position of equality which they have given to the representa-

  623
  tives of India is wholly inconsistent, in my humble opinion, with the treatment of the citizens of India in British Dominions.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: In South Africa?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, in South Africa or anywhere, in the position which puts them lower than the citizens of any other parts of the British Empire. I turn to India herself. There the position is not so satisfactory. Having come through the War with a record which will compare with the record of any other country in the world, we find now a country in mourning. Rebellion and revolution have appeared internally. War has broken out afresh on her frontiers. It is to this subject that I would invite the attention of the House his afternoon, to an analysis of the causes, to a description of the state of affairs, and to a suggestion as to the remedies. I am not going to say very much about Afghanistan. It is now quite clear that the new Amir, having achieved the throne, has, in a moment of almost suicidal folly, authorised an unprovoked attack upon the territories for which we are responsible. His motives are doubtful. They must be partly attributed to the unrest which exists throughout the Mahomedan world—on which I shall have something to say in a minute— partly to a pathetic effort, by the worst possible means, to consolidate his position on a shaky throne, partly to the emissaries of that dark and murderous doctrine which battens upon unrest, feeds on discontent, spreads disorder wherever it shows its head—Bolshevism, and the Bolshevist emissaries of Russia. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And Germany, too!"] All these have played their part, and the result was inevitable. I shall publish daily as I receive them reports on the military situation. It is not necessary for me to say that we desire nothing in Afghanistan but the friendly relations with a neighbouring country which we had when Afghanistan was ruled by that wise statesman, Habibullah, who was so recently and treacherously done to death. We desire peace and no interference, but we do intend to exact stern and just punishment for the raids and invasions perpetrated by unscrupulous forces on the peoples under our protection, and explanations and withdrawals of the strange messages we have received from the present Amir.
  624
  As to the internal situation in India, I propose to deal frankly with the trouble in India, but I do so with this word of preface: The danger is not past, it exists, it is not something that is finished, it threatens. I shall charge myself with the task of saying nothing that will fan the flames or increase the grievous responsibility of those whose first duty it is to restore order. Those who govern India, those who wish her well, those who desire for her peace and progress, speak in a critical time in her history. I feel sure I can appeal to all those hon. Members who will take a part in this Debate to recognise, as I think the whole of India has recognised, that the first duty of the Government to-day is to restore order. It is not necessary to exaggerate the situation. Riots involving the destruction of life and of property have occurred in certain parts of the Presidency of Bombay, in the province of the Punjab, extending over one-tenth of the area and involving one-third of the population, on one occasion in the city of Delhi, and to a minor extent in the streets of Calcutta. There has been no trouble in Madras, no trouble in the Central Provinces, no trouble in the United Provinces, no trouble in Bihar, Orissa, or Burma. In Calcutta, the Bengali had little or no share in the trouble at all. Throughout India, generally speaking, the country districts remained quiet, and the trouble was confined to the towns. I would ask this House to join with me in an expression of sincere sympathy to all those who have suffered in these disturbances. There has been the loss of much property, there has been the loss of many innocent lives, there have been, as doubts less will be revealed when the whole story is told, many stirring deeds of heroism. I say again that these events have shown the unshakeable, undismayed loyalty of India as a whole. There have been striking incidents of the co-operation of Indians in localising the trouble and in using efforts to restore order. That does not detract from the fact that Englishmen in no way connected with the Government and in no way responsible for the deeds— misdeeds or good deeds—of the Government, have lost their lives and have been foully murdered. Official Indians and non-official Indians have been done to death, yes, and even many of the rioters deserve our sympathy, for when these things occur the man who loses his life as a result of a soldier's bullet is as much the

  625
  victim of those who promoted the riots as those who are killed by the rioters themselves.
  In these circumstances the Indian Army to a man, and the Indian Police, despite attempts to promote insubordination and indiscipline, remained without a single stain upon their reputation or a single unpleasant incident. This is a tribute to the men who have won renown on all the fields of war, who played so conspicuous, indeed the main and predominant, part in the defeat of one of our enemies, Turkey, but it is also a tribute to the officer of the Indian Army, who has shown his great capacity for leadership. I see opposite me my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate), whom I think I can describe as the Member for the Indian Army, who has done so much, both publicly and privately, to remove the troubles and to champion the cause of the officers of the Indian Army. May I digress for a moment to say to him, with special reference to the Amendment he has upon the Paper, that both the Government of India and the India Office are of opinion that now the War is over there must be inquiry by the best military organisers that we can obtain to improve the organisation of the Indian Army, with a view to removing grievances as to promotion and opportunity, and with a view to modernising, in view of the experiences of the War, its organisation. But, preceding that, the Government of India are devoting their attention to an investigation of the grievances as to pay, pensions, and leave, upon which I hope to give further information to the House.
  Colonel YATE: Thank you.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I turn from the Indian Army to the British Army. The House will remember that when the trouble occurred in India, elements of the British Army remaining in India, having done duty there, throughout the War, some of them, were faced with another hot season in India, and, instead of going back in the expectancy of early demobilisation, agreed to stay to help in the restoration of order. I do not think there will be any doubt about the welcome which the British troops will receive at home, wherever they have been doing duty through the War; but for these men, in these circumstances, I would ask that those who have a welcome to offer or an opportunity to afford special treatment
  626
  and special consideration, will avail themselves of the opportunity when these men come home, last of all.
  What were the causes of these troubles, troubles which have resulted so far as I can make out in the loss of nine European and something like 400 Indian lives? I am not going to deal with the obvious, I am not going to deal with re-action from the strain of the War, or with general unrest which is current throughout the world, but I want to deal with the direct causes, economic and political. The economic causes are very considerable. India has suffered this past year, for the first time I am glad to say for some years past, from a failure of the rains. There has been a consequent great diminution in food supplies and prices have risen to a very great extent indeed. People have gone short of food despite the strenuous efforts made by the Government to ensure better distribution and to make available grain from Australia. Further than that two other things have been accentuating the distress. Recruitment for the Army, which has gone on in parts particularly affected by these disturbances with such zeal and enthusiasm that I think there is reason to believe many a family was left without its breadwinner or breadwinners, and consequently the area under cultivation has been diminished. Lastly, there was the scourge of influenza which removed many of the most vigorous people in the prime of life, because this disease seems to attack by preference people of the breadwinning age. Between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 people died of influenza in India last winter. Between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent.—on an average two-thirds —of the total population suffered from influenza during the visitation of this plague with its consequent removal from industry, or from agriculture, which is more important, and the enfeebling after-results. These, I think, are the main economic causes.
  I will now turn to the political. I put first among the political causes the perturbation and perplexity caused to the Mahomedan world by the discussions arising out of the defeat of Turkey. This subject was discussed in the House last week a propos of Egypt. Very much the same circumstances exist in India, where Indian soldiers, including among their best, Mahomedan soldiers, claim that they have had a predominant part in the defeat of Turkey, in full confidence that the War

  627
  was a war of liberation and equality of treatment, of national settlement and of self-determination, and when they read of rumours and acts which led to fears that our Mussulman enemy will be partitioned up to satisfy conflicting claims, when they read that this part is to be allotted to this European nation and that to another— mere rumours, but alarming rumours— when they read that as a signal of victory there are those who advocate the reconsecration of an important Mahomedan mosque, is it to be wondered at that there are signs of unrest among the Mahomedan people of the world?
  I now come to two other political causes —causes more indirect because they only affect the politically-minded part of the population, but causes which must be reckoned with. One is a fear, based upon the ceaseless activities of the Indo-British Association, that the reforms promised on the 20th of August, 1917, will not be carried out in an acceptable form. This is an association formed with the most laudable motives, which has carried on a ceaseless campaign against those reforms ever since the announcement was made. They have slandered and libelled whole sections of the Indian population. They have very often hardly paid to the facts the respect to which facts are entitled, and they have provoked the suspicion that the British Parliament intends to go back upon that pronouncement, or at least not to carry it out in an adequate way. Lastly, there is the Rowlatt Act, which has caused widespread, I would almost say universal opposition throughout India: although the disturbances I have just described are so local, and although this shows that they are not directly due to opposition to the Rowlatt Act, let the House make no mistake, the Rowlatt Act was throughout India a very unpopular Act. I have read from end to end all the Debates which took place upon the Rowlatt Act, and I am not here to apologise for it. I am still convinced that in the circumstances, as passed, as it is now on the Statute Book, for it has been left to it operation, the Rowlatt Act was necessary, ought to have been passed and could not have been avoided. Evidence accumulates every day that there is in India a small body of men who are the enemies of government, men whom any Government, bureaucratic or democratic, alien or indigenous, if it was worthy the name of Government, must deal with. I cannot do
  628
  better, in describing this body of men, than quote the words of a very great and distinguished Indian, Mr. Gandhi. There is no man who offers such perplexity to a Government as Mr. Gandhi, a man of the highest motives and of the finest character, a man whom his worst enemy, if he has any enemies, would agree is of the most disinterested ambitions that it is possible to conceive, a man who has deserved well of his country by the services he has rendered, both in India and outside it, and yet a man who his friends, and I would count myself as one of them, would wish would exercise his great powers with a greater sense of responsibility and would realise in time that there are forces beyond his control and outside his influence who use the opportunities afforded by his name and reputation. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) will realise that Mr. Gandhi is not the only man who, despite the most laudable motives, sometimes shows a lack of political wisdom.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should be quite content if I had Mr. Gandhi's virtues and powers.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Gandhi has himself said about these things—he was deploring, as, of course, he would do, the acts of violence which have occurred—
  "He realised that there were clever men behind it all and some organisation beyond his ken."
  That is the real revolutionary, the man who lurks in dark corners, whom nothing can locate or convert, who is subject to the influences of an organisation ramifying throughout the world with its secret emissaries and influences, men who are a danger to any country, and against whom the Government of India are determined to do unceasing battle until they have been extirpated. The Defence of India Act has helped us to do much with regard to these men. No one in this House will accuse Lord Carmichael of being a stern, unbending bureaucrat. These are his words:
  "The Defence of India Act is what has helped us. I am only saying what I believe to be absolutely true when I say that, the Defence of India Act has helped to defend the young educated men of Bengal as nothing else has defended them, not their own fathers, not their teachers, for they were ignorant, not their associates nor they themselves, for they were blind to the danger."
  Under the Defence of India Act a certain number of these people have been dealt with. The greater number of the persons were mainly required to live in their own

  629
  homes and not to move without permission. The Act is comparable to our own Defence of the Realm Act and was passed for the duration of the War only. Under it some 1,600 people alone have been dealt with, of whom nearly two-thirds have subsequently been released, leaving at present about 464 subjects to restraint. All the cases in Bengal have been investigated by a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Mr. Justice Beechcroft and Sir Narayan Chandavarkar, and in all the cases which they have investigated they have found the Government was justified in the action they took except in six cases.
  The problem before the Government of India was this. Were we, when peace was restored, to rely on the ordinary law as it existed before the Defence of India Act was passed, or was it necessary to take any new steps'? We did not decide that by correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, but we appointed a Committee of Inquiry into the facts. It was presided over by an English judge, Mr. Justice Rowlatt, whom I asked go out there. His associates were two Indian judges, one an Indian and one an Englishman, an Indian Civil servant and an Indian lawyer in a large way of practice. They presented, after a full investigation, a unanimous Report, and the facts which they brought to light have never been challenged. It is their recommendation which has been carried out in the Rowlatt Act. Does the House mean to suggest to me that, confronted with this evil, having considered the situation arising out of the end of the Defence of India Act, having appointed a Committee for this purpose, thus constituted, having got from it a unanimous report of this authority, we were to say we. would disregard their advice and do nothing? It has been objected that this Commission was entirely legal, that they were all lawyers, and that a different result might have been obtained if some other element had been upon the tribunal. Our anxiety was to try to rely entirely upon legal processes rather than upon executive action. What better tribunal can you have to advocate the great advantages of the law than lawyers? This fact added to my mind the importance of their findings.
  Let me shortly describe the Act which is based upon their recommendations. First of all it is not in force anywhere. Does the House realise that? It will
  630
  never be in force unless the circumstances which justify it occur, and then it would be unflinchingly used. It is divided into parts, and the application of each part depends upon a declaration of the Government of India that in different degrees anarchical or revolutionary crime exists.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Do I understand that the Indian Defence of the Realm Act is considered to be sufficient to cover the Indian difficulties until the War ends, and then, that the Rowlatt Act or Acts would, if necessary, being on the Statute Book, be put into operation?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is absolutely accurate. It was stated several times in the Debate by members of the Government of India that they had no intention of using the Rowlatt Act until the end of the War. Under the first part of the Bill when the results of anarchical or revolutionary movement are comparatively mild, nothing is suggested but the speeding up of the ordinary legal processes. I think I am right in saying that I need not waste time with that particular part of the Act, because it has met with very little opposition. Under the other two parts of the Act, where anarchical or revolutionary movement are giving cause for grave anxiety—I am not quoting the exact words —or are prevailing to such an extent as to endanger the public safety, then the local Government may deprive a man of his liberty, not as a punishment but as a preventative, and intern him for a prolonged period. But in that case, the local Government first of all has to submit the case to a judicial officer to advise them upon it. It is not until they have received his report that they take action, and when they have taken action, within a month of having taken action they must submit the whole case to what is called an investigating authority, consisting of three individuals, of whom one shall be a non-official, to go into the whole case afresh and see that the Act has not been misapplied. That is, roughly speaking, the machinery.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: These people to whom appeals are made have to decide the question not on the grounds of justice or injustice, but on the grounds of expediency, I presume—on the ground of whether the authority who ordered the man's internment believes that he was a danger to the State without any specific crime being alleged against him? It is a ques-

  631
  tion of expediency, I understand, and not justice, that has to be decided by the Appeal Court.
  Mr. MONTAGU: No; they have full authority to go into the whole matter. They would be able to advise the Government whether it is right and proper that this man should continue to be interned.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Whether it is expedient?.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Not expediency only. They take expediency, justice, and everything else into account.
  Mr. SPURR: Is it correct that in that case he is deprived of any legal assistance?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Under Part I. of the Act he has legal assistance, but under Parts II. and III. there is no legal assistance. This is not a Law Court but a committee of inquiry. It is more like a body of schoolmasters investigating trouble in a school, a committee of a club using its friendly services for the purposes of inquiry; some body to explore all matters, some body to see that injustice is not done, some body to be sure that all the facts are investigated. The hon. Member would like the legal processes better. I am coming to that. I am dealing with the objections which have been taken to the Act. The first objection is, that we have in existence far more drastic powers than we take under the Act now. Where, therefore, was the necessity for this? I have here a quotation from the Leader of the Opposition, if I may call him by that name, my friend Mr. Surendra Nath Banerjea:
  "My lord,"
  he said to the Viceroy,
  "you possess full statutory emergency powers to deal with revolutionary and anarchical crime; powers far more summary, far more drastic than what is contemplated in the provisions of this Bill."
  That is so. Martial Law, the power of ordinance, the Defence of India Act, Regulation III. of 1818. All these are infinitely more drastic, infinitely more summary. Out of the mouths of our own critics I claim that we have made no new outrage upon the liberty of the subject in India. We have merely perfected and improved the long-established method of dealing with these abuses, and provided something which gives some guarantees to the individual that the powers will not be misapplied. Next it was said in the Debates, "Why do you come here for
  632
  legislation? Why do you not proceed by ordinance? Why do you not enact by a decree of your Government?"Is it seriously to be argued that instead of proceeding by full discussion in Legislative Council, without an opportunity of discussion or amendment, you should enunciate an ordinance? I do not think that can seriously be argued by any" body with a sense of civic responsibility. I presume that what is meant is that there is no difference between legislation by ordinance and this legislation which was passed by an official majority in the teeth of non-official opposition. I claim that the Bill was vastly improved by the discussion which took place in the Legislative Council, and I should like to pay a tribute—a tribute which was paid by the Opposition themselves—to my hon. Friend Sir William Vincent, the Home Member, for the courtesy and Parliamentary ability which he displayed in the uncongenial task of passing this legislation.
  The two most important alterations that were made were that the Bill was limited to three years, and that the name was altered to make it quite clear that it was only to be used for the anarchical and the revolutionary movement. The Government of India have been criticised even in this House for consenting to make the Bill temporary. Why did they make any concessions in the Bill? Is discussion not to be of any use? Are there not occasions in this House where a private Member is right and where the Government is wise enough to see it? This Bill was never intended by the Government of India to be a permanent measure. It was introduced in a permanent form, but I hope everybody will look forward to its being unnecessary and to its eventual repeal. In my opinion, the legislative council were right in saying that this sort of legislation can only be justified by the existing circumstances of the case. No Government is entitled to put a statute of this kind as a permanent measure upon the Statute Book. If you can justify previous action by what has occurred subsequently, there are dangers that justify this emergent and exceptional power at a period of the close of the War, with all the difficulties of peace, and when Bolshevism, even though its attractions are waning, is still a force to be reckoned with. I appreciate to the full one of the arguments which was used in the Debate on this matter. It is said by the non-official Member: "Though you seek this instrument for

  633
  dealing with anarchical and revolutionary crime, you will use it for all sorts of others. You will use it to stifle legitimate political discussion. You will misuse it." I profoundly sympathise with that view, although I do not believe that there is any foundation whatever for it in this connection. Drastic powers of this kind, safeguarded though they are in the hands of the Government may make, if theyaremisused, administration—for it is not government—too easy for the moment. The Government of India again and again made all the pledges possible to eradicate this evil. I will repeat them. This Act will not be used except to cope with anarchical and revolutionary movement. There is no danger whatever of its being used for any other purpose, and if you think it is being used at any moment or at any time you will always have, I hope, the reformed local Governments, the large legislative assemblies, and the Select Committee of this House to safeguard the liberties of the subject, or, rather—because there I do not think there is any danger—to convince Indian public opinion that the powers we have taken have not been misused.
  5.0 p.m.
  Then comes the next objection: "Try the man. Try the man openly in a Court of law, and if he is guilty of these crimes, produce him in the law Court, let him stand his trial openly, with lawyers to defend him, and then sentence him to the punishment he deserves." Is there any man in this House who does not sympathise with that plea in theory? Does not everybody hope, the Government of India as much as anybody, if not more, that the time will come in India when you can contemplate recourse to judicial and not executive remedies for dealing with evils which are in this country dealt with by judicial Courts'! The separation of judicial and executive functions in India has long been a much advocated and canvassed question. I hope for the day when we shall have a complete separation of legal and executive functions, not in a limited sense, dealing with Courts of first instance, but I do hope the day will come gradually, possibly through reforms of the legal processes, through changes in the customs and habits of the people of the country, when we can substitute for executive act the ordinary remedies of the law. But does anybody think that that day has come now any more than for achievement of self-govern-
  634
  ment itself? What is the reason for this impossibility at this moment? It is because you cannot get witnesses. You cannot get a fair trial in a case of this kind in a Court of law. These revolutionary conspirators have proved over and over again their ability to intimidate those who give evidence against them, and those who have served the Government in exposing those conspiracies have been murdered, shot, have lost their lives for their action, to such an extent that the only possible way of dealing with these cases, provided you once accept the responsibility of government and the protection of life and property by eradicating: these anarchical movements is by private investigation.
  I would like to quote on this subject, because I think it is important to convince the House, the report on the internees, of Mr. Justice Beechcroft and Sir Narayan Chandarvarkar:
  "The records before us prove conclusively that the revolutionary organisations are secret conspiracies which have spread to different parts of the provinces, have entered homes, schools and colleges, and have reduced their secrecy of operations almost to scientific methods. They have pledged their members to the closest secrecy of their movements under pain of instant death by murder in the event of disclosure. That is one of their rules and every attempt that had been made to deal with it, before the Defence of India Act was brought into force, by the trial of persons accused of revolutionary crimes had been rendered practically impossible by the murder of witnesses, approvers police officers, and law-abiding citizens suspected of having given information to or otherwise assisted the police in the detection of revolutionary crime. A situation of terrorism had been created. The current of truth and justice was disturbed so as to prevent a fair, open and impartial trial in an ordinary criminal Court, with the result that approvers and witnesses would not come forward to give evidence openly lest they should be assassinated."
  They further went on to say:
  "In these circumstances it was impossible to secure a fair trial by the procedure of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code which is appropriate only to normal conditions. The procedure to deal with revolutionary crimes has to be practical in the sense of being appropriate in the special conditions, so as to secure a fair trial in the exceptional situation. Our special procedure cannot therefore be regarded as violating the primary principle on which those laws are based."
  Therefore I say it is impossible to resort to open trial. My last defence of the Rowlatt Act will be this, that you cannot defend it unless you agree that it is the duty of the Government to cope with the evils against which it is designed I cannot agree that it is not the duty of the Govern-

  635
  ment to use every method to cope with this danger just as I cannot agree with those who think that that is their only method. We intend to maintain order in India, and we intend to safeguard it because we believe that that is the only atmosphere in which nationality can grow uninterruptedly, surely, and swiftly. I quote the opinion of one who cannot be described as a thick-and-thin supporter of the Government of India in all that is done-—Mrs. Besant. She stated in public that" the Rowlatt Act as amended contains nothing that a good citizen should resist. This Act need never be used if there is no occasion to use it.
  In what conditions and circumstances would there be no occasion to use it? What is the policy? I have now described, I think, the condition in India. I have described the causes and explained them which have led to these conditions, and I come now to what I venture to suggest are the remedies. There, seems to me to be two alternative policies. The first is to do nothing, to ride the storm, to stifle political aspirations by the Rowlatt Act and comparable legislation, to prevent those who would stir strong political ambitions from speaking in India or in England, to give the advocates of political opinions and reform no passports so as to lay their case before the Government at home, to keep political leaders from the platform, and govern by emergency legislation through the police. That is what I believe is called in club smoking-rooms firm and strong government. Sir, we are not dealing with a cattle-yard. We are dealing with men, and thinking men, and business men, men who desire opportunities for their aspirations. The sort of policy I have referred to is described in some eloquent words by the man under whose leadership I entered the field of Indian politics, who has been my inspiration since I had anything to do with him. Lord Morley said:
  "The shortcomings of Government lead to outbreaks. Outbreaks have to be put down. Reformers have to bear the blame, and their reforms are stopped. Reaction triumphs, and the mischief goes on as before, only worse."
  That is not the policy of the Government of India. It is not the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is not the policy that I am here to advocate. There are, I believe, in India some men, opponents of all government, who are incurably evilly disposed. There are others whose grievances must be investigated with a view to
  636
  removing their cause. Much has been done recently. The letters I have seen addressed to me and to other people show that, among the young and misguided men whom it ought to be our constant effort to reform, new hope is arising. The steadily increased association of Indians with the affairs of Government, such small reforms as the grant of commissions in His Majesty's Army to Indians, and the removal at last of the racial discrimination in the Arms Act Schedule—all these will have their effect, and are having their effect.
  But more than this is required. As regards these troubles which I have been describing, questions have been asked from time to time, and resolutions have been moved demanding an inquiry. The Viceroy has always contemplated an inquiry. You cannot have disturbances of this kind and of this magnitude without an inquiry into the causes of and the measures taken to cope with these disturbances; but no announcement has been made of any inquiry up to this moment, for this reason —let us talk of an inquiry when we have put the fire out. The only message which we send from this House to-day to India is a message of confidence in and sympathy with those upon whom the great responsibility has fallen to restore the situation. Then will come the time to hold an inquiry, not only to help us to remove the causes, but in order to dispose once for all of some of the libellous charges which have been made against British troops and those upon whom the unpleasant duties in connection with these riots have fallen. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me a question yesterday about Mr. Horniman. He cannot but realise that Governments in India have been very patient with Mr. Horniman. He cannot have realised that in no case has there been a better example of our reluctance to interfere with mere eccentricities of political belief. But when this gentleman began to use his paper in the middle of riots, resulting in loss of life, to spread and to fan the flame, and opened his columns to an accusation that British troops had been using soft-nosed bullets in the streets of Delhi, when his paper was being distributed free to British troops in Bombay in the hope of exciting disaffection and insubordination, why then I say that it was high time he left India.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why not prosecute him?
  An HON. MEMBER: Why not shoot him?
  Mr. MONTAGU: In normal times he would have been tried. There was plenty of case to put before the Law Courts, but you are dealing with a case in which riots were occurring, where prompt and swift action for the restoration of order was necessary. He was an Englishman. This is one of those Regulations in which I should hope nobody would ever suggest any racial discrimination. An Indian would have been deported. An Englishman upon whom far greater responsibilities certainly lies, cannot be tolerated in India if he is responsible for the occurrences which we associate with Mr. Horniman. Then with regard to the Mahomedans. I can only say, speaking for myself, that I cordially sympathise with the causes of their perturbation, that I and my colleagues in Paris have persistently and consistently, at every opportunity afforded to us, right down to Saturday last when we discussed the question, assisted by three representative Indian Mahomedans, with the Council of Four—we have advocated these views and explained these conditions. If you want contented Mahomedan feeling in India you can achieve it only by a just peace based on considerations of nationality and self-determination.
  I cannot believe that there will be any other peace than this, but I would reassure my Mahomedan fellow-subjects by saying this, that throughout all the Peace discussions in Paris there has never been one word, authorised or unauthorised, to indicate that anybody is foolish enough to want to interfere with that question, which is a purely Mahomedan question, the question of the Khalifate. I would go further and say that I do not believe that any Holy place or any building which is consecrated to a particular religious faith at the present time is in any danger of being interfered with in consequence of the Peace.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: How about the Italians at Adalia?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am dealing with the Peace settlement and not with the occurrences after the Armistice. Therefore, we must give to the Mahomedans of India a fair share in the representation on public bodies in India, as we are enabled to do in consequence of Lord Southborough's report.
  Now as to the economic causes. Part of the economic causes can be dealt with only by searching medical and scientific investi-
  638
  gations. It always seems to me that influenza, despite its terrific death roll, is never treated with the respect which its toll on humanity deserves, but the history of India in the last winter makes it necessary to devote all that is best in science to combat the recurrence of so hideous a calamity. More than that, we want to increase the resisting power of the Indian people; we want to improve the conditions under which they live; and I have no doubt whatever that the only road to that is the development of India's industrial capacity and resources for the benefit of India. The industrial commission which reported will bear fruit. Sir Thomas Holland is on his way home to this country and we shall take action upon the Industrial Commission's Report as soon as the members of my council and I have an opportunity of conferring with him. But there are some questions outside the Report to which I would venture to draw the attention of the House. When India was short of many necessary commodities during the War, when sea communications were interrupted, the people of India, almost unanimously, have been for years past discontented with their fiscal policy. I am a Free Trader, but I have always held that Free Trade should be achieved by a nation at its own risk and not be imposed on it from outside by another Government. There is no doubt about it that the educated people in India are not Free Traders. If they wore given fiscal liberty I think they soon would be. But let them find their own salvation. Let them find what suits their destinies best; and I say that if we in this country slide towards Protection you may be quite sure that among India's mass of industries and occupations they will find their creed and they will demand, as they have demanded for years past, the fiscal liberty which we enjoy in this country.
  Lastly, I am more than ever convinced that we must now proceed without delay to the introduction of the promised Bill for the alteration of the Government of India. The pronouncement of the 20th of August must be made to live. I am authorised to say this afternoon that the Cabinet has consented to my introduction on their behalf of a Bill which will be introduced, I hope, at the beginning of June. There is now no longer any reason for delay. Lord Southborough's Committee has reported and has shown that we can get an electorate in India one hundred

  639
  and fifty seven times as big as the present one, which is good for a beginning. Mr. Feetham's Committee has reported and shown that you can divide the functions of the Government of India from those of the local Gonvernment and thus admit of the long-desired decentralisation, and that of the functions of the local Government there are many and substantial functions that can be entrusted at once to the charge of representatives of the peoples of India, bring home better to this House what I start of that kind has been made the rest of the local functions of the local Governments will follow. The Bill which I will introduce, therefore, is only awaiting two events—the recommendations of Lord Crewe's Committee as to those changes in the India Office which will require statutory enactment, and the publication, which I hope to have next week, of the dispatches of the Government in India and of the local Governments upon the Report. When these documents are published it will be found—I do not want to anticipate debate on this question—that the majority of the local Governments do not like that portion of the Montagu-Chelmsford form of government which is known as "diarchy"; and they have said so very forcibly. After they had written their letters of dissent the heads of the local Governments went to Delhi and conferred with the Viceroy. As a result they produced an alternative scheme which will be published next week and it is endorsed by the Governments of the United Provinces, Punjab, Central Provinces, and Assam. The Governor of Bengal and the Lieutenant-Governor of Behar and Orissa prefer the original scheme. The Governments of Madras and Bombay were not represented. The dispatch of the Government of India seems to me to be a striking defence of the original scheme and invites Parliament to reject the alternative scheme proposed by a majority of the local Governments. I do not want to anticipate the Second Reading Debate upon the Bill which, after it has been introduced, according to promise, is to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses that will hear evidence, discuss the alternative and upon whose recommendations I presume the House will ultimately form judgment.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The whole Bill will be referred?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: And the Regulations?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am coming to that in a moment. The keystone, the whole basis, the vital point of Indian reform today is the transference of power from the bureaucracy to the people, gradual if you like, but real at every stage. I cannot bring home better to this House what I mean by the essence of that than to ask them to consider the situation in this country. During the War Parliamentary government has been diminished and Executive control has been substituted. I read in the papers every day a demand that our lives, our occupations, our businesses, should be freed from Executive control. The only differences between the complaint here and in India are that in India nobody suggests that Executive control is exercised by too many officials—it is done by a singularly few—whereas the complaint here is as to the number. But nobody questions the single-mindedness, the ability, the devotion to duty of the officials to whose power we in this country, now that peace is restored, so much object. What we demand in this country is that officials should govern, not merely for our good, but on our behalf, carry out the orders of Parliament, be responsible to Parliament, Parliament alone deciding upon them. That is where the grievance in India is. There is, believe me, a passion for self-government. Nobody questions that it must come gradually, but I say at every stage the transference of power must be real and substantial. It must be definite and concrete; it must be beyond the reach of the personal generosity of character or the suspicious nature, or the autocratic temper, or the easy-going disposition of the particular incumbent of any governorship or lieutenant governorship. You must transfer the power from the officials to the people. You must make a beginning, and you must go on doing it. That is what is meant by the progressive realisation of responsible government. There is a great part to play for the Civil servant, English and Indian in India today, greater almost than the great part he has played in the past. But so far as responsibility for policy goes the pronouncement of 20th August meant nothing if it did not mean that the power of directing policy should first in some things and then in others, until finally in all, be transferred to the elected representatives of the people of India. Therefore, I am going to oppose, and I shall ask the House

  641
  to oppose any colourable programme which leaves an irresponsible executive confronted with a majority which they have to oppose or defer to at their will on all or any subjects as they choose. That is not responsible government, and if that is the only alternative to diarchy, diarchy holds the field. Therefore it will be seen that the Bill I shall introduce, I hope, shortly, will in substance carry out the proposals which the Viceroy and I submitted to Parliament a year ago. It will be seen in the dispatch of the Government of India that certain Amendments have been suggested. Of those Amendments some have been incorporated in the Bill, others I shall invite the Joint Committee to decide against.
  After reading all the criticisms to which I could gain access, after considering all the Amendments for improvement which have come to my notice, I have this to observe. The scheme which the Viceroy submitted to the people was elaborated after discussion with all the local Governments, with many officials and non-officials and after prolonged discussion with the Government of India. I remain now of the opinion that I expressed last year in this House, that we require all the assistance that the Joint Committee of Parliament can give us, to improve our suggestion, to find a better way even yet of carrying out the policy of His Majesty's Government, to make Amendments of our Bill. But I did not sign my name to that document in the belief that it was either a minimum or maximum. I believe it embodied the extent to which Parliament ought to go. Do it differently if you like, find other methods if it please you, but I beg of you, do rot do less. You cannot put before the world a scheme which is elaborated over the signature of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State, and then do what is called in India, whittle down the scheme. Amend it, alter it, turn it inside out, start on a new route, but I beg of you to go as far, and as long as I hold the office with which I am now entrusted, so long as I remain a Member of this House, I will ask the House not to pull bricks out of, but to build on the foundation recommended to the extent of the scheme in the Report which the Viceroy and I laid before Parliament.
  I must once again apologise for the length of my remarks. I think I have said all that I desire to say in this stage of the Debate. The policy which I have
  642
  attempted to advocate is that which many of, I think all, my predecessors have advocated. It can be summed up in a sentence. I would put first the maintenance of order. Secondly, a searching and tireless effort to investigate the causes of disorder and discontent, to remove those which are removable, to eradicate the sources of disturbance and disorder, and to go on with a determination, courageous, unhesitating, zealous, to make of India what may be very loosely described as a union of great self-governing countries, entrusted with the custody of their own well-being, partners in the great freedom-loving British Commonwealth. That is a task in every way worthy of this Parliament, to my mind the only conceivable outcome of the unexampled and magnificent work that has been done by British effort and enterprise in India in the past.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The House is very much indebted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India for the wise, statesmanlike, and sympathetic speech which he has made to us. Ho may have been disappointed by the paucity of the attendance, but I may assure him, as perhaps he has not been so frequently with us of recent times as he was previously, that one of the causes— the main cause—is the sittings of the Committee upstairs, and the attendance in no way indicates the interest of the House of Commons in this great and pressing question. I should just like to say, at the outset, on behalf of my Friends who sit on this side of the House, that we should like to pay our tribute to the magnificent part which India has played in the great War. In men, in materials, and in money she has shown herself a worthy sister of the great community which forms the British Empire. Her contribution in men amounted to 1,250,000. She has arranged for a loan of about £100,000,000, and her contribution to the general subject of what one calls munitions, and which included a great switching-off of India's manufactures, not only rendered great service to the allied cause, but has reacted undoubtedly in a way on India which has led to great sacrifices on the part of our Indian fellow-subjects. We listened with very great interest to the recital—not too long—of the causes, economic, political, and otherwise, which have led up to the present situation. I own that I was extremely anxious as the recital went on, and as my right hon. Friend

  643
  depicted, in language which brought realistically to one's mind the dangers which existed in India, and in no way lessened the description of the drastic methods which it was proposed to set up, I wondered as he went along whether there was going to be any relief to that picture, and it was with very great satisfaction I heard almost his closing sentences, in which he stated, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they proposed to introduce their Bill to carry out, in no niggling spirit, but in a broad and generous spirit, the recommendations of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.
  I only add this one point with regard to that, and it is this. I must sincerely trust that the relegation of that matter, after Second Reading, to a Joint Committee of both Houses will not result in a long hanging-up of that measure. One knows very often of Joint Committees what cold storage chambers of warm sympathetic reformers they have been in the past. I trust that will not be the fate of this measure, because on that measure lies the real hope not only of maintaining India as a real part of the Empire, but the only hope of bringing her fully into the sisterhood of the nations which comprise that great association of the British commonwealth —the only hope. A great deal of interest and apprehension has been manifested at the position which obtains in India today, but I do not wonder at it. As my right hon. Friend spoke I began to put myself, as far as I could, in the place of an educated intelligent Indian of the moderate classes. It is the only way really to judge political or other problems, the extent to which you can put yourself in the other man's place, and then form a judgment. To that extent I think you approach to some degree comparatively to the formation of a reasonable judgment. Let us suppose he was not in the secrets of the Indian Government. What are the facts which are present to his mind? As far as I recollect them, they are these. In 1911 the visit of the King and Queen to India, and that splendid gesture in which they removed the capital from Calcutta, the sea base where it was in close touch with all the resources of the British Empire, to the sacred city in the centre of India, a gesture of trust and confidence in the Indian people, and from then, with all the difficulties quite inherent to Indian Government, we progressed until the out-
  644
  break of the great War. And what a response was theirs; how it shattered the hopes, nay, the confident anticipations, of our enemies! Instead of the signs of breaking away from the British Raj, there was an extraordinary rally to the British arms. He sees that, and he hears from time to time of the great appreciation expressed in and through the Houses of Parliament, not by formal votes, but in the course of Debate, of the part which India was then playing and still plays. In January, 1918, the Imperial War Cabinet sent a message of glowing appreciation to India of her services, and in March, 1918, in our dark days on the Western Front, a War Conference was called in India, to which the Indian Princes came, the Viceroy presiding, and again pledges were given of Indian help and coherence to the Allied cause.
  At that very time, while that was going on, the Rowlatt Commission was sitting. In due time it issues its Report, and with a haste—I am taking the position of an, Indian—which must be to his mind only commensurate with a state almost bordering upon active revolution, the Report is transformed into a Bill, comes before the appropriate tribunal in India, and I do not say it is rushed through, but there is no delay in that proceeding, at any rate, and it is carried by the vote of the official members against the unofficial members. Intelligent India knows that, and from then we know what has happened. The great message which was given by a great Indian—I think it was Mr.Gokhale—"Whatever you do, rally the moderates to your side," comes to my mind, but what has happened? Instead of the rally of the moderates to our side, the rally of the moderates has been to the extremists, and most extraordinary things have happened. For the first time in India Moslems and Hindus have met in a joint ceremony. No wonder the Government is alarmed, and no wonder we at home were wondering what was happening. All the forces in India to which we had been accustomed to look for steadiness were drifting towards what seemed to us the extreme revolutionary side. Looking at it as well as I can from my standpoint, I can understand well how young, intelligent India was seriously disturbed and began to lose confidence in the good faith of the central authorities. That is the danger, and that is the position in which at present we find ourselves. There are, as my right hon. Friend has so well

  645
  explained, other causes, and it is just as well to carry that well in our minds—the ravages of influenza, the inevitable reaction of war, and the world over, go where you like, you will find the same difficulties afflicting almost any Government at the present moment, anywhere where there is anything approaching intelligent, coherent government of thinking peoples. The reaction of the War is world wide, and it is no wonder at all that it should have been so very insistent in India itself.
  We have been informed to-day what the Government' proposals amount to, but I would really press one point upon my tight hon. Friend. After all his description of the danger there, the actual outcome in numbers of arrests struck me as extraordinarily small, and I was delighted to hear it. I sat in this country here for four years on the Aliens Committee, and I do not at all minimise the dangers of the revolutionary party in India, because there was a repercussion of that in this country, and perhaps, my right hon. Friend may know that some officials of his Department came before our Committee, and there were some cases of the most profound interest, and, indeed, of an exceptionally grave character. But, after all, taking the numbers which he, gave us, under similar powers practically to those which we have in this country—the power of interning which we had in that Committee without trial, without, if we cared, hearing anybody on the accused's behalf, with only a very general statement of the accusations against them, because, of course, to give the whole case against them would so often give away the Secret Service, and that you could not do at that moment —they only interned 1,600 in India, and at the present moment there are only 464 interned. Let me say that in comparing India's population of some 225,000,000 with our 40,000,000, that is a most favourable comparison for India. I was astounded when I heard it, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend. The condition of things in India, if that is in any sense a reflex of the realities of the situation, is much more favourable than I have thought. I asked a question as to when the Rowlatt Acts would come into operation. At present they are in suspense. There is not much difference between the sweeping powers which the War measures give to the Executive in India and those which they give in this country. As far as war measures are concerned, we are at the mercy of the Executive still
  646
  in this country, but, happily, they are exercised with something like due regard to the decencies of public liberty; but, as I understand it, the Rowlatt Acts, though on the Indian Statute Book, are in suspense, and would not come into operation until Peace, in the full sense of the term, is not only signed, but ratified, and then they would be, let us hope, accompanied by the beneficent operations of the Montagu-Chelmsford Act, as I hope it may be called,: if it is on the Statute Book and if the Joint Committee does not freeze it out of existence.
  The one hope for India that has bean shown in recent years is, as Lord Morley showed when he dealt with a serious state of affairs in India, to accompany repressive measures, if necessary, as they undoubtedly were, with measures of reform. I do not deny that repressive measures are necessary in India to-day. Perhaps I know a little bit too much from what my small information gives me, and it makes me very careful indeed of anything like sweeping denunciation or accusation against the Executive in India. I desire to safeguard that; but I do say this, that the one thing which carried Lord Morley through that difficult time was that he accompanied necessary assertions of public order with wide measures of reform; and I say this to my right hon. Friend, that his only chance of leaving, when he demits his office—and I hope, as far as that is concerned, that it will not be for a long time yet—an India, which is responding to the great lines which he has laid down here to-day, is to see that before the Rowlatt Acts come into operation she shall have the beneficent influence of the reforms which he has indicated. There is no doubt all all that you can carry thinking India with you. I was immensely impressed by a report of a dinner which was held at the Savoy Hotel in March, 1919, and the speeches which I read there. I was unable to attend it myself, but in a wonderful speech the Maharajah of Bikaner— a man who has fought with the British Armies in Asia, in Africa, and in Europe—speaking as an Indian, said that India's princes and people ardently desired progress without disorder and reform without revolution. The British Empire is a great adventure. There is no doubt that the-motives that have brought about its development have been mixed, like all great adventures are, and that material objectives have often debased ideals; but, after all, running through the whole thing there

  647
  has been the golden thread of the ideal that British domination or government is not worthy of the best efforts of the British people unless it is accompanied by the carrying into practical effect of the British idea that it is only worth while governing people, no matter what their race or colour may be, if you carry their consent and good will with you. That is why the British Empire has not long ago gone to pieces, and that is why other empires have failed in their mission, as we shall in India unless we maintain the traditions which were set by Macaulay and by the long line of Viceroys and the spirit of all these great men, now long passed, but still living, and, I am glad to find, animating the efforts—let us hope they wall be the successful efforts— of my right hon. Friend.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir J. D. REES: If the House were kindly disposed to indulge with a hearing one who has not ventured to trespass on its time during the War, I would urge that, while great responsibility attaches to all Members at all times, particular responsibility now attaches to Members speaking about India, and perhaps even special responsibility to the only Indian Civil servant in this House, though not in Parliament, for there is a very distinguished member, Lord MacDonnell, in the other House. The Indian Civil Service really governed India far more than the ephemeral occupants of the Viceregal and Provincial thrones, and they governed India in an epoch which is now fast passing away. They were steeped in privilege to the finger-tips, and that is why I believe, on their rare appearance in this House, they invariably posed as advanced Radicals for the purpose of redressing the balance, or perhaps deluding extreme Labour Members or Socialists, who are, however, sufficiently accomplished autocrats themselves. However that may be, the India which was governed by the Indian Civil Service is fast passing away. When I went to India we were all brought up at the foot of Sir Thomas Munro, an old Governor long before my time, and he prophesied and urged as the goal to which England should look in India almost an identical goal with that which my right hon. Friend announced in August, 1917. There really was very little difference between what he said and what is now admitted to be the policy in this country.
  648
  It is perfectly useless to weep over the passing of the old state of affairs. I should never have sat down and wept by the waters of the Ganges and the Godaveri if the change had not come in my day. It is the War that has precipitated it, and how futile it is to stand against it upon the ancient ways, and to refuse to recognise that we live in a new world!
  We must now abide by the pledges we have given. We entered the War, at any rate, for one great reason—to fulfil our pledge to Belgium. The voice of faction was stilled in India through the War. They fulfilled their pledges to us; now we have to fulfil our pledges to them, and I heard with the utmost satisfaction from the Secretary of State that in no long time he will introduce the Bill which will give-effect to those pledges and the policy of 20th August, to which, I think, every Member who supported the Government at the late General Election is practically pledged. I take that to be so. The fact is-that policy was not only the policy of the Secretary of State, but it was the policy of his Council. It was the policy of the Governor-General and his Council. It was the policy of the Government as a whole, and it was accepted by the British-Parliament without cavil or objection as the policy of Parliament, and was announced as such. Those who stood at the last General Election on behalf of the Coalition, stood, I say, as candidates who were pledged to carry out reforms—if not exactly like those that appear in the Bill—at least consonant with the policy announced in August, 1917.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before my hon. Friend imputes pledges to Members, will he differentiate between the announcement of August, 1917, and the proposal in-the Montagu-Chelmsford Report?
  Sir J. D. REES: I think one rises out of the other. I am prepared to meet my hon. Friend upon that at any time. In. considering the present condition of India, we have to consider internal and external conditions. As regards the external conditions of India, amongst the many benefits that country has bestowed upon us, her example during the War has been of the utmost benefit to the British Empire. That a great country, peopled by Asiatics, should have stood firmly by us right through the War, was a moral example worth anything to the British Empire when it was confronted with the very grave difficulties it had to face. In

  649
  India, people are more moved by imagination—at any rate in the upper classes—than they are here, and they have felt themselves that the generous support which they gave to the British Empire in its time of trouble calls for some generous acknowledgment on the part of the people of this country. They gave men and they gave money, and they also gave commodities for the War which could not have been supplied from any other quarter. They exported foodstuffs at controlled cheap prices, and raw material for munitions and equipment. Their war exports during the conflict were valued at about £100,000,000 a year. India was the base for the War in Mesopotamia and the East, which could hardly have been carried on without her. They exported teak, hemp, rubber and tea. Three million tons of wheat were exported to the Allies. The Royal Wheat Commission purchased £43,000,000 of wheat from India, which also exported 2,500,000 tons of oil seed, valued at £31,000,000; wolfram and manganese (without which steel could not have been made for carrying on the War) to the value of £5,000,000; and, during the conflict, Burma so improved its position in this respect that it now provides one-third of all the wolfram in the world. Saltpetre, without which there would not have been any powder for the Prussians, was sent here for the making of powder. Raw jute, without which sandbags, which played so great a part in the War, would have been lacking, and also bags for the transport of food and other articles, was exported to the extent of 2,000,000 tons, and 2,800,000,000 bags and 4,500,000,000 other products of jute. Army blankets were also sent. Morphia, a derivative of opium which I have often heard unintelligently criticised with such prejudiced denunciation in this House, served to alleviate the pains of our wounded soldiers. Tanned hides were exported in enormous quantities, and that trade came under British control which had previously been very much under the control of the Germans, for some obscure reason, which, I hope, my right hon. Friend will not allow to escape him. The Indian Lascars were always prepared to die, looking upon it as part of the day's work, and as a simple matter, which it would be here, if the House of Commons did not make it so expensive that the father of a family cannot afford to die. The Lascars laid down their lives freely, and many of them are now prisoners in Germany. India prospered
  650
  during the War, and she gave freely of her prosperity to this country in men, money, and raw material.
  The Secretary of State referred to the Afghan difficulty, and as he referred to it briefly, so will I. That the troubles in Afghanistan have been due to Prussian intrigue is, I think, pretty fairly established, and I hope, as there has been a complete collapse in Russia, there is very little fear that any foreign nation can support Afghanistan, and there is little doubt, with our Army and aeroplanes, which can play so great a part in that hilly country, that this rebellion will soon be crushed. There is this which I would like my right hon. Friend to consider. When fresh arrangements are made with Afghanistan, I hope a subsidy will form no part of them. What we call a subsidy is regarded by every Asiatic as a tribute. This payment of a subsidy has had the effect of placing our relations with the Ameer of Afghanistan on an entirely wrong basis, and, when peace on the frontier is once more restored, I sincerely trust that feature will never be repeated. For the rest, I wish to associate myself with the tribute of the Secretary of State to the late Ameer Habibullah, and I am glad to think that the House of Commons will not forget him, as they so readily did another friend and Ally, the late Emperor of Russia.
  There is one more subject with regard to the external conditions of India, and that is Constantinople. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made an excellent speech on this subject the other night, with the whole of which I agree, and no one who has ever made the literature and language of the Moslems a study can be ignorant of the fact that they are a proud—and justly proud—race, and that they look upon the maintenance of the Sultan as a great honour to Islam, and they resent keenly the process of cutting up the only great Mahomedan Power and dividing it into nations or petty little republics. With this feeling I have myself the utmost sympathy, and I cannot help thinking that it is a gratuitous aggravation to talk now of making the Mosque of St. Sophia again into a Christian church, which is not much more reasonable than to talk about restoring the Druidical remains in this country. To anyone who knows the feeling of the Mahomedans, it is a painful thing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that we are not concerned with the interesting

  651
  little country of Palestine which we might very well leave to France to deal with, but, at any rate, not embroil ourselves with the Mahomedans over a matter like this. All that we want is Mesopotamia, which we won, and should keep for our safety in the Gulf, and our approach to India, and for the safety of the great oil sources of the Anglo-Persian Company, which the British Government partly owns—one of the most profitable, most patriotic, and most satisfactory deals that was ever made by a British Government, and probably even in its final results more important, as it is now pecuniarily more profitable, than the purchase of the shares of the Suez Canal by Lord Beaconsfield's Government. Our activities in Persia lead us into no difficulties with that country's government.
  Coming to the Rowlatt Act, I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who is going to move an Amendment upon this subject—not that he has not enough thunder to spare; he has probably a thunderbolt in every pocket, and would not mind my dwelling upon this subject, but I have no desire to do so. The Secretary of State dealt with it very fully, and he did not make it clear, apparently, to my right hon. Friend opposite that only one of these two Acts had been passed, and on that also I understood the hon. Gentleman to be under a misapprehension, for that Act is only to be in force for three years after the expiration of the War. It postulates seditious conduct on the part of any section in India, and such conduct brings it into force. It is really a proposal which will hurt nobody. It has been misrepresented in all quarters, again by German and Bolshevist agencies, so as to raise the people in India. That, however, is not the only cause. The question arises as to how far these Rowlatt Bills are a cause of these disturbances in India. It is stated that the Rowlatt Bills were a mere pretext for these revolts and rebellions. I think that is an over-statement of the case. Before, during, and since the War race consciousness and sensitive self-consciousness have been developing in India. There can be no doubt that the educated classes there do bitterly resent being made subject to any law which would not in the like circumstances be imposed upon British subjects in Britain. That is their present position. I can remember when it was accepted here and everywhere that a different principle of
  652
  law might be applied to our Asiatic Empire from that which was applied to the homo country. At the present moment I really think that is not so. We see that the feeling on this subject has been such as to-lead to solidarity between the Hindus and the Mahomedans. We have seen the extraordinary and portentous spectacle of the Hindu priests speaking in Mahomedan mosques—an event which nobody would have dreamt was possible until quite lately. There is no doubt the people have been deeply stirred upon this subject. I will read a very brief extract from a letter from a highly-important personage in India, whose name it would not be right to quote in the House, but which I will give to the Secretary of State after the Debate, if he cares to have it. The letter is dated 24th March. It says:
  "The feeling here is that the Government of India are now going back on what they said last year, and that they are not going to support the recommendations of the Joint Report or accept the proposals of the Southborough Report."
  I believe it is the case, from all I hear, that the idea that these reforms either are not going to be given, or, if given, will be so emasculated and cut down as to be of little value, has been a very great element in the recent disturbances, and there has been some reason for it. Take, for instance, the Debate which took place in the House of Lords. It is one of the greatest legislative Chambers in the world, and I would not for a moment decry it in, view of my opinion in regard to it. But I do think on the occasion when these reforms came before it it was an unfortunate thing that Member after Member denounced the cause of reform in India, and urged the undesirability of promising responsible government. This feeling seemed to be almost universal in that House, including Lord MacDonnell. There was, perhaps, some reason, as I have said. There is no further doubt on this subject after the speech of the Secretary of State to which we have just listened. However that may be, I myself am convinced that it will be perfectly impossible to attempt to govern India under any such Regulations as Regulation III. of 1818. I was here when the deportations were hotly debated in this House. I feel perfectly certain that they only got through on that occasion—that is to say, the policy of the Government in India only passed muster in this House, solely because the then Secretary of State, that able and arbitrary autocrat, Lord Morley, was

  653
  labelled in the Parliamentary category as a Radical. But for that he could not have induced Parliament at that time to allow these deportations to pass. Never again will it be possible to use these powers in this House. The House will not stand arbitrary deportations any more.
  We see people in Ireland put into prison and presently we see them out. In India, when they are put in, I must say that they are kept in longer—which is a more consistent policy. But this cannot very much longer be practised in these democratic times. I can remember, when I went to India first, when I was asked to pass any Order on any subject, I would say to the officials concerned, "Show me the authority!" We were supposed to have some little regard for law in those days. The reply would be, "Your Honour can do this under your general powers." That was all very fine then. It will not do now. There are lawyers everywhere. Every Act, every syllable of every Act, is carefully scrutinised. If the official concerned does not keep himself with the four corners of the Act in question he very soon hears about it. We are, administratively speaking, centuries from the conditions of India as they were when I first knew the country in 1876. We shall never be able to govern India by passing Acts in India and disallowing them here. These reforms to which my right hon. Friend referred have been attacked by extremists on both sides—by reactionaries on the one side and advanced reformers on the other. It makes me think that Lord Chelmsford and my right hon. Friend have achieved that difficult thing—the golden mean. Lord Crewe's Committee, I believe, has still to report, and it is hoped it will do so soon. Meantime we have had two Reports. I am glad that the Southborough Report does not think of recommending the franchise for all women. I do not know of any way in which the women of India can get it without submitting their claims to the electorate, unlike the clever women in this country, who got the vote without going before the electors. The same course is hardly possible in India. The South-borough Committee, in circumstances of the utmost difficulty have, I think, done the right thing in recommending election on a property qualification, which is the old-fashioned plan, but a good one, at any rate for a hundred years or so. It
  654
  is proposed to prescribe the payment of rent, revenue, rates, and also the Income Tax as a proof of a sufficient property qualification. The Committee show the utmost wisdom and appreciation of the conditions about which they were asked to report when they refuse to prescribe any literary qualification for the electorate. The mass of the electors in India will be very small landowners. From one point of view they are an illiterate class. Nevertheless, they are extremely sensible people, and perfectly capable of understanding questions which are likely to be put before them—if they affect them, and disregarding all others—which really is an ideal state of mind in which to find an electorate. Upon this I think Lord Southborough's Committee are heartily to be congratulated; and also that they have enfranchised wholesale all the officers and non-commissioned officers of the Indian Army. I do for my part wholly approve of their decision to extend communal representation to Europeans in Madras, Bengal, Calcutta, the United Provinces, and Behar provinces, in which are the great European business communities, planters and others. These classes most loyally and admirably stood by the British Empire in time of war. To these we owe in time of war, and in time of peace, a great debt of gratitude which is not very frequently acknowledged. Whether the Indian Christians stand so much in need of communal representation or not I really do not know.
  There are special seats provided for the landlords, the universities, and commercial and industrial interests. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will rejoice that the Committee have recommended that in any quarters in which labour disputes are likely to occur special representation, over and above the general representation, shall be given to labour. Provincial Legislative Councils are proposed in these Reports upon a very excellent basis, and in each case a clear non-official majority is provided for. The same may be said of the Viceroy's Council. I myself sat on this council for four years representing some 40,000,000 of people. Now eighty members are elected upon this council, so you see what an immense advance it is. Instead of one official chosen to represent 40,000,000, it is now proposed to give elected representation for all the great

  655
  provinces. No less than eighty members are elected, and the Viceroy also nominates forty to represent separate interests.
  The Council of State is a new one. Some might object to it that it bears some sort of relation to the House of Lords in our own Constitution. I do not think it can really be said that it does. There are twenty-three elected and twenty-five nominated members. Each of the great Provinces of India sends one or two members, these members being elected by non-official members of the Provincial Council. This is as near as, under existing circumstances, you can get, I think, to actual direct representation upon this council. Then the other Committee—Lord South-borough's Functions Committee—had to report what business of the Government should remain under the Government of India, and what should be under the Provincial Governments. Here we must re-member that the India Government retains the power of a concurrent legislation. Provision is, too, made for retaining, in fact, the supreme power in the hands of the Government of India, by intervention whenever public interests require.
  Shipping and commerce, as well as naval and military matters, are kept in the hands of the Government of India, as well as such subjects as telegraphs, foreign relations, railways, and the like. Other subjects, like land reform, famine prevention, and education, are given to the provincial governments to look after, but the intervention of the supreme Government is not excluded from the provincial subjects, and they may intervene when the safety of the public demands it. Having got this division of the heads of business between the Central Government and the Governments of the provinces, it remains under the scheme to transfer to the popular branch of provincial governments certain subjects. I will not trouble to refer to all these subjects, but most of the subjects in which the public generally are most interested are transferred to the management of the new and popular branch of the provincial governments carried on by the Governors, with the help of the Ministers, who are selected from the elected members of the Provincial Legislative Council.
  I have not seen the Report from the Government of India in which they give their opinion upon these proposals, but I think I may assume that the opposition ranged chiefly around the transfer of sub-
  656
  jects to the Ministers, the popular branch of the Government. This change is admittedly experimental, but without it there could be no real advance towards responsible government. It is quite true in regard to the administration of some of the subjects which have been transferred that this may lead to some diminution of efficiency, but it has been done because what the people are crying out for is something in the way of responsible government, and this is the only change in that direction made by the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. I notice that Lord Sydenham says that no good can come out of all this. Who are the men in India now who will have to carry out what no doubt will require great tact and ability—qualities in which our Governors are not lacking? Lord Willingdon, who was a brilliant success at Bombay, has not been afraid to go on to Madras under the new dispensation. Then we have Lord Ronaldshay, who has shown great sagacity and capacity on the uneasy throne of Bengal. There is also Sir George Lloyd, who arrived in Bombay at a most critical time, and he has been showing astonishing power in dealing with most difficult circumstances. In addition to these three Governors, there are Lieut.-Governors, men of the same class as Sir John Hewett and Lord MacDonnell, to whom none will deny the attribute of administrative ability. Remember that the Governors may override these Ministers if they propose unwise things. As one who was private secretary to three Governors, and was brought in contact with others in India, it would be greatly interesting to me to take a part in drawing up the instrument of instructions, as I never shall. The main point, the safeguarding of peace and tranquility and the keeping of the British end up will be a very important feature in that instrument. You must either have this transfer or something more drastic unless you are to go back on your promise of 20th August, 1917.
  It is said that this so-called transfer to popular Ministers will be a transfer to an oligarchy, but, even if it is an oligarchy, such is only a station on the road to democracy. What is the root of this outcry against an oligarchy? No less than 95 per cent. of the population in the province of Madras are non-Brahmins, and if they cannot secure the election of their own representatives then they are much better managed by some of their own countrymen who are more clever than

  657
  themselves. From Madras the strongest objection comes to this advance in popular government. You might imagine that the upper classes, the Brahmins, and those in somewhat similar positions, are in the habit of oppressing the lower classes. That is by no means true. I served there myself for twenty-five years, and for a good many of those years in the districts amongst these people, and I was official interpreter in two of the chief languages spoken by the people in this province. I have also served where there exists the doctrine of pollution, where a man of the lowest caste has to make a sort of shrill cry when he sees a Brahmin in sight, lest that sacred creature should come within sixty-four yards of his polluting personality. Having lived amongst those people, I can say that the lower classes who are subject to these so-called cruel practices really take it all in the day's work, and they are not oppressed. As a matter of fact, the upper and the lower classes get on very well together, and all this kind of thing is got up for political purposes to defeat the transfer of certain branches of the public service to popular Ministers.
  If the House will not take this opinion from me, perhaps they would take it from another more distinguished source. The other day I delivered a Rhodes Lecture to the University of London, and I said there what I have just said to the House. In the chair was the most distinguished Hindoo of our day, probably of any day, Lord Sinha, and he got up and corroborated all I had said; in fact, The gave evidence to show from his own experience that what I had said on the subject was right. Would it be possible in this country when you are going to introduce a reform and extend the franchise to begin by saying, "We will rule out the products of the University, the public schools, and the educated classes"? That is what you will have to do if you accept the view of the Government of Madras, and refuse, on the caste and social grounds, to transfer any part of the Government business to popular management. The upper classes there would administer this question, it is contended, not from the point of view of the ninety-four out of every 100, but from the point of view of the 4 or 5 per cent. of their own class, and this is absurd. I think this subject is extremely relevant, because the whole question at the root of these reforms is what you will transfer to
  658
  responsible Government. It is proposed to transfer certain subjects, and the Government of Madras protests on the ground that if you do this you fall into the hands of an oligarchy. The great historian Gibbon said:
  "The superior prerogative of birth, when it has obtained the sanction of time and popular opinion, is the plainest and least invidious of all the distinctions amongst mankind."
  I believe that is the opinion in India. You must remember that these Brahmins have always been practically the rulers. They governed the country under the Moguls and afterwards under the Mahrattas. They exercise great influence under us. Let me quote here the opinion of the Maharajah of Mysore. He was approached on this very subject, and he said
  "It is far from my desire that any community should be penalised on account of its caste simply because it was the first to utilise fully the opportunities offered equally to all."
  Again, it is represented by the Indo-British Association that the Europeans in India are all opposed to these reforms, and that they object to any advances in the direction of responsible government. In all India there is one organ which is, par excellence, representative of the Anglo-Indian. It says:
  "Moderates have welcomed the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme and have handsomely acknowledged the honesty of purpose underlying it. All who are sincerely anxious for India's welfare will welcome sturdy championship of a good cause as an encouraging political symptom. Those who consider a responsible Government for India as an integral part of the British Empire, as an unsuitable goal for British policy, plate themselves out of court as critics of a Report designed to carry out this fundamental principle of the pronouncement of August, 1917. It seems to us—"
  says this European paper—
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: What paper?
  Sir J. D. REES: This representative organ of Europeans in India, the "Pioneer."
  "It seems to us that the scheme proposed fulfils in a remarkably astute manner the conditions then laid down. Those who wish to keep the ship of State from disaster must direct her course between the Scylla of Mrs. Besant and the Charybdis of Lord Sydenham."
  Beside me sits the hon. Member for Seven-oaks (Mr. Bennett), who is the owner and editor of the "Times of India," another great European organ, and I believe that he will probably express the same opinion. To-day the Secretary of State referred to the message that we should send to the Government in India, saying that we would

  659
  support them through thick and thin in restoring order, and so we will, but we can also do good work in this House by making it clear that there is nothing whatever in the widely-spread suspicion that this country is going back upon its declared policy, but that it will go forward deliberately, tentatively, and experimentally, but always forward. Let us not increase the difficulties of governing India. Heaven knows, there are sufficient difficulties in keeping India in this post-war whirlpool without tilting at its most cherished customs and beliefs and taking the line of most resistance. Let us gain and retain the support of the natural and actual leaders of the peoples of India.
  Dr. E. HOPKINSON: I hope the House will extend to me the indulgence it usually extends to a Member addressing it for the first time. Perhaps I have some excuse for taking part in the Debate, seeing that I am the only Member of the House who has served as a member of the Indian Industrial Commission. There was one statement made by the Secretary of State this afternoon which will give the utmost satisfaction not only in this House but also in India, It was that the labours of that Commission are not to be set aside or lost sight of, but that the recommendations and the Report of the Commission will be fully considered as soon as the President, Sir Thomas Holland, is in this country. If there was one thing more than another which became abundantly clear during the investigations of that Commission, it was the deep interest taken by the Indians themselves in the improvement of the industrial position of India. The Commission had unusually good opportunities of ascertaining not only the physical possibility of increasing the industrial wealth and improving the industrial position of the country, but also the attitude of the Indians themselves towards those ends. We had as our President Sir Thomas Holland, a man of great scientific distinction, who knows India, perhaps, better from the point of view of the natural resources of the country than anyone else. He had himself served in the Government of India, and had brought the Geological Department of the Government of India to a degree of efficiency second to none in the world. We had also on the Commission four Indian members, three of them great leaders of industry in India, and the fourth
  660
  a politician pure and simple—I will not say with no interest, but with comparatively little knowledge of or instructed interest in the industries of India. We had also on the Commission members of the Civil Service of India, and myself, of whom it cannot, at any rate, be said that I was tinged with any preconceived notions from the Indian point of view.
  7.0 p.m.
  I do not desire to weary the House by referring in detail to the findings of the Commission and the recommendations contained in its report, but I would like to refer to some or the most vivid and vital impressions which resulted from our investigations. No move striking impression was made upon the minds of all of us, even those who knew India well, than the enormous potential wealth of the country. Though the wealth is there, buried in the soil or ready to be extracted from the soil by the natural processes of agriculture, it is-scarcely developed compared with what it might be. The reason is not far to seek. Let me cite agriculture, first of all, as an example, because it perhaps more clearly than any other branch of industry shows what might be done compared with what has been done. The wealth of India is primarily due to its agriculture. The Government of India has a scientific agricultural staff in quality second to none in the world, but in quantity ludicrously insufficient compared with the problem which it has to tackle. It is the third country in the world in the extent of its production of wheat and barley, but, where the production of wheat and bailey is represented by twenty per acre in England, in India it is only represented by eight. It docs not seem to me a very great thing to suppose that by the application of scientific methods and research that figure of eight might be changed into ten, and that would mean millions sterling to India. Take another illustration. India produces move sugar and gur than any other country in the world, but the consumption is so great and the methods so wasteful that it actually spends ten million sterling annually on importing the sugar that other countries produce. Let me take one other instance in connection with agriculture. I think it is the most striking of all. Before the invention of synthetic indigo by the Germans, the cultivation of indigo was one of the most flourishing industries in India. We are aware how by patient and

  661
  scientific research, and the expenditure of money yearly upon research, the Germans displaced the natural indigo of India by the synthetic product. The trade was absolutely killed. During the War there was a revival of the industry, and that revival was accompanied by a series of investigations in regard to the preparation of the natural product. It wag given in evidence before the Commission by one of the most experienced planters in Behar that he would undertake to grow indigo now on his plantation, taking advantage of all improvements, and to sell it at pre-war prices at a profit. That means, and I wish the House to take cognisance of the fact, that the pre-war German trade in indigo could be killed outright on its merits. Is not that a striking fact? Does it not make it worth while that the recommendations of the Commission should receive serious consideration at the hands of the Government of India and of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State? Before I pass from agricultural questions, I want to emphasise the need that the scientific department of the Agricultural Department in India should have more money spent upon it, and that it should be enlarged. What is required is that brains should go out from this country to help in the scientific work. Reference has been made by one of my hon. Friends to the supply of tungsten. That is a trade which before the War had passed largely into German hands. Under the pressure of war it has come back into British hands. India could produce all the tungsten the world requires, and all that is needed is practical development of the trade. There is another metal, thorium, a most important metal, one essential for the production of gas mantles. The trade in that, too, was allowed to pass into German hands. This country, by availing itself of its opportunities in India, could now become self-supporting in that regard. India possesses copper. The mines in Burma produce lead and zinc, and if a concentration plant were set up it would be possible to obtain sulphuric acid, which is a basis of many very important industries.
  Even that feature of the situation has a brighter side. Thanks to the assistance and sympathy of a liberal-minded Government on the scientific side, and not much of that, although the intention was good, the great Tata firm were induced to set up iron and steel works, which have be-
  662
  come one of the most flourishing and most important works in the world. India now can supply the rails she wants, and before long she will be able to supply beyond her own boundaries. That has been done entirely by native effort and with native capital, but it was done with the sympathy and help and the scientific advice of the Government of India. That is one of the-fundamental things which the Commission desire to see extended and developed throughout India. The Government-should provide scientific help for research work, which is necessary for the development of the country industrially, and should also by sympathy expressed in various ways-it may be in improved transit or by help in the acquisition of land—I could suggest a dozen different ways—aid the development of industrial India. Let me relate one instance to the House to show the attitude of India itself towards this aspect of the question. An Indian witness before the Commission made what appeared to me to be a curious statement. He said the Government of India should pass a law providing that half the directorate of every company should be Indian. It appeared to me that that might be due to jealousy of British industrial methods in India, but on examination I found that it was not so. The real idea was that Indians should be taught how to work and manage the various undertakings. It was desired to convert every board of directors into a school. The idea of course is ludicrous, but the statement was significant as showing the trend of the Indian mind towards industrial measures.
  The manufacturing industries of Indiaareobviously divisible into two classes— those already developed, such as the great jute industry of Bengal, the cotton industry of Bombay and to some extent the woollen industry of Cawnpore. There are a number of other industries, such as the manufacture of glass, cement and matches. There are also the chemical trade and the manufacture of paper, both of which are still undeveloped for want of technical knowledge and expert advice. What the industries of India require is not British capital, but British brains. They need expert advice, and scientific knowledge which, applied to the latent resources of India, will bring forth a harvest of a hundred-fold. But that is not the whole story. Other factors must also be taken into account. Indian labour must be considered. In the course of our inquiry we

  663
  made careful investigations, not only into the remuneration of Indian labour, but into housing and sanitary conditions. If the problem of labour is acute in this country, it is ten times more acute in India. The rate of wages in India is far too low for tolerable subsistence. Industrial conditions in India in many cases, and I have particularly in mind the cotton mills of Bombay, are so monstrously bad that I could hardly relate to any decent assembly of people what I myself saw in the course of my investigations. Although a Lancashire man, I greatly admire the courage of the action which the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State took with regard to the cotton industry, but I do wish he lad taken that opportunity of throwing upon the Bombay mill-owners the onus of improving the housing conditions of their workpeople. I believe, and I say it advisedly after conversing with a great number of the mill-owners, that the best are perfectly ready to shoulder the burden if they are assured it will be distributed over the whole. And there, again, is a brighter side to the picture. The new steel works of the Tata firm to which I have already referred are in all matters of housing up to date in every possible respect. Each cottage has its garden, each coolie line has ample space around it, and the water supply is perfect, and yet that firm, in spite of all its expenditure in that direction, is able to pay large dividends.
  That sort of thing cannot be done in India without cost, but the cost amply justifies itself. You may go to other places and find conditions equally good. I myself investigated the conditions in one of the largest mills in Bengal. That mill was able to make a selection of labour by drawing it from a large area, simply because that firm had the reputation of supplying pure water, indeed it was nicknamed "Mill Pure Water." Not only was the water good, but the housing conditions, the coolie lines, and the sanitary arrangements were all in first-rate condition and up to date. So much impressed was I by what I saw at the mill, that that evening, when I met the then Governor of Bengal, Lord Carmichael, I suggested to him that it would be an encouragement to mill owners if he at once made an inspection himself of that particu-
  664
  lar mill. I made the further suggestion, which he adopted, that he should take with him the leader of the Home Rule movement in India. Next day the Governor and the Pundit motored up to this mill to inspect the sanitary arrangements. That is an example of how the Government of India can show sympathy with, and give effective assistance, without any cost to itself, towards putting the industrial conditions on a higher level. My friend the Pundit, I think, was not entirely pleased with the result of the expedition. It always troubled him to find that the British, of their own accord and with nothing to reap from it, were usually ready to put all questions relating to the health and welfare of their people in the first place.
  Another no less important matter is the question of education. The educational system in India is a most extraordinary structure. It is fitted with a magnificent coping and balustrade, but it is built on sand. India is an absolutely illiterate country. Over 90 per cent. of the people can neither read nor write. India possesses magnificent universities, which turn out graduates by the thousand yearly, Take the University of Calcutta, where abuses became so great that it was made the subject of a special inquiry. What does that University do for India? It does nothing but turn out by the thousands annually persons who have been drawn off from the real interests of India to be turned adrift to find a living in other directions. I asked an Indian who was giving evidence in Calcutta what became of the graduates of that University. His answer was a striking answer coming from such a source. He said, "A very few of them become pleaders; the great majority of them become clerks; and those who have not the ability or opportunity to become clerks become sedition mongers, and the remainder dacoits." That was the considered opinion of a practical industrial Indian of one of the universities of his own country. That problem is not insoluble. I can give an instance of another side of the picture, which I should like to put before the President of the Board of Education in this country. If you go to certain mills in Madras, there you will see elaborate, comfortable, delightful, buildings, put up for school purposes within the mill precincts. Presiding in these buildings are two English ladies. The buildings are used for housing classes formed of the children of the people who work in the mills. There

  665
  is no compulsion. The schools are always full. The children are absolutely free to attend or not to attend. Around the schools are gardens. Every child—the scholars are numbered by hundreds—has his plot of land which he cultivates as he desires, and he takes the product of his cultivation home to his own people. For brightness, alertness, respectfulness and cleanliness these Indian children would compare with the children of similar age in any school you like to name in this country. Yet these very mills were chosen by the political dissentients to foment strife and trouble. That was not because there was any real grievance. The reason for it was that they could not stand such an object lesson of what British people have done for Indians to be always before the eyes of their people.
  I am well aware that after the announcement of 20th August, 1917, there can be no question of turning back from the policy which was then declared. It must go forward on lines which the Government, after the fullest consideration, determine to be the best. But I beg the Government of India and the Secretary of State to take into consideration that it is more important to feed the hungry than to give them political rights, that it is more important to clothe the naked than to invest them with political doctrines and dogmas, and that it is more important to educate the people to be able to vote than it is to give them the vote. What will be the effect of the franchise? It is estimated that the number enfranchised will be anything from 1 or 2 up to 5 per cent. The greater part of that number Will be illiterate people. I presume the voters will be taken blindfold to the ballot boxes, or that, as an alternative, the ballot boxes must be embellished in some way to show what they contain or are intended to contain. I presume that one box will be embellished with the Union Jack, another with the Crescent, and another with the emblems which are familiar at every roadside shrine in India. I rejoice in what the right hon. Gentleman says of the recommendations of this Commission, which have solely for their object the improvement of the industrial conditions of India, and to make India more profitable and more fit for the Indians themselves to enjoy living there, which I trust that no political considerations will be allowed to cloud.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has contributed a very interesting speech to this
  666
  Debate, but I am shocked to find that he is such a gross materialist. He regards the improvement of industrial conditions as the end and aim of all our political actions, whereas I regard freedom as being, the ultimate object of British rule in India. The Secretary of State, as the last Liberal rock above the tide of Toryism on the Treasury Bench, always has my sincere sympathy, and on occasions, as to-day, he has my very real admiration. He has given us to-day a programme which will be for many years to come the flag under which British rule will advance in India. He has also given us a speech which at the present moment will do good not only in India, but throughout the Moslem world. I only wish that, instead of being here, he had already gone straight back to Paris, where they will be more importantly listened to, to state his views as to the preservation of the Ottoman Empire and particularly as to the predatory intentions of certain minor Powers against portions of that Empire. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Great Britain's reputation in the Moslem world, and her reputation with her own fellow subjects will rest very largely upon whether the Turks are to retain control of their own country or whether they are-to be swallowed by mandatory or predatory powers from peninsulas in the Mediterranean Sea.
  This Debate is a field day for India, but it is also a special debate upon the Indian Budget, and I regret to see that not one word has been said about the Budget. I will mention one or two facts about it which, although they have not been put before the House in the Official Paper, are nevertheless known to the House through publications that come to this country The Budget was to raise £124,000,000—a very large advance on previous years, £43,750,000 of it is allocated to the Army—about twice what the Army Bill was before the War. Nor is that all. In that figure is not included any appropriation for this new war in Afghanistan. The ordinary expenditure of the Army has risen from twenty odd millions to forty odd millions. Another thing is observable. The Vote for the police has risen very largely. You have now £6,250,000 devoted to the police force, which is still extremely badly paid and extremely ignorant, and which owing to the Defence of the Realm-Act and the Rowlatt Bill Extensions of that Act, has been brought into intimate contact with all the progressive, intelligent

  667
  elements in Indian society. There is an enormous increase in these two things. But education, which is the key to real progress in India, both electorally and industrially, gets £4,000,000 against the police £6,250,000. When we come to irrigation, which is essential to agricultural development, you find £4,000,000 voted, although the irrigation systems already in operation are bringing in £5,500,000 to the Inland Revenue. But when you come to railways you find that no less than £24,000,000 out of £124,000,000 are devoted to railway extensions, a bigger programme than before the War. Irrigation comes before railways, and the production of wealth before the transporting of that wealth, and it would have been more advisable, if India had bean the only thing to be considered, that capital expenditure should have been devoted to irrigation rather than to this enormous railway programme; £23,000,000 out of the £24,000,000 are earmarked and devoted to the purchase of railway material in Great Britain. Irrigation money will be spent in India. Railway development means money spent in this country at a time when railway material is extremely expensive, at a time when it is possible to buy up our scrapped railways from France and other theatres of war at a price which would be extremely remunerative to the British Government. The whole of the Budget bears witness to the fact that it is one passed by Englishmen in India and not one to which the Indian people would agree. If they had control of their own finance what a very different Budget we should see—I think a Budget which would in the long run find more money for irrigation, more for education, and for the genuine development of that country, and less for expenditure on matters' which really are Imperial or British in their character, and which must give rise to the feeling that, in spite of all our brave words, the government of that country is directed rather towards the interests of this Island than to the interests of the country where the money is raised by people who have worked hard to find it.
  Such being the case, let us consider what the Feetham and Southborough Reports propose to do, in order that we may follow out the theory, which is accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government of a country cannot be held to be either responsible or repre-
  668
  sentative unless it has that fundamental right, control of the purse. The control of the purse, both under the scheme of my right hon. Friend and that put forward by Mr. Feetham and Lord Southborough, remains in the hands of the bureaucracy, and is not handed over to the people. Even the provincial revenues are nearly all for these reserved subjects, the direction of which remains with the bureaucracy. The police, for instance, which we hoped was going to be transferred to the native representatives responsible Governments in these provincial Legislatures is a reserved subject. All expenditure upon that is removed from the purview of the people who have to find the money. The only subject upon which money is freely spent, the only side of administration which is left to native control in these Legislatures, is education and public works, not including railways. Those, I admit, are important subjects, and they need money, but out of this £124,000,000 only £8,000,000 are put into the control of the natives of the country under the scheme which is being put before us now.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Is not my hon. and gallant Friend talking at one moment about the revenues of the provincial Governments and then discussing as appropriate to that the revenues of the Government of India? The two things are not in any way comparable.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am taking the revenue of the Imperial Government at Delhi. Out of £124,000,000 raised for the services, of that Government only £4,000,000 are devoted to education and are distributed to the Provincial Governments to spend on education, and only £4,000,000 on irrigation, and whether that irrigation money is distributed or not I cannot say. I imagine that also is in the hands of the Provincial Governments. These being the very small functions which are not reserved for the bureaucracy and which are in the hands of the Provincial Councils, let us consider the next side of the Southborough Report. These two Reports are exactly what my right hon. Friend opposite described as whittling away the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. Not only are the functions of the Legislative Council reduced, not only is the power of the Governor increased under the Feetham Report, but the whole basis of the franchise upon which it was possible, as I hoped, under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme to build up in the

  669
  future a really responsible representative Government, has been ruined by the action of these two Reports. If you take first of all the Provincial Legislatures you will see that the electorate is 5,000,000 out of a population of 245,000,000. These 5,000,000 are selected not on an educational but solely on a property franchise. There are 14,000,000 literate people in India, 1,000,000 of whom will be women, leaving perhaps 13,000,000 who can read or write. Of these some 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 are going to get the vote, because out of the 5,000,000 who get the vote, 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 will be illiterate people. So that you are only giving the vote, roughly speaking, to a quarter of those who are able to read and write, and you are giving it to them on a property qualification. The working classes in Bombay, Cawnpore, and Calcutta, who have been desperately striking to put an end to the abominable conditions under which they live, a strike which has been put down with the help of the Government forces in Bombay, are entirely excluded from the franchise. There may be exceptions, but, generally speaking, out of the 5,000,000 the town populations have a very small chance of getting the vote at all. It will be the agricultural population, who are the actual manual labourers, who will obtain the vote under these conditions. The whole of the lower middle class, as we call them in this country, the clerk class, all those who have got some education and can read or write, will have no chance of a vote. So that you are starting that scheme with a franchise for your Provincial Legislative Council which is narrow, which eliminates the small proportion of people who have some education and which confines the power to vote to people with a property qualification. It is a small property qualification, but people in India are all very poor, so pool-that a penny a day is held to be the average income of an Indian.
  That is not all. Having in this way established a franchise on a property basis, a basis on which you cannot build for the future, the Southborough Report proceeds to implant upon this basis all manner of interests which are held to require special treatment. I will not deal with- the communal representation allotted to the Moslems. That, after all, is an arrangement between the Hindus and the Moslems which the Southborough Report merely confirms as it stands. But look at
  670
  the communal representation which is now given under the Southborough Report and compare it with what was suggested in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. Europeans are specially represented, not by nomination of the Governor, but by election. Europeans, Eurasians, native Christians are all represented communally. The Chambers of Commerce have special representatives, and, above all, you find an inordinately large representation of everything which could be called a landlord. Everyone who has any vested interest in the land has been hunted out and given a special representation on these provincial councils. They have seen that every pensioned officer and non-commissioned officer —no privates—is to be given a vote also, so as to establish a sort of permanent Varangian guard to see that the electorate shall never possibly do wrong. These people represent an interest in India which has a perfect right to make itself heard, but I do protest, seeing that we in this country have shed all these special electorates, and have prospered, and would prosper in the future still more, on a universal, direct, and equal franchise, that these English officials out there are promulgating these schemes. I suppose Lord Southborough is responsible, for, if you read his Report, he has adopted every scheme put forward by the local authorities. These schemes put forward by the English people out there are un-English, and will not lead to satisfactory results.
  Though with the best intentions the right hon. Gentleman is replacing to a certain extent the bureaucracy in India, he is replacing it by something which may be ten times worse, and that is plutocracy in India. He is putting the enormous industrial development which will take place there during the next twenty years into the hands of the mill-owners of Bombay, and similar people elsewhere. These enormous capitalists will control the industrial development of India during these coming years. If my right hon. Friend is hopeful of getting from his new Legislatures reforms directed towards really giving the working classes of India a chance, he will find that it would be easier to do even under the old discarded bureaucracy than under the new plutocracy, making its 100 per cent. or 200 per cent. per annum. There is another point of view which we cannot afford to disregard, and that is that you are establishing a real plutocracy in India. Do not forget

  671
  that these people, when they find themselves sitting on the legislative councils of India, will feel that it is incumbent upon them to preserve their position as capitalists in that country by distracting the attention of the working classes of India from their real grievances. I believe that so long as you confine your councils to the rich people in India, so long as your assemblies there are merely tied to the interest of capital development and industrial development in India, you will have them trying to distract the attention of the lower orders in India, by piling up hatred against this country, and by finding causes of complaint against England, so that the masses in Bombay, Cawnpore, and Calcutta will have their attention distracted from their own economic grievances and be turned against this country.
  I think the one chance of securing real co-operation between England and India in the future rests in finding in these Indian Parliaments the same lines of cleavage that we have in this country between the Liberal and the Conservative parties, between the Labour party and the Unionist party, and so on. If you can get those lines of cleavage in the new Indian Parliaments, the old-fashioned lines of cleavage that every free country is bound to find in its Parliament, then the country will prosper; but if you are to have in those Parliaments one class whose interest it will be to distract to foreign affairs, to the interference of England in India, the attention of people who might otherwise be complaining of sleeping five in a room and boxing and coxing it, working by day and by night, I think you will get very troublesome times between England and India in the future. In these legislative councils, as in the Southborough Report, everything is being done to establish real plutocracy. Take the legislative council of Delhi. Although under the scheme of my right hon. Friend there was to be direct representation, and there was to be established a framework upon which a genuine Parliamentary institution could be built there, they have knocked that on the head, and decided on indirect representation as being more conservative and more likely to preserve them from any Socialistic legislation. They are quite right. You cannot have a more thoroughly conservative institution than an indirectly elected body, where the provincial legislative councils meet together to select their safest members who will be
  672
  responsible to no electors but to the legislative council. I do deplore the changes' that have been made in this last year, and. I beg my right hon. Friend, when he introduces his Bill to make that Bill go more towards the side of his first Report and less in the direction of these whittling-away Reports of Lord Southborough and Mr. Feetham. Bureaucracy is very clever. It is always possible to form a union with reactionary native elements in India in order to develop schemes which Indians may accept, but which in the long run will be bad for India. Indirect election, special representation, and the communal representation of the kind I have described are illiberal, undemocratic movements that it would be well to eliminate-before a Constitution is given to India.
  Let me now pass to the Rowlatt Act. I have only a few things to say about it. In, the first place, if the Indians—not by a majority, but by absolute unanimity—on. the Viceroy's Legislative Council say that they do not want that Act, then that measure ought not to be passed into law. Conceive what it would be here if you had legislation not by a minority, but legislation against the unanimous wish of this House. How could you expect England to-tolerate a law which was unanimously opposed by every single Member of this House? When a law is passed against the-unanimous vote of every single elected Member of Parliament, a country is not likely to take it lying down and to accept the law, whether it be good or bad. I do-not suppose there is one man in 100,000 in India who knows what the Rowlatt Act is, but they do know that their elected representatives voted against it to a man, and that in spite of that it was forced on the country. That, I believe, is the principal reason of the late riots—this absolute disregard of all those British traditions which are always upon our lips, but which we do not always conform to when it comes to dealing with people whom we have governed for their good for so long. The fact that you are legislating against the unanimous wish of the people, whether it be good or bad legislation, is bound to damn that legislation and to give it no possible chance of operating with success.
  This Rowlatt Act is the most lawless law, to use the word of Mr. Bannerjee in the Indian Parliament, ever passed into law. It is not a law; it is simply an administrative instruction. Any man can be put into prison if the district is proclaimed under the Rowlatt laws. He can

  673
  be put into prison, and then he can appeal to a judge against it. The judge takes the papers and inquires into the case. He has not to say whether the man has committed any crime. All that he has to consider is whether the political officer who decided that so and so was a dangerous person really thought that he was a dangerous person. That is legislating not merely for expediency, but legislating in the direct face of justice. I have known many people in my time who have been extremely undesirable people according to many people in this country. Take the late Mr. Keir Hardie. There was never a time when a majority of this House would not gladly have seen Mr. Keir Hardie locked up. Take my friend, Mr. Outhwaite, who was in the last Parliament. You could have always got almost an unanimous vote for locking up Mr. Outhwaite at any time. Take myself. I have no doubt that many people would like to see me locked up. You might prove to the satisfaction of any of His Majesty's judges that you are right in thinking it well that Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Outhwaite, or myself were dangerous to society. I do not think we are. I think we are the salt of the earth, but other people think otherwise. They say that Wedgwood is a danger to society, and in the interests of society he ought to be locked up. The judge cannot say that it was to the interest of society that I should be locked up or not. If these individuals represent that I ought to be locked up, and they honestly think it, therefore I must remain locked up. That is contrary to justice, but that is the principle you are applying to India, and it must cause a sense of injustice and irritation amongst the Indian population when you are legislating not upon grounds which are just or unjust. but wholly on grounds of what is expedient or inexpedient.
  8.0 p.m.
  Perhaps hon. Members have heard this story of young Cyrus, who was born to be an emperor. He was very well educated, and, in order that he might be trained for his future work, he was sent to a children's court of justice to decide cases. One morning there came into the court a big boy and a little boy, and the little boy was in tears. He explained that the big boy had taken his coat. The big boy said, "Yes, I did take his coat; it fitted me very well. The coat I had was too small, so I gave it to him." Cyrus was seized with a brain wave. He said, "Try on the coats and let me see." They
  674
  tried on the coats, and the big boy's coat fitted the little boy quite nicely, and the little boy's coat fitted the big boy quite nicely. "Let them keep the coats," said Cyrus, and all the courtiers applauded the wisdom of his decision. Cyrus told his tutor about it, and the tutor thereupon put him across his knee and spanked him, saying, "I sent you not to fit coats, but to do justice." If we had a little more justice in India, and a little less fitting coats in the name of expediency, it would do good to the British name in future, and in the long run it would lead to happier relations between this country and India. The Rowlatt Bills are not only against law, but they are against the people. It is these reasons which caused the explosion in India recently. I do protest, and the Government must understand that the repression of these riots by means of bombs from aeroplanes and machine guns have produced an even worse effect than the original passage of the Rowlatt Act. Now there is not a single moderate Indian but who protests against the way in which these riots have been put down. My right hon. Friend in a passage for which I shall always be grateful compared me lightly to a very important character, Mr. Gandhi, the leader of the passive resistance movement not only in India but throughout the world. Gandhi is regarded as a saint in India. He went to Delhi to suppress the riots. When he got to Delhi he was arrested and sent back. It was the arrest of Gandhi which caused the revolt at Lahore. It is unfortunate incidents like this which must be inquired into. If peace and settlement are to come to India there will have to be an inquiry into these riots. Why are they so concentrated in Delhi and the Punjaub? The Punjaub six years ago was the most peaceful part of India. It is the home of the Sikhs, the bust soldiers. The reason is that they have had, obviously, during the last six years some of that firm, resolute rule which the right hon. Gentleman terms the right method of governing India. Sir Michael O'Dwyer six years ago when he went to the Punjaub, found it a perfectly quiet country. He has bequeathed it to his successor a revolutionary spirit which runs from one end to the other.
  you have got to 'have not only an injuiry into the murders of English people in India during the last few months, but also into those administrative acts, whether the use of aeroplane bombs or the

  675
  arrest of men like Gandhi or the employment of the agent provocateur by the police force, before you will get any system of contentment and satisfaction upon which this constitutional Bill will be based. I do hope that my hon. Friend will see that in the drawing up of his scheme, which is intended to take power from the bureaucracy and transfer it to the people of India he will not leave it to the bureaucracy to frame it. It was asked by an Indian congress that the governors of provinces who will have charge of the constitutional aspect of these new councils in India shall not be Anglo-Indian bureaucrats from India, but people who will have some acquaintance with constitutional usages in this country or other civilised countries. If full administration of your scheme is left to the dispossessed bureaucratic class in India, then you will have failed, and just as in the Punjaub the action of one particular bureaucrat embittered the relations between two great peoples, so a particular bureaucrat in directing these legislative councils may by stupid, tactless action destroy the possibility of India becoming not merely a member of this family of nations, but one of the freest and most loyal members of the lot.
  Mr. BENNETT: I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India not only upon the singularly impressive speech with which he has introduced his Budget, but also upon the early date upon which he has been able to present it to the House. In India there has always been great complaint of the tardiness with which the Indian Budget has been presented. It has always come as the dry and unappreciated remainder biscuit after the Parliamentary banquet. Now the people of India will see that its importance is adequately recognised in the place which has been given to it in the Parliamentary calendar. Further, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the singularly courageous and outspoken way in which he has announced his intention to go through with the great project to which he has set himself. That will give encouragement in India and will exercise, I believe, a most beneficial influence, because the one thing which we have to guard against in India is the propagation of the idea that Parliament does not mean business in this matter, that Parliament is indifferent or that it is hostile. The right hon. Gentle-
  676
  man has put an end, I hope, to that idea. It has been propagated in India, I believe, for malignant purposes. It has been propagated by those who are really against the Government, and I am afraid that that movement in India has received some countenance and help from certain movements here, which would be described, I suppose, by some who are intimately associated with them as Conservative movements, but which in my opinion will, unless checked, have a mischievous and disturbing tendency in India.
  The hon. and gallant Member who spoke just now referred at some length to the Southborough and Feetham Reports and to the general scheme of reform for which we are to be prepared. I shall not imitate his example. He set out a number of matters which it will be time enough to discuss when we come to them, that is to say when the whole scheme of the Government is laid before the House. But he made one or two other references, and I wish that he were here to hear the comments that I am about to make upon them. One is this. He spoke of the plutocracy, which it is proposed, or he thinks it is proposed, in the coming Bill, to set up in the legislative system. So far as I understand, the franchise holders will consist of people who in Presidency towns, like Bombay, pay a rent equivalent to £8 a year. I do not see much plutocracy there. What most offends him is the presence of the special representation of mill owners. Those millowners are prominent Indian subjects. They are men who some time ago began to take a very active part in political life in India, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman when he comes before us with his full scheme will be able to give very good reasons why the millowners, plutocrats though they be, should have a place in his Parliamentary system. At any rate, if you take the Bombay Legislative Council, they will have only one representative out of over 100. However, I am going a little in advance of what I intended to say, because I would like to leave to the time when the Bill is introduced into Parliament all suggestions that I may have to offer upon it. The right hon. Gentleman gave a frank, but, one must own, a melancholy account of recent events in India. I would not like to minimise what he said, and certainly I would urge that we should bear in mind his assurance that the danger is not over. But there are some consoling elements in the situation.

  677
  First of all, let us remember that though things have been very disturbed in India recently, yet at a far more critical time than this has been we had the solid support of the whole people of India. When India was almost denuded, by the courage of Lord Hardinge, of British troops for the Empire War, India was loyal, and if you will bear that in mind, I think that is a consolation in the depression which has followed from the recent troubles in India. Further, there are local bright spots. It is rather astonishing now that during the recent disturbances there should have been serious disturbances in Gujerat, because in my time in India the people there were among the most quiet and contented in all India. If you looked for disturbances you would have looked for them in Poonah, but an Indian gentleman who has come from there recently tells me that not only was there superficial quietness in the Deccan, but that there was quietness even under the surface, and that there were not as many as half a dozen passive resisters in Poonah, which is a city of over 150,000 inhabitants. Those are reassuring statements. As to the Rowlatt Act, I do not know if it is wise to make too much of the trouble which has arisen from that. Hon. Members state, with a great deal of confidence, that the Rowlatt Bill has been the cause of all the trouble. It is one of many causes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself, when dealing with the question some weeks ago, told us that the troubles in India were not to be attributed to one, but rather to many causes, and it seems to me, in regard to this matter, that it would be wise to bear in mind the observation of a great statesman, which was that history took very small account of the controversies which caused most commotion at the time. I remember that I landed in India almost immediately after an agitation associated with a Bill which bore the name of a learned gentleman who happily still holds a place of honour in this House. The Ilbert Bill has been forgotten long since, though the name of its author is still cherished, and we may reasonably hope that before very long we shall forget the Rowlatt Bill as people in India have long since forgotten the Ilbert Bill, and that we shall forget it, because I believe and hope that there will be no reason to put the Act itself into operation.
  I do not want to minimise the position. I hope that all those on the other side, and those who will probably be coming back on the other side to take part in the
  678
  discussion, have studied the Rowlatt Report, because if they have they will have seen it demonstrated, I believe, to their satisfaction, that that Report establishes the absolute necessity of some departure from the ordinary procedure of a judicial tribunal. We are told by the Punjab authorities that if it had not been for the special legislation which they had at their back it would have been impossible to put down the conspiracy there. But the point is this. One may sum up the statements in the Rowlatt Report in this way. Not only have the Government of Bengal especially, and some of the other Governments, had to deal with crime on a large scale, but it was organised crime, crime which was directed not only towards the murder of Europeans and outrage of many kinds, but it was avowedly directed towards driving the British Government out of India. Terrorism was one of the primary processes employed in that conspiracy, a terrorism which finally manifested itself in the fear, and sometimes the refusal, of persons to appear in court to give evidence against the accused. Those are conditions that cannot be dealt with by ordinary process of law. You may say what you like, invoke trial by jury and the rights of a British subject to fair and open trial, but when you have a community set against you, determined that by bloodshed and outrage of every kind they will terrorise the people and will shatter the administration, it seems to me there is only one course open. I hope that the Government of India will never be under any necessity to apply this Act. It will depend not upon this country but upon people in India whether the Act is to be applied or not.
  Let me revert to one matter already referred to, because I do not think it should be passed over. That is this: The hon. Member referred to the growing expenditure in India. He dealt with the Army in particular, but the worst he had to say about the military extravagance practised by the Government of India was that the cost of the Army had gone up from £20,000,000 to £40,000,000. Considering that we were in war-time, and considering the enormous scale of the operations of the Army of India, that is a very small increase. As to the police and the increase in expenditure. The police and the schoolmasters, it seems to me, are the people who need most to be treated generously. I believe that part of the trouble in India, arises from the inadequate pay of sub-

  679
  ordinates in the administration. Above all, the police ought to be well paid, and if there is a class needing to be better paid than the police it is the schoolmasters. During the absence of the right hon. Gentleman in India, I think that if his locum tenens had taken pen in hand, and, without consulting the right hon. Gentleman, had done his best to commit himself to a most extravagant bill for the pay of the schoolmasters of India, it would have contributed to increased contentment amongst vast numbers of the population of India. The hon. Member also spoke of railways, and he referred to the increase of £23,000,000 or £24,000,000 in the proposed outlay on railways in India. It is precious little if you realise that £24,000,000 laid out to-day in labour and in material is the equivalent of not more than £12,000,000 laid out before the War. It should be remembered that India has, as far as it could with safety, allowed its material and its railway equipment to fall out of condition during the War. Sometimes, and in some places, it has become dangerously out of repair; therefore, the least that can be done is to spend just now the £24,000,000 on railway extension and reparation. It was said that it would all be spent in England. I do not think that is correct, because I understand three of the great railways of India have made large contracts with the Tata Ironworks, and the policy of the Government of India is to spend in India all they can, and the tendency with regard to railways in future will be to supply their wants, particularly in material and in locomotives, if possible, from India itself.
  I should not have intervened in this De bate but for the fact that a considerable part of my working life has been spent in India. It is true I left it some years ago, and some of my friends tell me that no one who has left India five years knows anything about that country. That is a rather discouraging idea, because it would mean that there is no such thing as an accumulation of knowledge and experience, and that the only people who know anything about India are people in that country, and while they are there. If there is any truth 'in that, I have done my best to correct it by frequent visits to that country. I think that one who at intervals visits a country is able to see its changes and watch its progress more than those who live there.
  680
  Those who live there sometimes do not see the wood for trees. I mention this for the one reason that I want to establish the fact that India is a country which is-undergoing steady and important change. There is, I know, a belief that the East is unchanging. I think the poets are responsible for misleading the world in regard to that. There is one hackneyed quotation, a couplet which I should be ashamed to quote to the House. There is another a little less hackneyed about how
  "The East bowed low before the blast, And plunged in thought again."
  India has not plunged in thought; she has been much too busy. We can see it in the improved condition of the people. Say what one will, India is prospering under British rule. The old story that India was being drained for the benefit of England—that fallacy has been abandoned even by those who were most energetic in propagating. it, and I do not think we shall hear it again. It is not in material prosperity only that India is going forward. It is in the self-consciousness of the people. There is a sense of national being which is steadily being evolved in India. The country is moving; it is organising itself. Take up any daily paper in one of the great cities in India and read the notices of meetings connected with new societies. The mind and thought and energy of India are being organised on all hands. It is impossible while that is so that we shall stand still. There was a time when the average, fair-minded liberal Englishman going to India might be content to say this, "Well we will deal justly with the country, we will mete out fair dealing between the inhabitants; we shall be efficient, economical, and we will leave the rest to Providence; but we cannot invite the people of India to have any part in controlling their own destinies." That would have been an honourable, straightforward attitude of mind, and I know there were times when I felt that if we had done as much as that we should have done as much as could be expected of us. But I have long since dropped that belief I recognise now, and have done for a long time—and it has been brought home to me with increasing conviction—that we must more closely associate the people of India with the administration than we have done.
  I want to speak very frankly on one point. What are the relations between

  681
  the Government of India and the people? Have they improved or have they gone back? To be frank they have not improved; they have gone back. I have tested it in various ways, and apart from the general consideration that there is considerable feeling between a portion of the people of India and Europeans, I have applied one test. I remember years ago when the Government of Bombay issued a resolution publicly censuring certain people for certain misconduct. "But," I asked a member of the Government, "what use is that—will it do any good?" Yes, "he said," it will, because the minds of the people of India are so constituted that if there is an open expression of dissatisfaction by Government it will do good. The wrongdoers are discredited in the eyes of their neighbours and the Government is so far strengthened. "In recent visits to India I have borne that in mind, and I have asked people in various parts of India how far is it still true, and I have been told by one after another," I do not believe there is a part of India in which that proposition can truthfully be made." That is not a satisfactory state of things. You may say, Are you going to improve things by associating the people of India more closely with the Government of their country? My answer to that is this. You are not going to improve things simply by a policy of repression, by a policy of asserting law and order. We have countries near at hand in which, while with one hand healing measures have been carried out on the other the strong arm of the law has been asserted, and while these two processes have gone on simultaneously we have made progress. If in India we on the one hand firmly assert the law, as the right hon. Gentleman assured us he means to do, and on the other hand meet the legitimate aspirations of the people and show them that we are in sympathy with their progressive ideas, then I believe that the problem will be solved. But we must bear this in mind, that we have to encourage our friends in India and not to countenance efforts which are being made in this country, which I think will make it difficult if they succeed for us to keep the friends that the Government have got. We are being told that the Moderates in India have no real loyalty towards the Government. To my mind the most harmful thing that has been done lately is the attempt to discredit the loyalty of
  682
  the Moderates in India. I read the other day in a publication which is intended to check the reform movement this:
  "In regard to the paramount duty of maintaining law and order and of preventing sedition, murder and anarchy, the views of both Moderates and Extremists coincide to such an extent as to be prejudicial to the claims of Indian politicians to manage their own affairs, and fraught with great danger to the stability of the Government which the Reform scheme proposes to establish in India."
  That, in my opinion, is as harmful, unjust, and as unfair a thing as could possibly have been written. I have the happiness to count amongst the Moderates of India a, number of personal friends, whose loyalty and high character I can attest by many years of close friendship and association. On their behalf I resent this. It is not only untrue; it is a cruel libel, and it is harmful. Unless we know where to find our friends, and unless we satisfy the Moderates of India that we trust them and wish to work with them and they with us, our day in India is done. I hope that fact will be fully realised. I can imagine contingencies in which the Government would not have a friend in India, and if a policy of this kind were carried out, the day after that the British Government would not have a friend in India. I hope that those who are carrying out this movement in England, and who think that they are supporting British rule, will reconsider their position, and will realise that they are putting themselves in the position really of enemies of British rule, and that they are hampering the British Government in its attempt to exercise rule in that country. Let me quote a few words that came to me from a very well-informed publicist in India a few weeks ago on that very point:
  "If Parliament fails to deal boldly and resolutely with this question of reform, they may make up their minds that every Moderate man will be driven out of public life in India and that he will have to deal with a larger, a growing body of Sinn Feiners, of India without any moral backing whatever in the country, and every well wisher of the British connection will feel that he has been sold."
  Those are very serious remarks, but I believe they are founded not only upon knowledge but upon good sense. I wish, in conclusion, to refer to the work of a recent Member of this House, and I know that the House follows with sympathy and kindly recollection the career of those of its Members who have gone to perform duty in different parts of the Empire.

  683
  There have been parts of India during recent times in which it may be complained that the course taken by the Government was not wise. We are not here to sit in judgment on any Government in India in regard to its action during the riots. But there was one Presidency in which, apart from the unfortunate happening in one district, peace was kept. There were troubles in Bombay earlier in the year, and there was great fear that on the 11th of April serious disturbances would break out. I know that the situation on the morning of that day was most critical. There were demonstrations by thousands and hundreds of thousands through the streets of Bombay, and soldiers and police were in readiness to put down any disorder, but strict instructions were given that not a finger was to be lifted against the demonstrators until any disorder took place. The processions, largely under the influence of Mr. Gandhi, peacemaker as well as disturber, went through the town in an orderly way. Let me read what an Indian native paper says of that day:
  "Great credit is due to the authorities for the feelings of forbearance with which they comported themselves in extremely trying circumstances, and the splendid feeling which prevails in Bombay to-day towards them is their best reward."
  I never read such an expression as this in an Indian paper:
  "The police are regarded by the public as friends almost for the first time in the annals of Indian administration. The name of His Excellency the Governor——"
  that is a former Member of this House, Sir George Lloyd—
  "is on everybody's lips, and the sentiment universally felt is one of high respect and admiration."
  I am sure hon. Members in this House will hear that with pride and satisfaction of one who was so recently amongst us, who in the highways and byways of the Empire has done wonderful service during the last few years, and that he has been able to combine strength with prudence, and moderation, and tolerance, and that in a time of such terrible crisis he, without the shedding of blood or any coercive measures, has been able to keep under restraint a very agitated population.
  Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  684
  "in the opinion of this House, the operation of the two Criminal Law (Amendment) Bills which issued from the Rowlatt Report and which have recently been before the Indian Legislature, should be suspended until this House has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them."
  In moving this resolution I wish to say. in regard to the statements made earlier in the day by the Secretary of State for India in reference to the Rowlatt Act and the necessity for keeping it on the Statute Book even for the. three years, although it might not be operative or have occasion to be placed in operation in India, that his justification for that Act is one, I think, which reflects rather badly upon the Government of India. Although it might be said that there were certain disturbances in India, he himself has admitted in his speech this afternoon that there were Acts of Parliament already in existence in India which could deal with any of the disturbers or any of the agitators. If that is so, and we have his word that it is so, then there is no occasion for the Rowlatt Act remaining any longer on the Statute Book, even though it is to be inoperative-unless some sudden event calls for it being put into execution. If Acts already exist, then this particular Act, which has cemented the differences that existed between sections of the Indian people, which has sent a wave of disturbance, of discontent, and of agitation against the Government throughout the whole of India, is no longer needed, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw or give instructions for the withdrawal of this measure, which is being looked upon with such grave suspicion, and is being spoken against so luridly by people in India. It is rather peculiar also to find in his justification for the Rowlatt Act that he quotes to us the number of people who were interned or imprisoned under the Defence of India Act. He tells us that the numbers who were imprisoned or interned amounted to 1,600, that at the close of the War large numbers of these were released, and that at the present time there are only about 400 under restraint. When we consider that the population in India numbers 315,000,000, to try and justify an Act of this character by saying it is necessary to keep 400 people out of 315,000,000 under restraint is surely stretching the point rather far. If these 400 people are the only dangerous people in India, why this suddenly-rushed-through Act, this necessity for what are practically secret

  685
  trials, this denial to a prisoner of the elementary right to have a defence in an open court of justice by a lawyer? Because if you put the Act in operation that, I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement to-day, is the form that the Act will take when it is prosecuting these individuals. If there are more than 400 people in India who are dangerous, then the Government are not really doing their duty in allowing them to continue at large.
  It seems to me that the position of the Government of India to-day is very much the position of the Government of India in the past. Just two years ago, standing where I am standing now, and sitting probably where the right hon. Gentleman is sitting now, were two right hon. Members of this House. One of them was speaking at this box, and he said to the other, the then Secretary of State for India:
  "The Government of India is too wooden, too iron, too inelastic, too antediluvian, to be any use for the modern purposes we have in view. I do not believe that anybody could ever support the Government of India from the point of view of modern requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1917, col. 2205, Vol. 95.]
  One of those gentlemen, the one who used the words I have just quoted, is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to-day.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Hear, hear!
  Mr. M'LEAN: Yet he says in his concluding sentence, "I do not believe that anybody will ever support the Government of India from the point of view of modern requirements." To-day, two years later, be has supported the Government of India from that other box, the Government that is "too wooden, too iron, too inelastic, too antediluvian." He has swallowed all his own descriptions of that particular Government, and he is now supporting the Government which he has denied that anybody could support in the light of modern requirements. But there was another statement which he made in the same speech:
  "I say that that is a system so cumbrous, so designed to prevent efficiency and change, that in the light of these revelations it cannot continue to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1917, col. 2207, Vol. 95.]
  Yet he has justified the Indian Government by the Rowlatt Act. What is the real situation in India? Are the people of India disloyal because they wish to be disloyal? Is it because of revolutionary and anarchical bodies and organisations?
  686
  He made some reference to the agitator who lurked in the background, did all his work in secret, and is nor. to be found. If he is not to be found, the Rowlatt Act is not going to discover him. Ho must be discovered before the Rowlatt Act is put into operation, and yet we are told he cannot be found. We are told that these individuals are working upon the Indian spirit and the Indian mind. What is really working upon the mind of the Indian is the economic position of the Indian himself and his state of illiteracy. The very fact that you have in India probably 90 or 95 per cent. of the people illiterate, the very fact that you, the responsible governors of India, have neglected your right or your duty in educating the people of India, is sufficient to make those people the prey of any anarchical or revolutionary individual. You have to-day the most illiterate country in the world, I believe, supposed to be governed by a civilised people, in India, and the responsibility for that illiteracy rests upon the Governments, past and present, of the United Kingdom.
  An hon. Gentleman made some reference to the franchise that could be exericsed. He said that the franchise would be given to those who paid a rental of £8, but he forgot to tell the House the equivalent of that amount in India. He did not tell the House that an £8 rental for the year was almost more than some people in India are earning during the whole of the year, working from twelve to fourteen hours a day, for from 5d. to 8d. per day. That is the state of affairs in India, and in an atmosphere of that kind you pass a Rowlatt Bill because people are demanding their rights and that their Government should recognise its duties and responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman praised the loyalty of the Indian troops, and paid a warm tribute to what they have done throughout the War. I have another quotation, not this time from the right hon. Gentleman, but from the Secretary of State for India who preceded him, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made this statement in describing certain of the combats in which the Indian troops were engaged:
  "When a day or two afterwards the same ground was traversed again in a successful advance of our troops, the General who was in command, has told me that every Sikh had fallen facing his enemy, and most of them had one of their enemies under him. May I remind the House that on that occasion, fighting alongside them, were the Lancashire Fusiliers? No

  687
  narrow spirit of sectional or racial jealousy animated either of them on that day, but one glorious emulation as to how best they might serve the Empire, how best they might do glory to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1917, col. 1140, Vol. 91.]
  The survivors of that fight have gone back to India. They have had the appreciation not only of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, but they have had the appreciation of the Prime Minister, who, speaking at the Guildhall on the 27th April, 1917, said:
  "The other question is India. Germany's greatest disappointment in this War has been India. She expected sedition, distraction, disaffection, disloyalty, and the forces of Britain absorbed upon the task of subduing it. What did she find? Eager, enthusiastic, loyal help for the Empire. I think they are entitled to ask that these loyal myriads should feel, not as if they were a subject race in the Empire, but as partner nations. Both these questions require bold statesmanship. Timidity, timorousness, faintheartedness, abhorrent in peace or war, in war are fatal. Therefore I say to Britain, she has faced the problems of war with a courage that has amazed the world; she must face the problems of peace in the same great spirit."
  Is it in that spirit that you are facing the problem of peace in India to-day? Is it in that spirit you have had your Rowlatt Bill put through? Is it in that spirit that you tell us that it is only for those who are looked upon as anarchists or revolutionaries? Why, the educated man among the Indians goes amongst them, and points out to them, just as in this country the trade union leader will point out to his trade union members, how certain things could be done to better their conditions in the workshop, the factory, or the mine. In India that man will be looked upon as preaching sedition, as causing unrest, as seeking to disturb the conditions there, and can be brought in under the Rowlatt Bill. Yet we are expected to feel that we are doing our best to recognise India as a partner nation. In the concluding statement he gave to the House to-day the right hon. Gentleman gave a generous promise that that scheme of reform which is identified with his name, linked with that of the Viceroy, will be incorporated in a Bill, which will be laid before the House in a very short time. I hope that that will materialise. I am certain the House will welcome it. But I hope also that, having gone so far as to materialise the promises held out to the Indians in the scheme that has been propounded, he will also be sufficiently generous to remove from India a particular measure that is obnoxious to the Indians themselves.
  688
  You reward your soldiers who have fought during this War and have come home again with decorations and medals. You reward the Indian soldier with a ribbon. You have plunged the whole of the country in disaffection. I said earlier that you yourselves are the cause of bridging the difference that previously existed between caste and caste, between sect and sect in India. India is practically almost unanimously against the terms of the Rowlatt Bill. The All India Congress Committee, which does not include moderns, at a meeting in Bombay passed a resolution emphatically protesting against the passing of the Rowlatt Bill, and in view of the unanimous opposition in India urging His Majesty's Government to disallow it. I would just like to point out to the (Secretary of State before concluding that he made one rather significant statement which I hope is only a slip on his part. In describing the Rowlatt Bill he concluded by saying it made no "new" outrage on the principles of the Indians. I hope he did not mean what appears evident on the face of it. It has been said that what preceded was exceptional legislation. That has been admitted. You have admitted that legislation has been passed for a particular period, and for specific purposes. You have altered industrial and economic conditions in India.
  Give these people of India something that they will understand, and a life that is worth living. What is 5d. per day to them? The hon. Gentleman whom I have quoted already spoke of the £8 rental that was to be paid. He also quoted the £24,000,000 that was spent in this country on labour. He said that- was not too much because £24,000,000 is only equal to £12,000,000 in pre-war days. But he cannot have it both ways. If £24,000,000 now is only valued at £12.000,000 in pre-war terms, then 5d. per day, which is paid to the Indian worker, must only equal 2½d. of pre-war days, and the very high prices in India at present makes it more nearly approximate to 2d. per day. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to express to the House his intention that this particular piece of legislation, this Rowlatt Bill, which outrages the sense of fairplay and justice that every Briton should hold, which lays upon the Indian people and around their necks once again a bond of servitude, and makes them feel that they are a subject race, shall not go through. I appeal to him to disallow

  689
  this piece of legislation, and to appoint a Committee of this House, if necessary, or a judicial committee, to go into the matter, and, at any rate, let the Indian people know that, so far as this House is concerned, we will look upon them as brothers and partners in the Empire, and that they shall suffer no indignity and be under no servitude that we in this country would, on our part, resist,
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. SPOOR: In rising to second the Motion, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of regret regarding the somewhat thin character of the House when the speech of the Secretary for India was being delivered. Whether it was due, as was suggested, to the Committee system that we have at present, or whether—as seems to me much more likely—it was due to the incorrigible insularity of which we British people are guilty, and that means very frequently that large numbers of our people take no interest whatever in foreign affairs, I cannot, of course, say. I do wish, however, that there had been more Members present to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which was of an informing character, and the subsequent speeches, which were of an unusually high order. For they were upon a topic that, after all, is one of the most vital that concerns this House and this country. With some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I could not find myself in agreement. He appeared to me to vacillate somewhat between a policy that was rather progressive and promising, while now and again he harked back to reaction. His speech seemed to contain a certain promise, which, if developed, and some of the implications of it strengthened, might mean that in a future —nearer than we sometimes think—India might take that place the right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope she would take amongst the great nations of the world, and that she would bring to that League of Free Peoples that we are trying to establish at the present time that immense contribution which she can bring from the great store of culture and civilisation that is peculiarly hers.
  It has been pointed out in several speeches that during the War the contribution of India was of a very high character. It is quite true that there was developed during the last four and a half years amongst the Indian people a greater unity and a greater solidarity than has, perhaps, ever existed during the whole
  690
  period of British rule. Faced by a common peril, sharing the common sacrifices, the Indian people had been brought into a condition of harmony that seemed full of promise for the years that lie ahead. After the Armistice was signed—as a matter of fact, before the War concluded—there were indications of a somewhat disquieting nature. When the War was in progress we spoke, and rightly spoke, of what the Indian people were doing in the great contribution they were making. Words of appreciation have been uttered in this House to-night. One could have hoped that our appreciation of India's part in the War had taken a more practical form. One could have hoped that the widows of the men who laid down their lives in France had been granted larger pensions than the beggarly few coppers that they have had given to them. One could Have hoped that the professions of sympathy that have been expressed hero and elsewhere for the Indian people had taken a better form than the payment of these wretched wages to which reference has been made. How far these economic conditions have contributed to the state of unrest existing in India at the present time is patent, I think, to everybody who gives serious consideration to the existing situation. We had during the War perfect harmony, concord, and unity, but when the Armistice arrived we had sudden rebellion, and almost revolution. And why? It has been suggested that the Rowlatt laws offered an occasion rather than a cause for this trouble. The Secretary of State has pointed out the economic causes that have contributed, but he did not refer at any length to the extraordinary commercial prosperity that has visited India during the War, which can be seen in the returns of all the big companies that had money invested in India, a prosperity, however, in which the millions of Indian people had no part.
  It is rather interesting in remembering the wages paid to Indian workers to notice the return of a representative company in that country. The Bengal Iron and Steel Company, whose dividend in September, 1914, was 12 per cent., in the following year rose to 24 per cent. It was 24 per cent. again in 1916, while in 1917 it was 30 per cent. In this company £1 shares in 1918 were quoted at £6 5s. It is difficult to reconcile our great professions and concern for the Indian people, and our great sympathy with them with facts like

  691
  that when we remember and know that large profits have been made there as in this country, while there has been no corresponding improvement 'in the condition of the people. Instead of that, over large tracts of India we had an appalling state of famine. We had the Bubonic plague and the terrible epidemic of influenza. It is calculated that 6,000,000 people died of influenza and pneumonia last year alone.
  In addition to these economic causes of unrest we have had going on for a period of years, and much more actively during the last two or three years, a very real and persistent agitation for constitutional reform. I think it will be agreed that the most significant thing about this agitation has been the fact that it has united people who have been separated before by very deep dividing lines in the matter of religious opinion. The fact that the Moslem and the Hindu population are working unitedly together on this question is most significant. The fact is that the united congress has pressed consistently for a declaration from the Government recognising that self-government is the goal of British policy, and that the British intend to secure it for India. The report that has been referred to frequently in the course of last year quite definitely admits the great need for fundamental reform. During the War the censorship has been very rigorous. The Defence of India Acts have been employed with no light hand, and since the Armistice, instead of pressing forward the work of reform in India, which all responsible authorities have recognised as being long overdue, the Government appear to have come along as the reaction was setting in, and instead of trying to improve the economic conditions and remove the causes of unrest, they published the text of the Rowlatt Bills and that caused a storm of opposition throughout the whole country.
  The Secretary for India has referred to the outburst, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he believes that repressive legislation either in India or anywhere else has ever done any good, and whether it is not a fact that the whole of our political history in that great country does not prove exactly the contrary. Is not the whole testimony of our political history in other parts of the world pointing also in the same direction? We have never secured progress in any part of the Empire unless it was pre-
  692
  ceded by confidence and trust. In South Africa we have an excellent example of what resulted from the action of a Government that was prepared to recognise the right of the South African people and give to South Africa a form of self-government. I want to suggest that so far as India is concerned the crisis that has arisen, and the gravity is recognised by every serious student of foreign affairs, is really no new situation. True the conditions of war have perhaps aggravated it in some respects, but I submit that in its essentials the Indian problem is the same at the end of the War as it was at the beginning, and the problem in India is simply the old one, namely, a conflict between national aspiration on the one hand and British Imperial ambition on the other.
  We have heard about the 315,000,000 or 330,000,000 of Indians. How many of those millions have had a voice or a vote in the election there of the Secretary of State for that country? How many of the Indians have ever had the opportunity of expressing their opinion or of voicing their own wishes with regard to an important matter like that? In supporting this appeal for a reconsideration of the question of the Rowlatt Acts, and in asking for their complete abolition, we want to ask for a more liberal policy, not only in the interests of India, but in the interests of this country and of the world. It seems incredible that in these days our Government would deport from India the English editor of a well-known newspaper. It is nearly a hundred years ago since that was done before. I think it was in 1823 that Mr. J. S. Buckingham, the founder and editor of the "Calcutta Journal,'' was expelled because of a series of articles he wrote censuring the Indian Government at that time. He was driven out of India, but long after that the East India Company had to acknowledge the injustice and unwisdom of the action they then took, with the result that they granted to Mr. Buckingham a pension of £200 a year. I do not know whether that treatment meted out so long ago to an English editor is in any way a prophecy of what is going to happen in this instance, but there does seem something absurd and distinctly reactionary in a Government which would remove from the country a man who has been guilty apparently of rather severely criticising the people who are in authority. When one talks about the partiality of the Press, one has to remember that there is in India an Anglo-Indian Press.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I must remind the hon. Member that he is seconding an Amendment in rather limited terms, and until that Amendment is disposed of we cannot go back to the discussion upon the general situation. The suspension of the Rowlatt Acts is the only question raised in this Amendment.
  Mr. SPOOR: I am very sorry if I have gone beyond the limits allowed me by the Amendment. I was dealing with the general situation, because it seemed to me that the Rowlatt Acts had been introduced to deal with the situation which exists in India at the present time. I will, however, just conclude by again asking the Secretary of State for India to reconsider this question, and, if possible, to secure the complete removal of these Acts with a view to restoring confidence among the people of India and keeping our own good name unsullied and unmarked. The attitude of many English people to the Indians is rather difficult to understand, especially when one remembers that India had a culture and a civilisation when we in these northern Islands were in a state of savagery. We are not dealing with people who are living in the blackest ignorance. We are dealing with people who have made in the past and who, we believe, will make in the future a big contribution to the world's stock of common good. In asking the Secretary of State to remove these obnoxious, unfair, and unjust Acts, we ask him to apply a more liberal policy, to take a longer view, to resume that line that has been followed in past years by some more liberal-minded statesmen in our country, and if he does that he will not only secure the gratitude of India and bring peace to that unhappy country, but he will go a very long way to securing also the stability of our own Empire.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I dealt at some length with the case for the contents of and the arguments against the Rowlatt Acts when I occupied the time of the House at an earlier period of the afternoon. I regret that I am still of opinion that as a temporary measure the Rowlatt Acts are necessary, and I regret, for reasons that I hope shortly to give, that I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Maclean), who moved this Amendment, asked me to refer the Acts to a judicial inquiry in this country. What better judicial inquiry can you have than the inquiry that recom-
  694
  mended us the Bill which has now become an Act?It was an inquiry presided over by an English High Court judge who went out, to India to investigate. He was assisted by a High Court judge of India, an Indian High Court judge, an Indian Civil servant, and an Indian pleader of great distinction and great practice in the Indian Courts. Those five men formed a far better judicial tribunal than you could hope to get, and they came to the conclusion that to deal with this particular form of crime you could not rely upon the ordinary procedure of the law and that in districts where it existed you must have recourse to something of this kind to prevent the murder of innocent citizens and the murder and assassination of those who give evidence against the murderers of those innocent citizens. The hon. Member who spoke last said that my speech was partly progressive and partly reactionary. What does he mean? Does ho mean that it is reaction to try and protect innocent Government servants who are doing their duty from the bomb-thrower and the assassin? Does he mean that it is reaction to ask that the Government should be armed to extirpate crime which delays the progress of a country and casts a slur upon its loyalty I If that be reaction, then I am a reactionary. He says," Is there any use in repressive legislation? Does repressive legislation ever assist, or has it ever assisted, to cure an evil?" I agree that you cannot eradicate revolutionary movements merely by legislation to deal with those who are guilty. That was the whole basis of my speech which he found so inconsistent.
  On the one hand, against this minority, the numbers of which are small and which I hope will become smaller, we must have legislation of this character; but for India. as a whole, for the great patriotic nationalist people of India, we want another and a totally different policy, and so far as we achieve that other policy so far will we withdraw from the numbers of those who may be tempted to join the ranks of the infinitesimally small proportion that will be subject to the Rowlatt Acts. I have described that other policy. Does the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench think that there is a single man in the India Office, in the Civil Service, or in the Government of India, who does not realise with a shudder the poverty, the narrow subsistence line, the vulnerability of the masses of the people of India, how subject they are to fluctua-

  695
  tions in climate and to disease, how narrow is their margin of existence? Does he know how anxious we are to improve the education system, and not only to improve it, but to spread it, a policy which takes time and requires teaching. Our answers to those questions are not the Rowlatt Acts; our answers to those questions are the Report of the Industrial Commission, the Report of Sir Michael Sadler's Education Commission, and the Report of those who investigated reforms last winter. The Rowlatt Act is to maintain the order of the country whilst all these great informs are going through. What are we to do while we hope to make the people satisfied that we are working for their good? Are we to let the bomb thrower and the assassin loose on society Are we not to arm ourselves against him? The Commission which sat has proved that there is no way of bringing him to book by ordinary open trial in an open Court. The Commission proved that when you tried to do that not only did the man escape but that the witnesses whom you might have induced to come forward were killed. Therefore your choice is between exceptional legislation of this kind and allowing the criminal to go scot free. It is not government to be unable to protect your citizens against conspirators of this kind. You must take measures against these men. What are those measures? There is a choice between one of two courses. Admitting that you have to take measures, and admitting that the measure cannot be trial in open Court, you must cither intern or deport these men without trial or inquiry, or you must adopt the procedure of the Rowlatt Act, which interns them without trial, but under which you can only intern them after two separate investigations, one before anything occurs and one after, by an authority of a judicial character. The case against the Rowlatt Act in my opinion can only be based on one of two charges. One of them is the charge put forward by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that the Act will be used against a political agitation which is neither anarchical nor revolutionary. As to that charge I would say I am perfectly confident it will not prove so. I invite this House to watch the operations of the Act, if it ever does operate, which I hope it will not, and to bring to the notice of Parliament the first case in which it is thought that there is any room for the
  696
  suspicion that the Act is being used against men except those to control whose movements and operations it was passed. The other charge against the Rowlatt Act is this, that it is an answer to the loyalty of India and an answer to the evils from which we have suffered. That is not its purport. It is only a part, a small part, a temporary part, a necessary incident in the immediate life of our real policy, the policy of economic development of education and reform with which we intend to go on.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  The following notice stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel Yate.
  To call attention to the recommendations of the Indian Public Services Commission and of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report as to the improvement of the conditions of the various European Civil Services in India, as well as the improvement of the conditions of service of the British officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers of he Indian Army in the matter of pay, pension, leave, and expatriation allowances; and to move. That it is an urgent necessity that this question should be taken in hand at once.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to say how much I thank the Secretary of State for the sympathetic reference he made to the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper. The question is one of very great importance to India. In fact, without something being done for the betterment of the British services in India these services will soon cease to exist. In both the civil and military services the dissatisfaction is so great at the present that I think both will cordially welcome the expressions which the right hon. Gentleman used at the commencement of the Debate to-day. Of the speeches which have been made this evening, that by the hon. Member for Clayton (Dr. Hopkinson) gave us a really good account of what is possible in India for the betterment of the condition of the people and for their future welfare. I think the Secretary of State, both this year and last year, devoted the most of his speech on the Annual Budget statement to the Reform question, and mainly confined himself to idealistic questions of future political reform, instead of giving real practical thought to the betterment of the people of India. The hon. Member for Clayton told us of the condition of things in the country, and there was one curious remark he made

  697
  which particularly struck me. He was speaking of the Industrial Commission, on which he told us there were four Indian members, three of them connected with industry, who were apparently of very great help, and one whom he described us a politician who was utterly unable to take any intelligent interest in the industrial condition of India. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that statement in mind. It is a fresh example of how little real benefit India gets from those so-called Indian politicians—gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman has described as politically-minded Indians. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to anticipate the Second Beading Debate, but I think we must acknowledge that he has given us a real Second Reading speech on the Indian Reform Bill which he is going to introduce, and I think it will be acknowledged that the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) even surpassed the right hon. Gentleman in that respect.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly explain that?
  Colonel YATE: I was simpy congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham on having even surpassed the Secretary of State in a Second Reading Debate on the Indian Reform Bill which has not yet been introduced. There was one thing the right hon. Gentleman told us which I was sorry to hear. It was his statement that in the coming Indian Reform Bill diarchy held the field. Can you imagine any possible Government existing where one executive council is official and the other non-official, and yet both are tied together? It is utterly impossible for any Government to succeed under such circumstances. I am all for reform, but government is government, and you cannot put two executive councils in one Government. I hope the right hon. Gentle-mart who has acknowledged that the Governors of the Provinces of India, or, at any rate, a certain number of them, have decided against diarchy and have suggested an alternative scheme, will give proper consideration to that alternative scheme and not persist with this most hope-less method of government by diarchy. Put an equal number of Indians and British in the Government. There is nothing better than English and Indians being put together. Let them sit alternately round the table, but let them
  698
  all be one Government and do not divide them into two Governments, one Indian and the other British. I trust that we shall not have this diarchy thrust down our throats when the Bill is introduced and be told that it must hold the field. My hon. Friend (Dr. Hopkinson) told us that the system of Indian education was a superstructure without any foundation. I look upon our system of education in India as one of the worst that could be devised. It introduces all the faults of the British system into India, and my hon. Friend rightly described its results. It is very much like the Secretary of State's reform scheme— it is all superstructure and no foundation.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he considered that the Rowlatt Act was only a temporary Act and only ought to be temporary. On that point I disagree with him entirely. We have had a great judicial Committee, consisting of the highest judges from England and from India, who decided unanimously that certain legislation was necessary and that it should be put permanently on the Indian Statute Book. The Government of India threw over that Committee, and in doing so were not only unwise but cowardly. It is cowardly for the Viceroy and the members, of the Council of India, who know that within three years they will be out of office and that others will have to govern India, to allow another agitation to face their successors. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman saw it, but the European Association in Calcutta at once sent a. protest on this subject, in which they said:
  "If the Government then think its continuance necessary, it will be extremely difficult to get the measure renewed in the new Legislative-Assembly. The constant renewal of controversy over such legislation inflames feeling."
  I quite agree with that. Three years hence, the new Governor-General and the new Council of India, when they have to-pass this legislation again, will be faced with a fresh agitation. Every paper in India says that they are going to renew-the agitation. All the Congress journals say that. Even the "Servant of India," which I have been reading, said:
  "We must agitate unceasingly for the repeal of the Act."
  That is the spirit of the politically-minded people in India. It is most unfair for the Government of India to try to shirk their responsibility by putting the maintenance of this necessary legislation on the

  699
  shoulders of their successors. I specially noticed a letter from Calcutta, published in the Press this morning, which said:
  "It has been said that not a single orthodox Indian newspaper or politician has given the Government the slightest help."
  That is true of the politically-minded men in India. We all remember Lord Willing-don's case in Bombay, and how the politicians refused to help in recruiting or to pay for the recruits, and now they have raised this agitation against the Rowlatt Bill. This letter goes on to say:
  "Mention should be made, however, of Indians of the non-political type, who have done their best to tell the truth and support the cause of law and order."
  Those are the real friends of the British Government, not the politically-minded men. I trust that the Secretary of State will bear this in mind in days to come. All of us who have lived our lives in India have some of our greatest friends among the men of the non-political type in India. They are our dear friends, and we have great Jove and respect for them. But the agitators who caused all this row over the Rowlatt Act are the men to whom we owe all the disturbance that is now occurring in India. I trust this will not be forgotten in time to come. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Mahomedan unrest. I was delighted to hear him speak of his sympathy with the Mahomedans in India and of the efforts he was making in Paris on their behalf. The whole of the Mahomedans in India and also in Afghanistan, more particularly in Afghanistan, look up to the Sultan of Turkey as their head. The great tenet of their faith is an independent Caliphate. It means everything to us if we can tell the Mahomedan Indians that we are fighting to maintain the Caliphate, and that we are striving our utmost in the Conference in Paris to maintain the Sultan in Constantinople.
  Mr. BOTTOM LEY: We are not allowed to know anything about Paris.
  Colonel YATE: We have seen something in the Press, and in spite of what the hon. Member says we know something of what is going on. This is a most important matter. We have 70,000,000 Mahomedans in India and a very large number in Afghanistan. They are all in favour of the Sultan of Turkey, and we must maintain him, if possible, in Constantinople. Let us internationalise the Straits and make every arrangement for its free pas-
  700
  sage, but let us allow the Sultan to remain where he is. Let him have an independent Monarchy over Anatolia, then we shall have the Mahomedans with us, but otherwise we shall have trouble. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Indo-British Association. He said they had tried to show that it was not the intention of the Government to carry out the announcement of August, 1917. I hope he will tell us exactly what he was referring to. I am not a member of the association, but I must honestly say I have never seen any pronouncement to that effect myself. The members of the association are men who have held high office and are thoroughly acquainted with India, and whatever their opinions may be I do not think I know of anything they have said which would warrant the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I did not say they had advocated a refusal to carry out the announcement of August, 1917, but that by the proposals they had themselves put forward they gave reason to believe that it was not going to be carried out in any acceptable form.
  Colonel YATE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks into it, I think he will find it was not the announcement of 20th August, but probably the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman himself that was referred to. That is a very different thing. They may be against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but still in favour of the pronouncement of August, 1917. I trust there has been some mistake.
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, there has been no mistake.
  Colonel YATE: To leave these controversial subjects and come to other matters, I think if the system of training Indian officers for the Indian Army is to be a success you must catch them young. You must train them as boys at school in special classes and then let them go for special training to the Imperial Cadet Corps and serve a time there, and then go on to Sandhurst or whatever college is appointed in India. It is no use taking haphazard a lot of men of mature age and sending them to college. I trust the present system of training these men at Indora will be thoroughly inquired into before it is proceeded with any further. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration, too, to the necessity of providing civil employment for the officers and soldiers of

  701
  the Indian Army. That is just as important there as it is here. Various attempts have been made to carry this out, but they have had no success that I know of. There are the railways, and many other Government appointments, and, considering what Indian soldiers have done during this War, the Government should keep all appointments in India for men who have served, and not give them to civilians, as has been done in the past. Another point I hope he will take into consideration is bettering the system of regimental schools. The extra duty pay of a regimental schoolmaster is Rs.7–9s. 4d.—a month. Can that attract the best class of man it is possible to get?
  I hope the same system that we have in England of localising regiments will be pursued in India as it is here. We have our county regiments, and we give them a county name and a county regimental depot. That is far more important in India than it is in England. Men love to be near their homes and families. Indian regiments have three battalions each, and one should always be quartered at the regimental depot in the place where the men are enlisted and recruited. I hope this will be carried out, and that a strong local connection will be maintained with all the regiments of the Indian Army. We also heard to-day some objections to the increase of the pay of the police. Some of the lower grades of the Indian police get 8 rupees—12s.—a month. Their pay is simply preposterous. I would urge that that should really be taken in hand and these men put on a proper footing. This is objected to by many Indians, yet no matter how highly educated a man may be, unless he has got a really good police to give security of life and property he cannot reap the advantages derived from his education. There is one other matter I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take in hand, and that is the formation of an Indian navy. We have the Royal Indian Marine, whose officers rank above the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, but when war broke out the officers were not considered qualified to command, and the "Hardinge," for instance, had to fight on the Suez Canal under the command of officers from ships of the Royal Navy. I hope that will not be continued. The right hon. Gentleman has taken up the position of equality with the Dominions, and I want, to see India have its own Navy, the same as Australia and New Zealand. We know
  702
  what disturbances were caused by the appearance of one vessel, the "Emden," in the Bay of Bengal. I hope the result of Lord Jellicoe's visit to India will be that this question will be given due consideration, and that India may have her own Navy just as she has her own Army.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman informed us that in his initial period at the India Office he served under Lord Morley. I think we shall all agree that he has equalled, if ho has not surpassed, Lord Morley in breadth of vision regarding Indian affairs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) said he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman's speeches during the past two years had been too idealistic, but he forgot that it was the right hon. Gentleman who set up the Commissions of which so much is hoped. Before I deal with the general situation I wish to make a reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks regarding the war against Afghanistan. I feel sure that Sir Arthur Barrett, to whom too little tribute has hitherto been paid for the very great work he aid in the initial stages of the Mesopotamian campaign, will carry out all that there is to do in connection with the present campaign skilfully and with all due speed. There is one matter in this connection to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The present War has produced many inventions and many new methods of warfare, and amongst them has been that of the aeroplane. I think it is a matter of great gratification that none of the frontier tribes on either side of the Kyber have joined with the Afghans in the last raid. But that does not mean that at one time or another in the future a frontier campaign may not take place. I used to have some knowledge of frontier warfare in India, and I know that in the past, assuming that the campaign was successfully conducted on our side, in order to punish the tribes or any section of the tribes who had taken part, it was the custom to send out punitive expeditions. The only method at hand for punishing the tribes was to burn and destroy their villages. That may have been a very good or it may have been a very bad method, but I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the development of the aeroplane it may be thought by the commander on the spot that a much simpler method of carrying out a punitive expedition would be by bombing aeroplanes. When a punitive

  703
  expedition went out in the past, it was able to clear out of the villages the women and children. The men usually escaped up the hillside, but in many cases the women and children remained. It was possible to clear them out before the village was destroyed. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should make quite clear that in any future punitive operations great care should be exercised when villages are to be bombed, because women and children may be left inside the houses. I do not know whether that has occurred to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it has occurred to the commander on the spot. In the new methods of warfare that is a possibility to be guarded against, and I suggest that, from the humanitarian point of view, the right hon. Gentleman might consider it.
  10.0 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman travelled widely, as have other hon. Gentlemen, in the Debate over the causes of unrest in India, and indicated some of the reasons of the unrest. He referred amongst other things to the economic causes of unrest, and he hit upon the failure of agriculture, the epidemic of influenza, and recruiting, He also dealt sketchily with the fiscal system in India, and referred in somewhat vague and ambiguous terms to the fiscal liberty of India. That is a very important matter, particularly in view of the departure of the Government into Protectionist realms, as evidenced in the Finance Bill which has just passed through this House; and I should have liked to have had some further explanation of what he meant exactly when he referred to fiscal liberty for India. The most important part of his speech dealt with the fears on the part of the Mahomedans and the reforms for which the right hon. Gentleman and the Viceroy of India have been in the main responsible. I was very glad to hear that the Secretary of State has obtained Cabinet consent to the introduction of a Reform Bill in the early days of June. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has noticed that in this evening's Debate he has been urged from every quarter, and from quarters from which one might least have expected it, to take a bold line, and not to delay in introducing and carrying through these reforms, and, indeed, far from whittling them down, to enlarge them in certain respects. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of that and I hope the association to which reference
  704
  has been made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the hon. Member for Nottingham will also take note of that fact. There was a short difference of opinion, if that is not putting it too high, between my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) and the Secretary of State regarding the activities of the Indo-British Association. As I understand the case it is this, that certain hopes were held out to the population of India by the announcement of August, 1917, and further by what is commonly called the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, and that even if the activities of the association have not actually been directed to an attempt to whittle down the main provisions of that Report, that has been the impression left upon the minds of many people in the Indian Empire. I hope that this association and others acting with them, great Pro-consuls of Empire though some of them he, will take note that in this House to-night there has been a distinct expression of opinion from every quarter that these reforms, far from being whittled down, should be enlarged, and that every possible opportunity should be given to Indian aspirations. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks. (Mr. Bennett), in his very able and eloquent speech, referred to moderate opinion in India. In effect he said, "Let us be very careful, lest at this moment we lose the support of moderate opinion." I re-echo very warmly his sentiments in that respect. We are indeed at the parting of the ways. We must carry with us, so far as we can, moderate opinion, not the opinion to which the Rowlatt Act is destined to apply. That opinion it is impossible to carry with us. So far as we can we must carry with us all other opinion in India. I look upon the pronouncement of 20th August, 1917, as a beginning of a new era in Indian political reform, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduces his Bill at the beginning of next month, will gain strength from what he has heard in every quarter of this House to-night, and will be prepared to push these reforms with all the power at his command.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I am quite sure that the general tone of the Debate this evening must have been profoundly gratifying to the Secretary of State for India, and I think also exceedingly cheering to that large body of moderate opinion in India upon whose steadying influence, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said so much depends for the future of our

  705
  great Dominion. I desire to intervene only for a few minutes upon a topic which, though of a different character, is hardly less important for the material prosperity of India. I am not sure if all Members of this House are aware that there exists in India the most magnificent system of natural waterways in the world. It is sad to think that that great natural system of waterways is also the worst administered system of waterways in the world. When we compare the comparatively poor waterways of, say, Germany with the magnificent waterways of India, we are struck with the fact that what nature with lavish expenditure has bestowed upon India has been largely rendered nugatory by inaction and inefficiency, by lack of imagination and perspective. Whereas the much lesser resources of Germany, and other European countries, have been rendered serviceable to the use of man by the application of scientific principles, it is sad to think how the great resources of India are hampered and hindered by the present inefficient system. If hon. Members interested in this topic would look over the list of engineers in charge of waterways during the last thirty or forty years in India, they would find that there has been a change in the centre of administration about once every year, and that just as a man is learning his job, just as he is settling down to prove an efficient conservator of the waterways of India, he is changed to something else.
  Along with that there has, of course, been lack of funds, resulting in a much larger expenditure at a later date. A sort of thing that happens is, that accumulations in the rivers, which could be easily cleared, choke them up, and presently you have shoals, with large areas of arable country covered with water for miles, with sometimes villages submerged. This question has been agitated in, India for many years past, and there is no one more alive to it for the time being than those into whose hands the control of waterways, so far as it exists, has passed. The leaders of commerce, in fact, all classes engaged in commerce in that country, have for years pressed for the creation of a Waterways Trust under Government control, but with the advice and assistance of persons both of Indian and British nationality interested in these matters—a trust that would control under the Government the conservation of these great natural waterways which would pre-
  706
  vent the choking up of these channels of great rivers to the detriment of all classes. While much has been said by the Government, and many reports have been issued, nothing whatever has been done by the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman inquires into the matter he will find how very valuable a feeder and auxiliary for the railways during the period of war were these great natural waterways which are now a sort of Cinderella of the Indian administration.
  A very great authority on the matter is now Secretary to the Government of Bengal, and what he does not know about Indian waterways is very little. If that gentleman had been placed in control of Indian waterways, instead of being moved perhaps to a higher post, I am sure that great things might be done, but I do think that His Majesty's Government at home, which under the present system is really responsible for the future of India, should give more attention to problems connected with the development of India's resources, upon which so much depends for the future happiness of all classes in the Indian community. The details of these schemes should be studied by the Secretary of State. There is a great scheme just now, fortunately nearing fruition, for the formation of a Grand Trunk Canal, which will lessen by several days the journey from Calcutta to Assam by water. I trust that when that Grand Trunk Canal is actually approved, the jurisdiction over it will be handed over ab initio to an Indian Waterways Trust with advisory commercial elements on it which shall control all the waterways of India, so that we shall be saved from that overlapping and that lack of continuity of administration which have been the curse of this question in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman would take up this matter, and devote time to it, and use that large imagination which he has already brought to such great use on this question, it would lead to vastly improved communications in India. To have the finest natural waterway system in the world, administered in the best possible manner, is a really practical thing. It is urgently required, and it would be for all time a great monument to the efficiency of his administration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is one particular thing which I hope the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Fisher) will bring to the notice of the Secretary of State for India. I wish.

  707
  particularly to associate myself with the remarks about Constantinople and our Moslem subjects which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton (Colonel Yate) dwelt on. We are the greatest Moslem power. The Moslem world has been disturbed by the fall of the Turkish Empire. They will not accept an Arab Khalifate. There is one independent Moslem power remaining, and that is Afghanistan. At present we are involved in an expedition on the border between India and Afghanistan. Of course, this has been forced upon us by dynastic changes in Afghanistan, and undoubtedly an attack has been made on the frontier. But I do hope there will not be any temptation to think that we must clear up Afghanistan by sending a large force there. We may be tempted by the fact that we have aircraft and tanks, and armoured cars to go into Afghanistan and conquer the province. If we do that I believe it will have a most disastrous effect on our whole Empire, and on India in particular. We must pursue a most moderate military policy there. The whole of the East is in a ferment, and if we embark on what may be a little war we may find ourselves embroiled in considerable trouble throughout the Moslem world.
  I should like to say a few words about the industrial conditions in India. I hope the legislation we will undertake will be in the direction of a minimum wage in India. We must, of course, make a small beginning. The industrial conditions which we have laid out in the Report referred to by an hon. Member this afternoon are so appalling that only drastic steps will be able to do anything. I will just refer to one or two figures. The miners in India at some mines work nine hours a day; at others twelve hours a day. The Factory Act permits a twelve-hours day in the mines. For this the average daily wage is 7½ annas, or 7½d. about on the present exchange. On the railways, of which 50 per cent. are State-owned, and the remainder State-controlled, the wages vary according to the grade of worker, but they range from 10 rupees a month (about 10s. 10d.) for service men, to 20 rupees a month for porters. These wages are appalling, and they exist after 150 years of British rule. I really think that Factory Acts and industrial legislation on the lines indicated are urgently required. They are necessary for the protection of our own working people. The world is
  708
  getting smaller, the means of communication are getting better, and the undercutting of our home market or of our China market by cheaply produced Indian goods is a real danger to the workpeople of this country. The fact has been dwelt on that the low wages paid are a great cause of industrial unrest. What better field is there for Bolshevism? No wonder the Russians attempted to send Bolshevik agents into India—I do not know whether they got there—people living in appalling conditions where they cannot even afford furniture for their houses, and simply scrape a living at the rate of a few pence a day. It is reported that the Labour legislation in Paris left out India at our request. I know that we cannot apply to India exactly the same Labour legislation as we have for the League of Nations, but, at any rate, we might make a start with certain reservations. India is part of the Empire and should have been brought into the Paris International Convention. I submit that it is necessary to take into consideration the facts I have mentioned in dealing with the position in India.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: i wish to join with those Members of the House who have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State on his speech this afternoon. It is perfectly clear that on the important topic for which he is responsible, namely, the maintenance of law and order in India, he is quite firm, while at the same time he realises with that policy you must have a wide, far-reaching policy of constitutional and political reforms in India. I am one of those who on this side of the House hope that the Montagu-Chelmsford Report scheme will become the law of this Parliament and India at the earliest possible moment. It would be improper for me to go too much into detail, as I am a member of Lord Crewe's Committee, but what I do wish to say in this connection is this: that I am sorry that the Secretary of State has decided to submit the Bill which he is to introduce in a fortnight's time to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I would far rather he would take it through this House first in the ordinary course of Parliamentary business than refer it to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think he is making a profound mistake, and that we should show that a Committee of this House is behind this reform, and not be mixed up with another House in this matter I would further say this in regard to the Select Committee: I think that is

  709
  an error, because it will take a great deal of time taking evidence. Practically all the evidence that can be taken in this country has been taken by the Committee of which I have been a member. We have explored the ground most thoroughly. There is no witness, Indian or Englishman, whether he be a member of the Council of India, or a past Secretary of State in this country has been taken by the Committee thoroughly in all aspects of the reform scheme which could be considered and advised upon by witnesses in England. It is a mere duplication of work already done to refer it to a Select Committee. I would urge at this eleventh hour that that decision should be reconsidered and that we go straight forward and get those proposals on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. I agree absoutely with the Minute of a late hon. Member of this House, who now holds the distinguished position of Governor of Bombay, in which he has signally distinguished himself. He is one of my oldest friends. Sir George Lloyd, to whom I refer, in the Minute he wrote in connection with the South-borough Report, said that it is better to pass an inverted scheme quickly and with good will than to leave any longer the doubts and delays which are growing up in regard to the passing of this scheme. I do think it is a matter of urgency that we should at the earliest possible moment get this instalment of reform on to the Statute Book. But I rise more particularly to touch upon one or two points in connection with this important Debate on the Indian Budget. This is probably the last time the House of Commons will discuss the affairs of India on a Motion of this kind. I am pleased to think that in the future we shall have more Indian Debates in this House because the salary of the Secretary of State will be on the Consolidated Fund and we can raise questions on it on more than one occasion. This is our only opportunity. I want hon. Members to realise that even if the reform scheme goes through and goes through rapidly, really the control and ultimate direction of policy in India remain with the Secretary of State, with the Minister who is responsible to this House. In addition to political reform, it is vital that any political reform shall be accompanied by two really big efforts in policy in India in the coming few years, namely, a real reform of the educational system of India and a real effort to de-
  710
  velop the revenue resources of India, and you can only develop the revenue resources by increasing the productive capacity. Education can play a largo part in that. An hon. Member who spoke for the first time in this House, and who has had unrivalled opportunities as a member of Sir Thomas Holland's most admirable Commission, has dealt with some of the industrial questions. The resources of India are only beginning to be developed. Hitherto, by a fiscal system imposed from this country, suited to us, but not suited to or welcomed by India, we have refrained, both in our fiscal system and in the prejudice on the part of the Government of India, from spending the revenues of India in the development of native industries and technical education. We have left untapped and undeveloped resources of India which ought to be developed at the earliest possible moment. The line of thought I am following is that when you are enfranchising 5,000,000 electors in India, when you are embarking on a big. scheme of political reform in India, you want to give them a lead. You want to say to the Assemblies in the provinces and to the increased Indian representation in the Legislative Assembly at Delhi, "You have a great opportunity now to develop the material and moral prosperity of your country," and you want to give them a lead, and the two leads you want are to increase the industrial output, the great wealth of India, by the introduction of better industrial methods and at the same time to see that the University education, which is a magnificent shop window dressing arrangement at present, is properly supported by adequate, secondary and elementary teaching of a far larger section of the Indian people.
  I want to refer particularly to the industrial question, and I would ask hon. Members not only to read the Report of Sir Thomas Holland's very important Committee on the resources of India and the enormous field there is for further development of Indian resources, but to read the finding of the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, to read some of the documents issued in connection with the War. In India one-sixth of the population of the globe lives. In India you have got coal, you have got iron, you have got vast lands, you have got water power, you have got a tropical sun, you have got all the assets, and yet when the Mesopotamia Expedition was starting rails had

  711
  to be sent from this country, boats had to be sent from Egypt, and although India was contributing it was only in the last years of the War that the Munitions Board in India was really putting forward even a part of the strength of India in the production of minerals and other products. We have heard this afternoon that £24,000,000 of this Budget is for railway expansion in India. Practically all the railway plant ought to be, and could be, produced in India itself. I am perfectly certain that there is a large amount of stores bought on Government account and on private account in different countries of the world, aye, and in this country, that can be produced, and ought to be produced, in India itself, and the sooner we go in for a policy of encouraging the production of everything that we can in India, the richer India will be and the more capable it will be of assimilating and turning to good use the political rights and the political opportunities given it under the Reform Bill, and the more we shall get a contented, prosperous, progressive India. It is in the interest of the Empire that that should be done, and, when anyone says to me, "We ought to keep India a market for British goods," I say that India is equally a part of His Majesty's Dominions as this country, and we ought not to keep back India in the interests of any part of the British Empire. We ought to encourage the wealth and prosperity equally of all parts of His Majesty's Dominions. We are an Imperial Parliament, and we must in this matter think Imperially. There should be no further opportunity of India saying, "England has selfishly imposed upon us a fiscal, commercial and industrial system in her own interests which is not to the interest of Indian development and Indian prosperity."
  One passing word on another subject. A good deal has been said this afternoon about Mahomedan unrest. There is a good deal of exaggeration in the statements made to-day about that. I am one of those who want to make a clear distinction between Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. Turkish administration of the Turkish vilayets of the Empire was pretty good. I agree with all those who say that they do not wish to see the Turkish population of Anatolia or of any part of Europe which has a Turkish population put under the control of any foreign Power, but I do
  712
  say that when history comes to be written impartially there is no greater record of crime, imbeciity and misgovernment than the Turkish Government of the non-Turkish provinces of the Ottoman Empire. When the Turks first came to Mesopotamia, in 1258, it was still what it had been since the days of Babylon, the granary of the world, the centre of civilisation, and the support of millions of people. And what did the Turks make of if! They made of it a wilderness and a desert. They destroyed the irrigation system of 100 generations, and they ruined the people and kept them down. They never learned their language, and they discouraged every form of Arab civilisation and culture, and they ruined the land of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and made it into a desert. Do not let us confound Islam with Turkey. Turkey and the Turkish people are only eight or nine millions out of Islam, which contains over 200 millions, and Turkey has not been in recent years a good friend to Islam. The very ground upon which the Shereff of Mecca, the descendant of the Prophet, raised his flag of revolt was that the Committee of Union and Progress had been sapping the very foundation of the Moslem religion. I say that if we are going to have peace in the Middle East it is not going to be secured in the long run by bolstering up the Turkish Dominion of subject peoples, but by giving a chance to Arab civilisation, which gave the Mahomedan religion to the world, and which gave of its best to the Islam world, its literature, science and art. Give them that chance again, for their civilisation, and their people, under a Moslem sovereign distinct from that of the Turkish conqueror who came from the plains of Northern Asia. I speak with feeling in this matter, having worked in connection with the Arab movement—a national movement if ever there was one. I do not want this House to be under the impression that there is not a vital distinction between the very right and proper sentiment of Turkey for the Turks. It is a just policy, just as Arabia for the Arabs is a just policy. It is quite right that we should have nothing to do with a question like the Caliphate. We should leave that for the Moslems themselves to settle. I do ask in the name of a people oppressed, and struggling to throw off the Turkish yoke

  713
  for the consideration of this House, and for the encouragement of the restoration of the Arab civilisation, the Arab autonomy, and the Arab freedom from the Turk, who has oppressed all subject peoples for over 400 years.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. PRATT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That it appears from the Revenue Accounts presented to Parliament that in 1917-18 the
  714
  Revenue of India amounted to £112,662,347; the expenditure charged to Revenue to £104,575,273, and the Capital Expenditure not charged to Revenue to £104,194,98."—[Mr. Montagu.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-minutes before Eleven o'clock

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS (EAST COAST RESORTS).
  PEACE CELEBRATIONS (EAST COAST RESORTS).
  TIMBER GROWING, GERMANY.
  TIMBER GROWING, GERMANY.
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
INCOME TAX.
  WAR LOAN.
  WAR LOAN.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (COLONIAL WINES)
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (COLONIAL WINES)
  SIR GEORGE GIBB.
  SIR GEORGE GIBB.
AWARDS TO INVENTORS.
  ROYAL COMMISSION (POWERS AND FUNCTIONS).
  ROYAL COMMISSION (POWERS AND FUNCTIONS).
  CROWN PROPERTY, GRETNA (RATES).
  CROWN PROPERTY, GRETNA (RATES).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  SPIRITS (PRICES).
  SPIRITS (PRICES).
  MARGARINE SUPPLIES.
  MARGARINE SUPPLIES.
HAWKER—GRIEVE ATLANTIC FLIGHT.
  GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
  GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
  IMPERIAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE.
  IMPERIAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE.
  JERRAM COMMITTEE (ARTIFICERS' PENSIONS).
  JERRAM COMMITTEE (ARTIFICERS' PENSIONS).
DEMOBILISATION.
  2ND CAVALRY DIVISION.
  2ND CAVALRY DIVISION.
  IRISH SOLDIERS.
  IRISH SOLDIERS.
  APPLICATIONS FOE RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOE RELEASE.
  TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
  TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS, COLCHESTER.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS, COLCHESTER.
  CHEMISTS.
  CHEMISTS.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE
  STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE
  CAVALRY MACHINE-GUN COMPANIES.
  CAVALRY MACHINE-GUN COMPANIES.
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE MEADS).
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE MEADS).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  ARMY HUTS, HIGH WYCOMBE.
  ARMY HUTS, HIGH WYCOMBE.
  60TH LABOUR COMPANY (BAND).
  60TH LABOUR COMPANY (BAND).
  DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE'S OWN (MARCH).
  DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE'S OWN (MARCH).
  DRAFTS FOR EGYPT.
  DRAFTS FOR EGYPT.
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  AGRICULTURAL WORK (WITHDRAWAL OF SOLDIERS).
  AGRICULTURAL WORK (WITHDRAWAL OF SOLDIERS).
  ARMY PAY OFFICES (STAFF).
  ARMY PAY OFFICES (STAFF).
  SOLDIERS' CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
  SOLDIERS' CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
  NORTH RUSSIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  NORTH RUSSIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  ARMY ORDNANCE STORES, STIRLING
  ARMY ORDNANCE STORES, STIRLING
  KHAKI MATERIAL (STOCKS).
  KHAKI MATERIAL (STOCKS).
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, EAST COAST.
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, EAST COAST.
  1914–15 STAR.
  1914–15 STAR.
  WAR DEPARTMENT CIVILIAN SUBORDINATES (PAY, ETC.).
  WAR DEPARTMENT CIVILIAN SUBORDINATES (PAY, ETC.).
  WAR TROPHIES.
  WAR TROPHIES.
  EGYPTIAN LABOUR CORPS.
  EGYPTIAN LABOUR CORPS.
REGULAR ARMY (PAY AND PENSIONS).
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
  OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
  GRATUITY BANK BOOK (DRIVER GREENFIELD).
  GRATUITY BANK BOOK (DRIVER GREENFIELD).
  CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
  CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
  WAR DECORATIONS (RIBBONS).
  WAR DECORATIONS (RIBBONS).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (EX-OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (EX-OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY.
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  EMERGENCY RATIONS.
  EMERGENCY RATIONS.
  FLYING BOATS (ORDERS).
  FLYING BOATS (ORDERS).
  DEMOBILISED FLIGHT CADETS (HONORARY COMMISSIONS).
  DEMOBILISED FLIGHT CADETS (HONORARY COMMISSIONS).
  TEACHING PROFESSION (UNSUITABLE ENTRANTS).
  TEACHING PROFESSION (UNSUITABLE ENTRANTS).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (STREET REFUGES)
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (STREET REFUGES)
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, TERRINGTON ST. CLEMENT.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, TERRINGTON ST. CLEMENT.
INDIA.
  MOHMAND FRONTIER OPERATIONS.
  MOHMAND FRONTIER OPERATIONS.
  RE-EMPLOYED OFFICERS (PAY).
  RE-EMPLOYED OFFICERS (PAY).
  KARACHI TROOP TRAIN INCIDENT.
  KARACHI TROOP TRAIN INCIDENT.
  MESOPOTAMIA (FUEL-WOOD).
  MESOPOTAMIA (FUEL-WOOD).
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
  POST OFFICE DRAUGHTSMEN.
  POST OFFICE DRAUGHTSMEN.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (MALE OPERATORS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (MALE OPERATORS).
  SCHOOL CARETAKERS, LANCASHIRE.
  SCHOOL CARETAKERS, LANCASHIRE.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (TICKET SYSTEM).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (TICKET SYSTEM).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, NEWHAVEN.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, NEWHAVEN.
  EMPLOYMENT COUNCILS (PUBLICITY).
  EMPLOYMENT COUNCILS (PUBLICITY).
  TRADE BOARDS, SCOTLAND.
  TRADE BOARDS, SCOTLAND.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ELECTORS' LISTS (PUBLICATION).
  ELECTORS' LISTS (PUBLICATION).
EGYPT.
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  COMMANDEERED SUPPLIES.
  COMMANDEERED SUPPLIES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH, OXFORD, BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, think that I ought to say a word of apology or explanation. I put several Amendments on the Paper for the Report stage the day before yesterday and did not
770
attend to justify them. The fact was that I was so unfortunate as to be taken in while I was engaged upon other business of your Lordships' House upstairs. I sent a message to the noble Viscount to tell him what had happened, and I trust that he did not suffer any inconvenience from my not being here. I feel confident that the House would never for a moment have thought that I could be guilty of any disrespect to your Lordships. One of the Amendments that I had put down and which occupied a great space upon the Order Paper was with respect to a proposed schedule to the Bill. I was very sorry to have lost the opportunity of trying to persuade the noble Viscount that it was better, in such a matter as that of Clause 4 of the Bill, to proceed by way of a schedule which could be discussed in the House, instead of leaving the matter to Orders in Council, as to which a great deal of objection is felt.
But I recognise, having read the debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, what a concession the noble Viscount, who is always conciliatory, made in the Bill; and although I am still of opinion that it would be better in such a case to proceed by schedule, recognising that fact I have not ventured to put down the Amendment again. Both the noble Viscount and the House, of course, had the advantage on that occasion of discussing the clause and of discussing what was to be done with the actual terms in their hands of what the Order in Council was proposed to be, so that some advantage was gained by the Amendment being put down on the Paper, even though I was not able to be here to try to persuade your Lordships to adopt my view in the matter.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I should like to say that, in common with all your Lordships, I regretted the absence of the noble and learned Lord the other day, and also the cause which rendered his absence imperative. I have no doubt that in the consideration of the various matters which arose we should have very greatly profited by his experience and advice. But as the noble Lord has said, the concession I was able to make in regard to the Orders in Council did somewhat change the aspect of the matter, and I am glad to feel that he is to that extent at any rate satisfied.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
General powers and duties of Minister in relation to health.
2. It shall be the duty of the Minister, in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to or conferred upon him by or in pursuance of this Act, to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the treatment and care of the blind, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, before the words "effective carrying out," to insert "preparation." The noble and learned Lord said: In pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships yesterday I have placed upon the Paper two Amendments, one dealing with the case of England, and the other a similar Amendment appropriate to the case of Ireland. These two Amendments, as your Lordships will see, are—Clause 2, page 1, line 14, before the words "effective carrying out" to insert "preparation"; and in line 17, after "diseases," to insert "the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor." I ought to make it plain that I am under no delusion that these Amendments will really satisfy those of your Lordships who were inclined to give support to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe when the matter was last under discussion.
The clause to which I make this addition is a clause which has undergone considerable criticism by your Lordships, to which I rather incline to think that your Lordships did not attach any very extreme importance. The clause was criticised as rather academic and as not a specially effective statement. of a general intention. The criticism was perhaps a little too severe, but—I desire to be quite plain—I do not claim to have attempted to do more, for reasons which I will presently indicate, than add the object which underlay the Amendment of my noble friend as one of the matters to be borne in mind and to be sought after by the new Minister, whoever he may prove to be.
But your Lordships are certainly entitled to an explanation from me as to the reasons which led me very definitely to the conclusion that the Amendment moved by my noble friend would not really have
772
been effective for the purpose for which it was designed, and that no useful consequences would have resulted from it. I took that view very clearly, as I think your Lordships would gather from what I said. Nothing but the circumstance that my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane, with his great experience, took another view, and that another view was also taken by one of your Lordships who had himself held the very responsible position of Public Prosecutor, prevented me from giving a more confident opinion to your Lordships. But I was very anxious to consider the matter deliberately and carefully, and I have certainly carried out the assurance which I gave that with every possible assistance the matter should be fully debated and considered. Long consultations took place yesterday both with the Director and the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions and with many other persons of great experience in such matters, and the meeting, which was protracted, reached unanimously the conclusion which I have ventured generally to indicate as my own, and which I will, if I am allowed, develop very briefly to-day.
The position on examination really proved to be this. It is no use recommending that a new Minister shall undertake the prosecution of certain offences unless those offences are clearly defined by law and can be made the subject of successful prosecution. When I went into the matter more fully yesterday certain indisputable facts emerged, and the chief of them were these—that the patent medicines fraud, in cases where frauds exist, can under our existing law only be attacked upon the charge that the defendant or the prisoner has attempted to obtain money by false pretences. Your Lordships will see that cases are readily conceivable which would justify proceedings of this kind, and in some cases those proceedings have been successfully taken. But they are very difficult prosecutions; they are not prosecutions which any trained criminal lawyer will very frequently recommend; and certainly it is no ex-aggeration to say that far more of these prosecutions fail than succeed. And I think the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, must be well aware that the real truth is that what is required is not an admonition, statutory or otherwise, to a Minister who is not specially charged with this duty of prosecution that he should prosecute in cases where it is extremely difficult to obtain a

773
conviction, and in which highly trained persons such as those in the Department of the Public Prosecutor very often do not recommend prosecutions because they are satisfied that convictions will not be. obtained—that is not the course which would meet the difficulties that undoubtedly require some treatment.
The course which ought to be adopted is undoubtedly that of strengthening our legislation. And when I went more fully into the history of the matter than was possible for me yesterday (I had not been aware that any advice was desired by your Lordships on this point), and when I read, as I have read in the interval, the Report of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines, which was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on August 4, 1914, I found this matter was very fully discussed by an extremely competent and experienced Committee. They examined the matter very carefully, and at the end of their Report they made certain recommendations. The recommendations are of the greatest possible importance, and if I may I will read paragraph 58 so that your Lordships may apprehend its general nature—
"Your Committee further recommend the following legislative enactments:—(1) That every medicated wine, and very proprietary remedy containing more alcohol than that required for pharmacological purposes, be required to state upon the abel the proportion of alcohol contained in it. (2) That the advertisement and sale (except the sale by a doctor's order) of medicines purporting the cure of the following diseases be prohibited:—

cancer

diabetes

locomotor ataxy

consumption

paralysis

Bright's disease

lupus

fits

rupture (without operation or appliance)

deafness

epilepsy

(3) That all advertisements of remedies for diseases arising from sexual intercourse or referring to sexual weakness be prohibited. (4) That all advertisements likely to suggest that a medicine is an abortifacient be prohibited."
I need not trouble your Lordships with them all, but there are seven or eight other specific recommendations.
Now, I shall be asked what argument I found upon this circumstance, although I anticipate that most of your Lordships have already drawn a conclusion. The Committee would not have recommended that these legislative changes should be made had the existing laws been adequate to deal with the cases dealt with in their recommendations. All those cases ought
774
to be dealt with; all those matters ought in a proper case to be made the subject of prosecution; and hardly any of them can be dealt with under the law as it now stands. These matters have been carefully discussed—though quite recently discussed—and I am authorised to say to your Lordships, and I do say, that the Government concurs in these recommendations. Your Lordships will not fail to notice the date of them—August 4, 1914; and that date no doubt will readily explain the reason why nothing has been done within the period that has intervened. Recognising, as the Government does recognise, first of all, that the existing law does not cover those cases; secondly, that those cases urgently require legislative treatment; and, thirdly, that the problem is an immediately pressing one, the Government authorise me to state, and I do state, that a very early attempt will be made to carry out in a separate Bill those specific recommendations of the Committee of which my noble friend was a member. I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships that this course will be far more likely to give effect to the wishes of this House than the acceptance of the Amendment which was under debate so short a time ago.
Your Lordships will recognise that I speak with considerable experience on this point—I was a Law Officer for four years, and I was primarily responsible for nearly every prosecution in this country for nearly three years—and I desire to protest against any change which would have the effect of decentralising responsibility for prosecutions. I also contemplate with great anxiety the creation of new Ministries with their own separate legal advisers. In some cases that has proved both inevitable and convenient, but every such proposal requires to be carefully considered upon its own merits. I have had great experiences in these cases. It only means this in practice, that where the matters are trivial the legal advisers of the individual Departments apprise those Departments and the matter is dealt with; but whenever the matter is grave it must, of course, come to the Law Officers of the Crown who are the necessary link between every Government Department, and on whose responsibility alone decisions in grave legal matters can be taken. I am confident that the mere provision of machinery of the kind contemplated by my noble friend would not

775
meet the case which met with so much sympathy amongst your Lordships. If these changes are made I have the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for saying that, if the legislation I have indicated becomes law, there will certainly be no remissness on their part to see that effect is given to your Lordships' strong desire—namely, that persons who pursue practices which under this legislation will become criminal shall be adequately dealt with.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after ("the") insert ("preparation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the statement made by the Lord Chancellor is very satisfactory from the point of view that the Bill is to be strengthened by words being inserted which will make it the duty of the new Minister to prepare and procure legislation. So far as that is concerned, and so far as what the noble and learned Lord said about the undertaking of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the committee which sat upon the subject of patent medicines is concerned, the situation will be better than it was before these words were put in.
But there is another difficulty of quite a different kind in the minds of many of us. In Scotland, for example, you have someone whose duty it is to take up a prosecution in a matter of this kind—the Lord Advocate—and he is charged with seeing that justice is enforced. Unfortunately that is not so in England, and I do not think it should be so generally, as the number of prosecutions would be so great as to be almost overwhelming. In England we have a Public Prosecutor, but he is a Public Prosecutor who picks and chooses at discretion. It is just this picking and choosing at discretion that we do not like with a Minister like the Minister of Public Health. By all means let private persons who have suffered wrongs prosecute for the punishment of criminal acts directed against them privately. But what we have been anxious about is that the sale of improper medicines is a thing no one could look after unless some public authority looks after it. I feel the difficulty, which the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, of creating a new Department for public prosecutions within the
776
walls of the Ministry of Health, but I should like something more specific with regard to this.
This is a matter which concerns the community, and the machinery of prosecution should be set in operation by those who represent the community—namely, the Public Prosecutor. If we had an undertaking from the noble and learned Lord and from the noble Viscount that the Minister of Health would recognise it as his duty to look out for such cases and bring them to the attention of the Public Prosecutor, and that the Public Prosecutor would then take them up, we should think ourselves in a better position; and it is on this ground that, while I am grateful for the words the noble and learned Lori on the Woolsack has introduced, I do not think they quite meet the anxiety which is felt.
LORD BLEDISLOE:My Lords, as I initiated this matter in your Lordships' House I should like to say that it is a source of very great satisfaction to me that the Government have expressed themselves willing specifically to include this range of subjects within the authorised sphere of their activities under this Bill. If I understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack aright, he promised that at the earliest possible moment the Government themselves would initiate legislation, and carry it through both Houses, dealing in a more general way with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I entirely agree with my noble friend that many of the more serious matters have yet to be dealt with, and to be dealt with by making them offences for the first time under British law. I think I am right in saying that there are certain cases, not so serious as those to which the Lord Chancellor has referred but of sufficient gravity, in respect of which there is a lacuna and offences of fraud go unpunished because it is not the business of any particular Minister to initiate prosecutions.
May I remind your Lordships that in addition to the recommendations which are specifically referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, there is one to the following effect—
"That the President of the Local Government Board (or Minister of Health) have power to institute the necessary proceedings to enforce compliance with the law—"

777
That presumably means the existing law—
"in connection with the sale and advertisement of any patent, secret, or proprietary remedy or appliance."
That is one of the recommendations, on the strength of which I put down my Amendment. May I also refer to a paragraph which contemplates this as the ultimate remedy?—
"Successful prosecutions for fraud in connection with the sale of secret remedies have been so few as to be negligible. In the first place, as we were informed by the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions, at present there is no person whose duty it is to say whether patent medicine manufacturers are making fraudulent claims."
They go on—
"We have privately brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions several cases obviously of the most, fraudulent or offensive description, and have requested him to prosecute. In each case, with every desire to do so, he has after careful consideration explained to us the legal grounds on which, in his opinion, it would be impossible to secure a verdict."
I do not want to labour the matter. I am obliged to the Government for including within the purposes for which the new Ministry is to be established prosecution for these very objectionable offences, and I rest satisfied with the promised Bill which I understand will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to deal with the subject in a more general way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to my noble friend Lord Haldane it is only necessary that I should point out that, although the Attorney-General may delegate various less important prosecutions, he is responsible for all prosecutions. So far as the Government are concerned, I have only to say that in their opinion it will be a very great advantage that the Minister who has a specialised Department should be able to call in the Attorney-General or the Public Prosecutor on the question of these frauds, the numbers of which will be very greatly increased by the legislation which is before us. I am authorised to state, and I do state on behalf of the Attorney-General, that my right hon. friend will take a. very serious view of his responsibility in this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after ("diseases") insert ("the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Staff and remuneration.
6.—(1) The Minister may appoint one parliamentary secretary and such secretaries, officer, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine, and in the making of such appointments shall give equal consideration to the suitability of persons of both sexes.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, it is now my duty to move that the words "one Parliamentary Secretary and" be omitted from subsection (1) of Clause 6. I referred the other day to this Amendment as one which I should submit to your Lordships' consideration, and I said then, and I repeat now, that I should not have done so had I not been in a position to give an undertaking, that in the first instance one of the Under-Secretaries should find a place in your Lordships' House. I further added that it was impossible to put such a statement in the Bill, because I understood—I think it is acknowledged—that no provision of that kind has found its way into an Act of Parliament.
I do not propose to keep your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, but, if you will allow roe, I am desirous once more to mate in perhaps more clear terms what the settling in of this new Ministry really means, and to point out how the volume of work goes on increasing as time and matters progress. Indeed, that work will roll up and increase like a snowball. I would remind your Lordships how very heavy that work must be in the initial stages and as it develops, and how much we are pressed not only to cope with this work but also, and at once, to add to it. Further, I should like to point out that, for effective issues, proper devolution must be necessary within the Office with sufficient and efficient supervision and direction. I wish also to call your attention to one point to which I do not think I referred on a former occasion. Your Lordships remember that the Insurance Commission has to be taken over by t he new Ministry, and, therefore, the Joint Committee will be merged in the new Ministry. Up to lately that Joint Committee has had its own Chairman, but that separate official will disappear. I admit this is not a financial saving on the vote, because the services of the Controller of His Majesty's Household were engaged for that purpose, but it adds by so much to the volume of

779
the work of the existing Under-Secretary who becomes Chairman in his place. I also ask your Lordships to remember that with the merging of the Insurance Commission in the new Health Ministry the three Commissioners will disappear from this capacity, and by this much the work of the present Under-Secretary is increased, if indeed it is not almost doubled.
Even now within the Local Government Board, with the urgency and importance and variety of problems which are arising and developing, it is necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary either to preside or to take part in inquiries into numerous subjects involving questions of policy. The Under-Secretary at the Local Government Board is already presiding over an inquiry as regards the spread of diseases resulting from the return of the Armies. He is in the same position with regard to the shortage of accommodation for people suffering from tubercle. He is also engaged in a series of conferences relating to the regularity in the supply of milk, and only to-day we observe that, recognising the feeling of your Lordships House, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has added another chapter to the already rather over-weighted book of the duties of that Office. Another thing should not be forgotten. There has been, I understand, a great development and advance in inquiry by Cabinet Committees when, not infrequently, an Under-Secretary is obliged to represent his Chief.
The last point to which I would wish to draw your Lordships' attention is this, that the new procedure arrangements in the House of Commons, under which Standing Committees sit from eleven o'clock till one o'clock and from four o'clock till six, has added enormously to the work of the Parliamentary officials of the Department, and no doubt to the work of other Departments when their Bills come up for consideration. Indeed I have found that is so. I have never been able to find the Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board, and I have really had to employ the greatest dexterity in order to catch the President of the Local Government Board in order to take his directions on the various Amendments which it has been my duty to propose or to consider when coming from other noble Lords.
I think it must be recognised that the position of the Under-Secretary of the
780
Local Government Board is very different indeed from what it was some years ago. I will give an example of how we are pressed to take up in regard to organisation and administration matters with which Parliament is concerned, and which, of course, will have to be advocated and defended by the representatives of the Office in Parliament. In addition to the break-up of the Poor Law, the Ministry has to set about the further stage, as it has been called, of the development of the Health organisation throughout country, and this Bill is really the foundation of that. The ramifications of health policy are almost limitless and octopus-like, and one cannot tell in what direction new ground may not have to be broken. It raises questions which cannot fail to interest Parliament, and, indeed, there is the clearest indication of a rapidly awakening interest in your Lordships' House in the discussions on this Bill. Then, again, there are the facilities for the treatment of various diseases, venereal disease and tubercular disease, which are notoriously inadequate. I do not allude in detail to the extensions in regard to the Board of Trade, Privy Council, and Pensions, but when we come to the further responsibilities and work which have to be absorbed by degrees, especially in regard to Clause 3, subsection (2), it really is quite impossible to estimate how great the work of the Department might be.
Therefore I ask your Lordships to give me back this Under-Secretary on the bona fide undertaking that one of the Under-Secretaries shall find a place in your Lordships' House. It will be noticed by your Lordships and by all observers that the development of government to-day tends to be in many new directions and channels which the public are demanding shall be taken up and administered by Government, and while I can assure noble Lords opposite who voted against us on a former occasion that I really am not behind them in my anxiety for economy and for not multiplying officials, I venture seriously to express the view that the withholding from the Office of this extra Under-Secretary will not be true economy of time or labour, but will put on the shoulders of the Minister and the Under-Secretary a burden which they will hardly be able to bear and also seriously impair the efficiency of the Office and expedition in dealing with matters which should be its first concern.

781
That is my case. I trust that in the conduct of the Bill your Lordships may not think that I have been unreasonable in endeavouring to meet the wishes of noble Lords in various parts of the House. I rather hope that I may have a ready assent to the proposition that we have not been unreasonable. I can assure noble Lords opposite that it has been one of the most ardent wishes of the President of the Local Government Board to see how far he could go in agreement in order to bring about the rapid passing of the Bill, in regard to the principle of which I think the feeling is practically unanimous. As I said on the last occasion, I know certainly of two Offices in which there are three officials, and if there is any case ever to be made out for a third official I submit there is a case to be made out for this third official. It is my genuine and earnest belief that he will tend to the efficiency and expedition with which the work would be done.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 4, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("one parliamentary secretary and").—Viscount Sandhurst.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Viscount has stated his case with his accustomed persuasiveness, and he has called to his aid all the arguments which legitimately could be used in support of his Amendment. But I do not feel certain that your Lordships will be entirely persuaded by what he has said. The noble Viscount himself recognises, I am sure, the strength of the feeling in this House against the multiplication of new officials and Ministers. Whether it is recognised as fully by those who are instructing him, I do not feel quite certain. I greatly doubt whether the objections which we feel so strongly to this multiplication of officials are entirely appreciated outside the walls of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount has said that there are already Departments which have three representatives, although. it is only fair to add that there are a great many more which have not, and he argued that the amount of work which would fall upon this new Department was such as to justify this addition of a third Under-Secretary there.
The new Ministry of Health is about to take over certain functions from other Departments—the Board of Education and the Privy Council—but the Local Government Board is about to shed a large
782
number of other functions concerned with local government, as we speak of it generally. I think your Lordships will tend to be afraid that when these duties are transferred to other Departments—all the business of Parliamentary registration, all the work other than health work connected with local government—there will be a strong claim advanced on the part of some other Department, whether it be the Home Office or whatever it may be, for the addition of a second Under-Secretary, in order to enable them to carry out the extra work which is going to be thrown upon them by the breaking up of the Local Government Board.
Where is all this going to end? I cannot feel that the health work as defined in the Bill which we have before us justifies the immediate creation of this new official. The noble Viscount has told us of the heavy work which falls both upon the President of the Local Government Board and upon his Under-Secretary in connection with the work outside Parliament. There are countless committees and meetings of all kinds which occupy the time of those two officials. I venture to think that far too much Government work is being done outside the walls of Parliament. I do not believe in this multiplication of outside committees, whose work is not watched and of which, although the result may be known, the processes by which those results are arrived at are not known. Therefore I cannot think that it is wise, by the creation of an extra official of this sort, to encourage the new lines of government which the noble Viscount has so fairly described but which some of us believe to be radically bad as compared with the old lines of Parliamentary management.
The noble Viscount told us that, as a consolation to your Lordships' House—admitting the point of complaint that the new Ministry would not be directly represented here, although of course in no way admitting the infinitely more important argument, as I think, against the creation of superfluous Ministers—that one of the Under-Secretaries would in the first instance have a seat in your Lordships' House. That is a handsome offer on the part of the Prime Minister, and of course we know it will be carried out. For how long, it would be impossible to say, and certainly we could not expect His Majesty's Government to pledge themselves on the retention of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary here. The

783
time might come, among the many reconstructions and re-shufflings which take place in the ranks of His Majesty's Government, when it might be found necessary or desirable for some reason to transfer a third Minister to another place, and to entrust the duties of the Health Department to the most willing and competent hands of some member of His Majesty's Household.
I confess that I personally cannot pretend to be altogether convinced by what the noble Viscount has said. He claimed with absolute justice, as was entirely realised by the House, that he had been most desirous all through the conduct of the Bill to meet the wishes of your Lordships' house. I have never seen a Bill conducted through this House in a more conciliatory spirit than this has been by the noble Viscount, but. I feel that this is a matter involving an important principle, and I confess that I should be very slow to ask those of your Lordships who might be disposed to take my advice to agree with the proposition of the noble Viscount.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, having moved the Amendment to limit the Government to the appointment of only one Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to say a few words in reply to the argument of the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill. The case was well argued in Committee, both for and against, and by an overwhelming majority your Lordships came to the conclusion that it was time we struck some blow—I think this is how it was put by the noble Marquess who has just spoken—at the disease on the part of the Government for constantly creating new Ministries. I pointed out on that occasion that the late Government—and this Government is, after all, almost the same—had created no fewer than five important Ministers and nine Parliamentary Secretaries. This Government now proposes to create no fewer than five Ministers for Health. They propose to turn the President of the Local Government Board into a Minister for Health and give him two Parliamentary Secretaries for England and Wales; and in another Bill—the Scottish Bill—to give an extra Parliamentary Secretary for looking after the health of Scotland; and as I understand—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—in another Bill to give another Under-Secretary to look after the health of Ireland. That is five Ministers for Health.
784
I cannot help thinking that, although health is one of the most important matters to which we can pay attention, five Ministers are hardly wanted to take through Parliament the various Bills connected with health, and to preside over the various committees charged with functions appertaining to health. I know perfectly well that the Local Government Board was at one time hard worked; but, after all, the Local Government Board is now going to be free from all those numerous duties which it undertook in connection with the war. It had to supervise all the 1,800 military tribunals. It was charged, in connection with the Home Office, with conducting through that. enormous Bill in connection with the Representation of the People, and, after the passage of that Bill, with conducting all the procedure under it. It will I no longer, I understand, be connected with the Poor Law; and the noble Lord, in answer to a question by myself, informed your Lordships that very soon all these great functions of the Local Government Board would cease to be discharged by the Minister for Health.
During the last few years, having been either Parliamentary Secretary or President of the Local Government Board, I can assure your Lordships that that Department has conducted more Bills, and more large Bills, through Parliament than any other Department; yet it was not thought necessary to have more than one Parliamentary Secretary. It had to preside over many committees both inside and outside the House of Commons, and a full share of Government work fell to the Local Government Board; yet it was never thought necessary to ask for another Parliamentary Secretary. If your Lordships adhere to your Amendment and limit the Minister of Health to one Parliamentary Secretary for England and Wales, you do not by that process prevent the Minister for Health from having as many secretaries as he chooses to have in the office. After all, what is the Parliamentary Secretary for? A Parliamentary Secretary is for the sole purpose, almost, of assisting the Minister to do Parliamentary business, to answer questions, to conduct Bills through committees and through the House; yet during all those years when I was associated with my right hon. friend who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty we never found any difficulty in arranging that one or other of us should be able to

785
attend the House of Commons, answer questions, attend the various Committees, take through that enormous volume of legislation which we conducted through the House of Commons, and assist in all the ordinary work of the Government. I am quite sure that although there will be an added amount of work connected with health there will not be more work in that Department than can be efficiently done by one Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary.
I think it is high time that the Government set some example in the way of economy, and when my noble friend in charge of the Bill says that he himself is as much opposed as any of us to this increase in officialdom, I cannot say that he and those who are acting with him are setting a very good example in asking that two Parliamentary Secretaries should be added to this Department, and that we should set up an unlimited number—four at least—of Consultative Committees, all of which will require to have their separate staff of officials, and all of whom will have to be housed. I am confident that if these Consultative Committees are set up there must be an enormous increase to the number of officials engaged in the Department. We are drifting in these ways to a great increase in the official life of this country, an increase which is not justified in any way or under any case which the noble Viscount has made out, and I hope that we shall adhere to our Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not desire to add more than one or two words to the two speeches to which we have had the pleasure of listening. My noble friend who has just sat down speaks from a position of very great authority. He knows the Local Government Board inside and out, and has had a very great and recent experience of its work, and he seems to me to have pointed out with absolutely crushing force that a large part of the work of the Local Government Board is under this very Bill intended to be dispensed with. Therefore the additional work which the Health Minister will have will not be more than can be efficiently transacted by the present staff, or a staff corresponding to it. This increase of Ministers is a great evil. The Treasury bench in the House of Commons—I was going to say is double as long as it used to he, but that unfortunately is not the case; but the gentlemen who have a
786
right to occupy it are double the number who used to have a right to sit upon it. That shows the enormous increase in Parliamentary officials which has taken place under recent arrangements.
I will only ask leave to make one further observation. The subsequent consequential Amendment which the noble Viscount is going to move affects Section 12 of the New Ministries Act of 1916. That Act established a certain number of new Ministries, and the question of Under-Secretaries was then formally considered and decided by Parliament. It is not a matter which has not been before your Lordships and the other House of Parliament. It has been very much before us, and has been decided. Section 12 of that Act prescribed that there should not be more than one Under-Secretary sitting in the House of Commons. That was the settled policy of Parliament. Why should it be reversed? That was the arrangement which was good enough for the Labour Minister, and why should it not be good enough for the Health Minister? Am I to be told that the Labour Minister, has a light office? I would reply that it involves all the most important considerations of policy which are likely to confront us in the near future. What is good enough for the Labour Minister is, of course, good enough for the Health Minister, and just as Section 12 of the Act of 1916 prescribes that there should be only one Under-Secretary in his case, so we ought to adhere to that Act and see that only one Under-Secretary is prescribed in the present case. To ask your Lordships to alter on Third Reading the decision at which you had arrived in Committee is a very unusual proceeding, and it would want a very strong case in order to support it. I submit that the noble Viscount, with all his courtesy and consideration, has not been able to advance that strong case, and we ask your Lordships to adhere to your decision.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON):
My Lords, before the House proceeds to divide, if it must do so, may I say a word upon one point, and one point only? Since I have had the honour of representing the Government on this Bench one of the most frequent complaints which I have had to meet from noble Lords opposite—and I have understood its force—has been that important Departments of Government, instead of having a regular official

787
representative in this House, have had to depend for their representation here upon members, however hard working and however competent, of His Majesty's Household. That is a complaint frequently addressed to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and that in many cases it is a complaint which has no substantial justification is shown by the great ability with which my noble friend Lord Sandhurst has conducted this measure. Still, over and over again we have been told that the absence of direct Ministerial representation does not pay an adequate compliment to this House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not think that I have made that complaint.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Of course, I accept the denial of the noble Marquess if I have unintentionally misrepresented him, but I thought there had been complaints from him, and certainly there have been from many others. Over and over again I have heard the complaint that important Departments of Government ought to be represented here by a Minister. Very well, here is a case in which an attempt is being made by the Government to satisfy that claim. I am not able, of course, to speak with the knowledge possessed by my noble friend Lord Downham about the work of the new Ministry. I should have thought that it would have been very heavy indeed. I should have thought that it would be incomparably greater than the work of the Ministry of Labour, to which my noble friend Lord Salisbury referred. I should have been prepared myself to take the opinion of the Government and the Minister responsible for this new Department as to whether he could not properly discharge his duties unless he had two
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I should be prepared to take that view now.
The line that I should have taken, and that I am still prepared to take, is to press most strongly that the second of these Parliamentary Under-Secretaries should sit in your Lordships' House. I admit that this is not a stipulation that you can put into a Bill. No Government can allow it to be put into a Bill. But I should have thought that it would have been the line your Lordships' House might have taken. I should have thought that you would have pressed the Leader of the House for the time being, who represents the Government in this House, to see that adequate consideration is given to your Lordships, and that if the two Ministers are created one of them shall sit on these benches. My noble friend did give something in the nature of a pledge to that effect. Of course, it was a limited pledge. Nobody speaking for any one Government can lay down the law, or give a promise, that in perpetuity one of two Under-Secretaries shall sit in this House, but I think, my Lords, that you might be satisfied with the pledge that my noble friend gave that if two Under-Secretaries are created one of them shall sit here. Speaking for myself I should be most reluctant, if that were conceded, to acquiesce in. any situation in which the privilege thus given to your Lordships' House were withdrawn. I hope therefore, that your Lordships will not too hastily adhere to the attitude you took up the other day, or reject the advice given to you by the noble Viscount.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Haldane, V.

Gainford, L.

Bristol, M.

Harcourt, V.

Granard, L.(B. Granard.)

Crewe, M.

Hood, V.

Harris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Islington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Joicey, L.

Coventry, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Harewood, E.

Askwith, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Mayo, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Rotherham, L.

Northbrook, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Roundway, L.

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L.

Sanderson, L.

Selborne, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sandys, L.

Strafford, E.

Downham, L. [Teller.]

Southwark, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Emmott, L.

Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Terrington, L.

Esher, V.

Forteviot, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Inverforth, L.

Knutsford, V.

Newton, L.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Rathcreedan, L.

Annesley, L.

Rothschild, L.

Bradford, E.

Blythswood, L.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elphinstone L.

Sudeley, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My next Amendment in Clause 7 naturally falls out. Then I have another Amendment, which is panic drafting, in Clause 8.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 6, lines 31–32, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("thereof").—Viscount Sandhurst.
Clause 10:
Application to Ireland.
10.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act, the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the treatment and care of the blind, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments that I now have to move are in Clause 10, and are consequential on those already accepted by your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 7, line 41, after ("the") insert ("preparation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 8, line 2, after ("diseases") insert "the avoidance of. fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

OFFICIAL SOLICITOR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I ought, I think, briefly to inform your Lordships of its object. It is to devise a remedy for the state of things which will arise when the Official Solicitor retires, which he intends to do. The practice has grown up in the last few years of making the Official Solicitor by virtue of his office Receiver in Lunacy, guardian ad litem, or next friend, to take proceedings on behalf of a litigant, and I suppose his commitments in these various capacities amount to a good deal. If the Official Solicitor retires without statutory provision being made for the cases that will arise it will be necessary in many instances for fresh appointments to be made, resulting in heavy charges on very small estates. The convenient course is taken by this Bill of enabling his successor to carry out these various commitments.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed of the Whole House.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT rose to ask His Majesty's Government on what date the Ministry of Pensions will vacate the premises at Millbank belonging to the Registry of Friendly Societies in order that the latter may return to their own premises, and so release the accommodation at present occupied by them in the British Museum, which includes the Print Exhibition Room, the Print Students Room, and half of the Egyptian and Assyrian Galleries, including the Mummy Room, all of which are much required for public exhibition.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is not necessary, I think, for me to make any statement on the matter in putting this Question, except to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that unless and until the Ministry of Pensions can be consolidated, if possible reduced, and certainly removed from the premises at Millbank, there is no hope of the Registry of Friendly Societies being removed from the British Museum. You Lordships have seen from time to time, during the six months which have elapsed since the Armistice, announcements in the newspapers that the various galleries of the British Museum have been re-opened to the public. That has been due to the activity of the staff of the Museum in unpacking the treasures which had been stored for safety against air raids in the Tubes. It is not due in any case to the removal from the Museum galleries of any of the officials placed there during the war by the Government; none have been removed except from a small room in a sub-basement which is never seen by the public, the effect of which has been to afford some slight gain in storage room to the Museum. To-day the galleries occupied by clerks are as numerous as they were at any time during the war, and until the Registry of Friendly Societies can be restored to its own premises there is no hope of access to the Print Exhibition Room, to the Print Students Rooms, and to most of the Egyptian and Assyrian Galleries, being restored to the public. I trust that at last we have reached the point and the time at which some satisfactory and real assurance of immediate evacuation can be given on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the premises of the Registry of Friendly Societies at Milbank, and a considerable amount of other accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood, are occupied by the head-quarters staff of the Ministry of Pensions. Some of the buildings occupied will have to be given up at an early date, in particular the premises of the American Tobacco Company, an important industrial concern, which were generously lent to the Government free of rent. The approaching surrender of these buildings has necessarily brought under consideration the question of re-housing the staff as a whole, and until some satisfactory solution of this question can be found it is impossible to state at
792
what date the Registry of Friendly Societies can be reinstated at Millbank. The War Cabinet are now considering schemes for removing large numbers of Government staffs at present in Westminster to other districts where there is less congestion. If those schemes can be carried out it should be possible to move the Registry of Friendly Societies out of the Museum buildings at an early date.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I will only observe, in relation to the answer we have just had, that it is a new form of preference that the early evacuation of the premises of an American tobacco company should impede the enjoyment of our Museums by our own public.

HERTFORD HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I beg to put the second Question standing in my name—viz.: To ask His Majesty's Government what is the estimated number of months or years required for the Munitions Ministry Account Department to complete their work; whether during the whole of that time Hertford House will be occupied by that Department and closed to the public; and whether for the same period it is proposed to allow the Wallace Collection to remain in the Tube where it is now stored.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend should have asked this Question, as it gives me the opportunity of showing what strenuous steps the Ministry of Munitions has taken in vacating all possible premises within the area of the county of London. The staff accommodated in Hertford House is engaged upon a systematic investigation of accounts for munitions supplies. The work is being carried on as a result of a pledge given some time ago in another place, and very considerable savings to the Exchequer will undoubtedly result from these inquiries. It is anticipated that the investigation will be completed about the middle of 1920. My noble friend Lord Inverforth has, however, made proposals to the First Commissioner of Works which, if given effect to, will release the Hertford House premises in a few weeks so far as the staff of the Ministry of Munitions is concerned.

793
As at present advised it would appear possible, by a more economical distribution of the staffs in certain of the existing Government Offices, to re-house the staffs now occupying Hertford House and also possibly the National Gallery. The whole question of accommodation in the Ministry of Munitions continues to receive the personal attention of my noble friend, who soon after he took office appointed a strong Committee of business men for the express purpose of continually investigating the question of the occupation of the premises of hotels and public institutions, as well as the reduction of staff.
I would like to call attention to the fact that the headquarters staff of the Ministry of Munitions was at the date of the Armistice 22,620, whereas on the 12th May it stood at 14,998—a reduction of 7,622. Of the present staff, 1,674 have recently been transferred from the War Office on the allocation to the Ministry of Munitions of the functions of the Surveyor-General of Supply, and on the other hand the Ministry has transferred 2,510 to the Ministry of Labour. The net diminution, therefore, is 6,756. Let me further add that a little time ago my noble friend gave instructions for the release of some thousands of the staff within the next few months—a certain number at the end of the current month, and certain numbers, in thousands, at the end of the following month.
It should be realised that whilst the Ministry's duty of supplying the troops with munitions ended with the conclusion of the Armistice, new and heavy tasks immediately devolved upon it, including the liquidation of the Ministry's contracts and the disposal of surplus Government property involving enormous sums of public money. Unless this work is carried out with efficiency and despatch, the work of assisting firms to turn over from war industries to peace industries and the revival of business will be greatly hampered. I am convinced that the whole question of accommodation and that of the necessity of the staffs employed continue to receive the fullest attention of my noble friend. Although it will be seen that the work of the Ministry still continues on a considerable scale a very appreciable reduction of staff has been effected, and concurrently the possession of a number of buildings by the Ministry of Munitions has been relinquished.
794
I will not weary your Lordships by giving the list of all these various buildings, but I would point out that amongst them are St. Ermin's Hotel, the Hotel Victoria, and, as I stated, twenty other less important buildings have been vacated since November 11, representing in all accommodation for 6,280. Arrangements are now in hand which will have the effect of releasing the Grand Hotel premises so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned in the course of a few weeks. I will even go so far as to state that my noble friend has already given an assurance to the First Commissioner of Works that; provided suitable alternative accommodation is put at his disposal, he will vacate without delay all the premises which it is understood that the public and business community are urgently awaiting.
As regards the last part of the Question, I have been asked by my right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works to state that the Wallace Collection will be restored to Hertford House immediately those premises are again available. I hope my noble friend will agree with me that, so far as the Ministry of Munitions are concerned, they have done everything in their power to meet his wishes.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords. I am sure your Lordships are duly grateful to my noble friend for the very interesting statement he has made of the activities of the Munitions Department; but only a very small part of it has any bearing on the Question which I have put relating only to the Wallace Collection at Hertford House. I understand that some proposal has been put forward by Lord Inverforth to the First Commissioner of Works, which will probably make it necessary for me to ask on an early day whether the First Commissioner of Works is going to do anything on the proposal which has been made to him. The noble Lord has informed us that several hotels and twenty other buildings have been vacated by the Munitions Department since the Armistice. I can only then express my deep regret that Hertford House and the Wallace Collection should not have been included very high up in the list of the twenty other buildings which have been vacated. The noble Lord made a curious offer on behalf of the First Commissioner of Works to the effect that, as soon as Hertford House could be vacated by the Ministry, the Wallace Collection would be reinstated in the

795
building. That has nothing whatever to do with the First Commissioner of Works. The Trustees will see to that. They have charge of the Collection and will reinstate it as soon as their building is vacated. I must warn your Lordships that now for six months since the Armistice the very delicate and very valuable furniture of the Wallace Collection and invaluable armour—neither of them subjects for storage in a tube 60 feet under ground—have been left there at the mercy of atmospheric conditions which cannot be perfect in these circumstances. I am bound to say that the Office of Works has done everything in its power to render the danger as little as possible to a Collection which could never be replaced.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I may say that Lord Inverforth is quite willing to vacate Hertford House at once if he can be provided with sufficient accommodation for the special staff to which I alluded, and he does not even ask that that staff should be located within the area of the County of London. He is prepared to accept accommodation in a place within a reasonable distance of the metropolis.

IRELAND.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Notice on the Paper
To call attention to the recent tour of Irish-American delegates to Ireland and the necessity of an early statement by His Majesty's Government in reference to their Irish policy.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the subject-matter of the Notice which I have placed on the Paper is so recently in the recollection of most members of this House that I need hardly trouble your Lordships at any length with regard to the circumstances with which the Question deals. But I think the explanations which have been given up to this moment have been neither adequate nor satisfying. A time when activities in the matter of speaking in Ireland have to be restricted, when very serious disturbances have either occurred or been prevented with some difficulty, and when very serious crime (as the Chief Secretary pointed out the other day) has been continually occurring despite all the vigilance of the authorities, is not a time, I think we must all admit, which any of us
796
would have chosen, or the Government would have chosen, for launching a very dangerous expedition in Ireland to preach doctrines which are repulsive to all those who are loyal to the Constitution of these Realms.
We should all, I think, wish to accept the explanation given on behalf of the Prime Minister—namely, that these delegates went there with his permission and good will; but they went there with the Government under an entirely false apprehension of their intentions. In other words, they were permitted to go there, or were given passports, as the Prime Minister felt, merely to inform themselves of the condition of Ireland by a personal visit, and not in any sense as men who were to conduct a political agitation. I quite accept that statement, but I am afraid I must suggest that the permission was very unwisely given without further knowledge of the intentions of the delegates, and that the passports, if passports had to be issued for so special an occasion, were issued without sufficient knowledge and without sufficient investigation of the antecedents of those on whose behalf they were given.
What I really want to ask the Government to explain to-day is this. Either these men went there as private individuals or they went there under some special dispensation of the Government. If they went there as private individuals, we have a right to know why facilities were extended to them and permission was given to them while they were in Ireland to do things which would not be allowed in the case of any other private individuals. If, on the other hand, they went to Ireland under some special dispensation of the Government, I want to know whether they went there with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. I apprehend this, that when Lord French undertook the position of Lord Lieutenant he was invested with powers which have never before been invested in any one unless he was a member of the Cabinet, and a member of the Cabinet has a right to be consulted on the business of his own Department before any action is taken by any one.
I do not wish to attach undue importance to what took place, but I should like to investigate how far the action of the delegates can be considered in any way consistent with their position as private individuals. If they went as private individuals, let me ask why were they

797
accorded privileges—going into districts where meetings would not have been permitted—which were not accorded to other individuals. When they arrived at Westport, a very disturbed district in which a large military force has had to be used, they were denied the right of going within the district by the military authority—I think quite rightly. But why were they allowed to go to Limerick, which had been the scene of great disturbances only a few days before? If they went as private individuals, why were they allowed to go to Mountjoy prison? I do not think any of the London papers have published the fact that they were allowed to make an inspection of the Mountjoy prison, but I take it from one of the Irish papers that on May 11, I believe, the members of the Irish-American Mission visited Mountjoy prison and were received by Sir John Irwin and other members of the Visiting Committee. On what grounds were these three gentlemen allowed to visit Mountjoy prison? If any three members of your Lordships' House, however distinguished, were to go to Mountjoy prison and insist on being shown over the prison they would not be permitted to do so by the members of the Visiting Committee. Unless some special arrangements had been made that they were to be treated as delegates, on what grounds were they admitted to so very special a privilege as that of making an official inspection of the leading prison in Dublin? Needless to say, a boast was made of it by Mr. Ryan the next day. He said—
"The delegates visited Mountjoy prison, the Sinn Fein prisoners circling around them in a ring and crying out 'Long live the Republic.'"
That is a point on which I really must ask for guidance from the Government.
Then there is a second point. The Prime Minister made a statement as to his intention in allowing these men to go to Dublin. When it was made clear their intentions were quite different from those which he conceived them to be, no correction was made in the Press of the statement they made with regard to the Prime Minister. On May 4 Mr. Walsh, in a statement made in Ireland, said—
"Their mandate was to ask President Wilson to see that Messrs. de Valera, Plunkett, and Griffith, were allowed to attend the Peace Conference; and, failing this, the American delegates should be permitted. When this request was made Mr. Lloyd George expressed a desire to meet them—the delegates."
That is a distinct statement of fact—that
798
Mr. Lloyd George, on hearing that these American delegates came with a mandate to ask President Wilson to see that Messrs. de Valera, Plunkett, and Griffiths should attend the Peace Conference, expressed a wish to meet them.
We now know that Mr. Lloyd George's intentions were wholly different. But surely I am entitled to ask, Was it wise to allow ten or fourteen days of this misconception to continue without any correction from Paris of facts which were so obviously open to contradiction? I do not suggest for a moment that any one of the British Ministers now in Paris could be expected to give his time to reading the papers for anything that was going on in Ireland. That is too much to ask. But no one has ever had such a large band of private secretaries as the present Prime Minister. The whole of the gardens at the back of No. 10, Downing-street have been roofed in for their accommodation. In that respect the Prime Minister, as compared with any previous Prime Minister, is almost on a par with the expenditure of this Ministry as compared with the expenditure of any previous Ministry. What were all these men doing that they did not think it sufficiently important to correct an impression which in Ireland has undoubtedly done grievous and abiding harm?
I say this because I wish the Government well in every respect in dealing with Ireland, believing it is of national importance that no further mistakes should be made. There is no man in this house, sitting on this side or on that, who is not aware that misfortune has dogged the footsteps of the Government every time they have interfered from London with the conduct of affairs in Ireland. Now that that interference is carried on from Paris over the telephone, and often without advising their colleagues, I think the time has come when we should protest and ask for a pledge that the policy should be abandoned.
Let me, in a few sentences, ask you to remember how this interference has been going on since the Rebellion in 1916. In May, 1916, you had the visit of the late Prime Minister to Ireland, and his, I think, extremely unwise attitude to the Sinn Fein prisoners. The deduction drawn from it was that their action had not been to the British Government what it had been supposed to be up to the moment of his I visit. Six months later from London, not

799
by any wish expressed in Ireland, came the removal of General Maxwell in circumstances which created the belief in the minds of all Irishmen that the Government had determined to reverse the policy by which they had suppressed the Rebellion. In the following June, against everybody's protests, they released the Sinn Fein prisoners in order to secure for the Convention what they believed would be an atmosphere of success, but which proved to be the absolute and certain forerunner of failure. In the winter of 1917 the Sinn Fein prisoners were allowed without interference to create anarchy in Clare and the West of Ireland, and to the number of 200 were released as hunger-strikers, at a time when the least firmness would have shown that no hunger-striker meant to go to the extreme limit. As soon as the Government put their foot down this travesty of justice was at once brought to an end.
Four months later the Government again changed their mind, and proposed to carry out Conscription (to which three Provinces of Ireland were unalterably opposed) simultaneously with Home Rule, which was objected to by the remaining Province, on which they could have depended for assistance in their first policy of Conscription. That policy, which they were warned by every man they consulted in Ireland must be a failure, is to-day a dead letter—neither one nor the other is carried out. There followed the arrest of all those persons who were implicated in a German plot, but as they were never brought to trial the effect upon Ireland, which would have been great, of their being exposed and all these machinations being summarily brought to an end was unfortunately lost. And now we have this last escapade on the part of these delegates.
My Lords, I think that living over here as we do, with far more important questions affecting the whole future of this country, of Europe, and of the world before us, we do not realise what I am sure every member of this House connected with Ireland could tell your Lordships—what an immense effect these successive marches and counter-marches and changes have had upon the people of Ireland. I see Lord Decies, who has acted as Press Censor in Ireland during the whole of this period, in his place. I do not know whether he intends to address the House to-night; but without any consultation with him I will go bail that he will tell your Lordships, as I do, that every
800
change and every one of the episodes to which I have alluded has meant a step forward for Sinn Fein. That which was regarded as a dream a few months ago has almost become to a number of people there practical polities. While it has meant to those who are disaffected a great advance, it has meant grave discouragement to all the officials, and it has raised doubts in the minds of the officials and of the police as to whether the Government are really serious in the action which they call upon the officials and police to take.
That is a grave statement, but I make it not without authority; and before I sit down I would like to say one word with regard to the effect of this matter from the point of view of the American Government. Nobody has yet challenged, but I am quite sure that any responsible American Minister who had to deal with the matter would challenge, the constant and repeated claim of these delegates that they had the American nation, or, as they occasionally express it, twenty millions of people—meaning, I suppose, all those of Irish birth or parentage in America—at their back. It would be quite inconceivable that a nation like the American nation, which has fought the greatest civil war known in all time in order to secure its own country against disruption, would at this moment be advocating a policy in Ireland which, whether you call it self-determination or by any other name, means civil war and separation. And these delegates particularly emphasised it by driving throughout the country with the Sinn Fein flag and the Stars and Stripes intertwined on their motor car—separation not in the relation which each American State is in towards Washington, but separation such as the Southern States undertook to take up, and the Northern States by coercion undertook to prevent. I do not believe these professions have any foundation in fact, but I think we ought to be in a position to explain to the American Government that whatever laws are laid down for British subjects or foreigners in Ireland will have to be observed by American subjects as much as by anybody else. I cannot doubt that these particular episodes cause just as much pain to the American authorities as to His Majesty's Government.
What I ask of the Government relates to two points. I do not know whether any Minister is ready to reply to these questions. I ask, in the first place, that

801
the interference from Paris or from London with the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary shall cease. So long as there is a Cabinet, and members of the Cabinet can be heard there, the decision of the Government has to be observed by every member of the Cabinet, whether in his own Department or not, and I protest that in One case after another orders have been sent from London or Paris without consultation with the Cabinet. My point is that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary have a responsibility, especially in these days, which must be observed, and I ask that the Government will not take further action in regard to Ireland without proper Cabinet consultation.
Secondly—and I beg the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to this—we hope that within a few weeks ratifications of peace may be exchanged. Lawyers inform us that the Act of 1914 will actually come into effect on the ratification of peace. I do not believe that there are half a dozen men in Ireland who desire to see that Act put in force in its present form. Successive Governments have pledged themselves to alter that Act. I do not ask for anything so unreasonable as a statement of policy from the noble and learned Lord at this moment, but I do ask that as soon as Ministers are released from Paris they will put down first on their agenda for Cabinet discussion the question of what they propose to do with regard to Ireland and with regard to the Act of 1914, and that they will make to Parliament as early as they can—without asking them to press forward with undue haste but at all events without putting the question aside—a statement as to the considered judgment of the Cabinet on this subject.
I do not know whether it is worth asking, because I know how difficult Parliamentary circumstances are, but I would urge the Government, if they desire to restore the confidence of any party in Ireland, to adhere to their decision when the time comes. For the last two years more than at any time in the chequered history of Ireland that country has suffered because many decisions have been taken but nothing has been adhered to, and no settlement is possible on the vexed question. Under these conditions I hope, my Lords, that I have not unduly trespassed, and I ask
802
that we should have an assurance these two points.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack answers the questions, I should like to say one or two things which I think will throw a certain amount of light on this matter. I have been in Ireland in close touch with the popular movement since before the birth of Sinn Fein. I remember the time when it was born, and what curious oddities we looked on the Sinn Feiners as being. I have seen them gradually working their way up until, through circumstances, they have come to the position they hold to-day,
It seems to me, my Lords; that in trying to answer this kind of question we are liable to mistake the surface appearance for the substantial movement which is going on in the Irish nation. The average observer—and by the average observer I here mean chiefly the Parliamentary politician—sees in the whole Irish situation just a few elements. He sees the Home Rule agitation. He sees that agitation come to success. He sees the opposition of North-east Ulster, and the statement that "We won't have it." He sees the various forces that we read about in the newspapers. He sees land movements; he sees crimes; he sees all kinds of things; but he does not see what is going on underneath. It seems to me that there is a certain danger that we may be led here to suppose that the Irish question can be treated simply in the way that you treat the ordinary political question. For instance, there are many who will hold that because the Constitutional Parliamentary Party has apparently been smashed there is an end of that, and those who come to that conclusion will see in the Ireland of the present day simply a whole country looking upon itself as having established a Republic. If you go to Ireland new you will be told by nine Sinn Feiners out of ten that. Ireland is living under a Republic, but that it is unfortunately occupied by a foreign Army. But those things are only on the surface.
I can imagine the embarrassment of the Government when asked suddenly. "What are you going to do?" The answer to that question, admit, is not so easy, and I will listen with great interest to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and he will have all my sympathy while I listen to him. But, my

803
Lords, getting nearer to the essentials of things, what has happened is this. The Sinn Feiners have never been a large body of men. The Sinn Fein theory is a very subtle and complicated one. The words "Sinn Fein" mean simply "Ourselves," and practically the Sinn Fein movement has always meant the self-reliance movement. It means that "we have to rely upon ourselves." In its original form it means this, "We have to abstain from using things which put money into the Treasury; for instance, we have to abstain from drink and from smoking, and so on." There was a whole policy of that kind, and if the Irish people had been able to follow it they would have been the most admirable people and capable of conquering the world.
But Your Lordships will readily understand that such a movement was never popular. What has happened is this. Through exterior circumstances the Irish people in general—not the Sinn Feiners, but the Irish people who were following the Parliamentary Party—have been filled with a deep-rooted suspicion of England. They have come to the conclusion that when England seems to agree to something she will always end by cheating them out of it. I think that noble Lords from Ireland will agree with me that this is the general Irish view at the present moment. The result is that people who were shouting for John Redmond and the Party, who were waving flags for John Redmond and the Party, not much more than a year ago, are now shouting and waving flags for the Republic, instead of waving the green flag as the tricolour flag. That means that we have arrived at a stage where it will be very difficult for any Government to proceed by negotiation with Irish leaders. In the old times we could meet the members of the Parliamentary Party, and anything that you agreed to they could take to a Convention in Dublin and get it ratified. That cannot be done now, and it is one of the difficulties of the situation.
The official position in Ireland is this, that a Republic has been founded, and a Parliament has sat in Dublin, and the claim is that that Parliament and that Republican Government is only checked by the presence of a foreign Army. That is a theory, and it is a theory which so far as the population is concerned has not much behind it, but it goes far enough to make negotiations difficult. Now it seems to me
804
that if by any chance there exists in the British Islands at the present moment a statesman as opposed to a politician, he ought to put the matter in this way—"I am going to settle this question. I am going to take the responsibility of introducing a measure, and I am going to carry it through, and then I am going to see whether the Irish people will be willing to work it." There is no other way of doing it. You cannot go before the Irish people now. I could not stand here in this House and say, "If you do so and so, the Irish people will accept it." I have no bright to say anything of tine kind. They would say that I was not speaking the truth. But my impression is—and it is the impression of a good many people who know Ireland—that if there was in this country any one capable of inventing a measure for the government of Ireland, that such a measure should be passed through and would ultimately be accepted.
What I want your Lordships to understand is that it is quite useless to say, "We are not going to face the Irish question." You have got to face the Irish question. If you do not, you will be up against something which will create a difficulty that will become greater and greater as time goes on. I have seen this Sinn Fein movement growing. I was in the movement that was in existence before it, and from which it sprang. I am sorry that it did spring out of it. It was a sort of side issue. The original movement was for the revival of the Irish nation through the Irish language. Whatever is done by Parliament, that movement will go on. Whatever solution is decided upon by British statesmen, or whatever attitude, even if it be a negative one, they decide to take up, that movement will go on. The Irish nation and the spirit of the Irish nation will go on growing, and become stronger every day, and, like the famous books of the Sibylline, the problem to be faced by British statesmen wil become more and more difficult; therefore the sooner it is faced the better.
I simply throw out this hint, because I do not know what line may be taken in these discussions. I throw it out because I think it is my duty, sitting in this House, to say what I know of the movement in Ireland, and to express my belief that, whatever is clone to solve the question, the one thing that cannot be crushed out and that no sane man, if he knows the question at the bottom, will dream can be crushed

805
out, is the movement for the revival and growth and strengthening of the Irish nation. Therefore I appeal to you to do what you can to facilitate this. The nation has to go on growing, and it is in the interest of Great Britain and of the Empire that that movement, in growing, should not become hardened in an attitude of hostility, but that a chance should be given, a chance which many of us have been looking for for a long time, of growing up in a friendly attitude and of co-operating in the advancement of the great cause that we all have at heart.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I had been hoping that I should have had the advantage, before I attempted to address the House, of hearing some further observations from those of your Lordships who have a very special knowledge of this difficult and perplexed question. The noble Viscount who introduced this subject, in a speech of which I make not the slightest complaint, put forward none the less a very considerable indictment against the Government. It was not only, I think, if one analyses it, an indictment against the present Government (and when I point this circumstance out I do it not in the spirit of the man who thinks it is any advantage to this Government that it should be pointed out that there were others, its predecessors, who were equally weak, as the noble Viscount seems to consider, or equally culpable as others have pronounced us to be)—I do it not in the least in that spirit; I do it in the hope that those of your Lordships who are inclined to take a moderate view in this matter may at least draw this inference, that where three (or technically four) successive Governments realise the difficulties and have failed to surmount them as obviously as the Government which was in power in 1914, its successor, the first Coalition Government, the last Government and now the present Government have done, those difficulties are of a formidable nature. We may well say, throwing our eyes back over those four and a-half—nearly five—years, that they have been five years of tragic disaster for the Union between Ireland and Great Britain, and of discouragement to those who have worked for the establishment of better relations between the two Islands.
I do not attempt to distribute blame for error, where error must be admitted, and I am not sure that those who know most
806
of what has been done in the last five years and of the crises which in bewildering succession have required decisions from the Government will be the most inclined to state their criticism in language of excessive severity. The noble Viscount has produced many illustrations of that which he complains of, but the complaint which played the most conspicouus part in his speech was concerned with that most unfortunate incident to which he drew your Lordships attention in language of which I make no complaint. You have been told, or rather another place has been told, of the circumstances under which a permission so unfortunate in its results was given to these Irish-Americans to visit Ireland. I was invited by the noble Viscount to deal with a statement which he attributed to a gentleman, whose name I confess was not known to me, to the effect that the Prime Minister invited, these gentlemen to go to Ireland for themselves, after having been informed that they were an American deputation, the object of whose visit to this country was to induce President Wilson to allow de Valera and his companions to attend the Peace Conference. I had not—I could not have—direct information on this point. The noble Viscount, quite naturally, gave me no notice that he was about to make the suggestion. It rested, as far as I understand, upon a speech by an individual who was named by the noble Viscount—
A NOBLE LORD: Mr. Walsh.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And I say quite plainly that, so far as I am concerned, I utterly disbelieve that the safe conducts were furnished under any such circumstances. I shall disbelieve it until. I am forced to believe the contrary. To any one who is not trying to take a severe view but is trying to enter into the difficulties it is easy, however great the mistake may have been, to see the kind of reasoning which led to the decision that was adopted. No one here, certainly not the noble Viscount who introduced this subject tonight, is indifferent to the view which is taken of Great Britain in the United States of America.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose there is nobody here who does not hope that, as some precious salvage from this war, a

807
greater degree of mutual understanding and of mutual liking may permanently exist between Great Britain and the United States of America. And, of course, everybody knows the immense number of Irish-Americans who have left Ireland under circumstances of bitter and unforgettable disaffection. The activities of those people in the United States of America constitute one of the greatest obstacles and difficulties to the improvement of those relations.
I am not, of course, suggesting that in deference to feelings of that kind we are to adopt policies which we, with our intimate knowledge of our own situation, know to contain within themselves the seeds of our own dissolution. I do not, of course, make any such suggestion. But I say this, in order I hope to carry your Lordships with me so far, that it is the duty of any statesman to take any opportunity that offers itself of clearing up what are the patent misunderstandings in the United States of America—and misunderstandings, be it noted, among those people in the United States whose real desire it is to understand us and to make allowance for our difficulties. I say it is very easy to understand the attitude of a Minister whose mind was possessed of that view, and who had many serious preoccupations and anxieties of other kinds at the same moment, on being told that three Irish-American citizens then in Paris wished to visit Ireland and see the situation for themselves, being unable to proceed there because they could not obtain passports.
Looking at it, not with our present knowledge of what took place, but trying to put ourselves, as fair-minded critics ought to put themselves, in the position of the Minister at the time he took the decision, it is, I think, not difficult to understand how he may have come to the conclusion that, if these men went to Ireland and saw the situation for themselves, adhering—as, of course, he must have imagined they would adhere, if only in gratitude for the facilities that were afforded to them—to the role of private citizens going, as it was expressly stipulated they should go, in order that they might learn the peculiar situation which existed there, fortunate results might follow. It is, I say, not difficult to understand how that decision was adopted by one who never conceived and who never could conceive that men who had been treated so indulgently would allow themselves to make speech after speech in
808
Ireland every one of which indicated and recommended courses which they must have known, if in the mouth of a British subject, would have constituted treasonable language against this country.
I do not believe that any responsible American citizen will have read what has been said by these men in Ireland—by a gross abuse of the permission which was given to them—or will have observed that which was done, without pain and without the deepest regret. I have spoken of it to some American friends, and others have spoken of it to me, and all their language has been of one tenor. They have said. "We know very well what would have happened to Englishmen who had come to the North in the days of the Civil War and addressed meetings about the policy which it was proper for us to adopt in relation to the Southern States."
I have told your Lordships what the view of the Prime Minister was. He knew that these men were strongly in favour of Home Rule; he knew that they had strongly advocated it in the United States of America. He was of opinion that they would have gone to Ireland, behaving themselves with decency and with a reasonable degree of privacy; that in the course of their travels they would have visited Belfast and made themselves acquainted with the situation there; and on their return to Paris he had arranged that they should come in a deputation to him, with the whole of the representative Press of the United States of America in Pa is present, and that he should listen to their impressions and, in a considered and elaborate speech, state to them—and, as he hoped, through them to the whole of that great American public to which access is otherwise impossible—the immense, the formidable, it may be the insuperable difficulties which at the present moment lie in front of our path in dealing with Ireland.
I am not saying whether or not the view that was taken was too sanguine. I am not saying whether or not it would under normal conditions have been wiser to have made fuller inquiry as to the antecendents of these so-called delegates, and, perhaps, to have obtained assurances from them of a very definite character as to what their conduct would be in Ireland. I say plainly now that it would have been wiser. But it is very easy to be wise after the event; and I am sure your

809
Lordships will not forget that the government is being conducted at the present time in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty. It is true that representations come from sources which it is inconvenient and difficult at the moment to disregard—sometimes addressed to that part of the Government which is in Paris and at other times to the other part of the Government here. But this circumstance at least is fortunately of a transitory character, and one may hope that it will soon come to an end. Of this, however, I am certain—that, while your Lordships may think that a mistake has been made, this House would be the last Assembly in the world to judge with undue harshness the men or the man who at the very moment when this decision was taken was, I suppose, grappling with some of the gravest and most perplexing problems which have been before those in Paris who are responsible for restoring the peace of the world.
The noble Viscount asked one or two specific questions. He did not—and here, again, not the slighest complaint is made, because he obviously could not do so—indicate to me that it was his purpose to ask these questions, and that must be my excuse for not being able to answer them all. He asked me, for instance, in what circumstances these men were allowed to visit Mountjoy prison. I find myself in some difficulty when dealing with this question, for two reasons. First of all, until the noble Viscount mentioned the circumstance—for which I think he was indebted to an Irish newspaper—I was unaware that they had so visited. In the second place, I was unaware of the fact that there were restrictions which would make it impossible for persons of respectability and position (the noble Viscount took the instance of members of your Lordships' House) to visit the prison. But I can easily understand the objection felt by the noble Viscount, and I confess that it is an objection strongly shared by me, against the slightest preferential treatment being given to those men the moment they had used language of the kind referred to—the moment, in other words, when they disclosed themselves in their true colours.
It flashed across my mind, but only as a suggestion, that it might be that, having regard to the prevalence of mendacious statements to the effect that Sinn Feiners had been vilely treated in the gaols—your Lordships are aware that those statements
810
have been amongst the widest circulated of all the lies and libels in the United States—it crossed my mind as a possibility that before they left Paris such arrangements might have been made in order that they themselves might be able to contradict (on the assumption that they were fair-minded men) statements which they found to be untrue. However, I will make it my business to cause inquiry to be made on this point, and if the noble Viscount attaches sufficient importance to it perhaps he will put down a Question, or I will make a private communication to him as to the circumstances when I have ascertained them.
The noble Viscount then complained of the repeated acts of interference on the part of England with Ireland in the course of the last four years. He went back somewhat far into history when he spoke of the visit of Mr. Asquith to Dublin immediately after the Rebellion. I confess that at that time I was not concerned with the subject of Ireland. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, will be far better aware than I am of the circumstances in which that visit took place and what in fact did take place. I have certainly heard some statements made as to what took place when Mr. Asquith visited Ireland which I have never heard founded upon first-hand authority, and which I do not believe; but not having been present myself I cannot give a clear or confident opinion on that point. Nor am I better informed—indeed, I think it was before the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister—of the circumstances in which General Maxwell left Ireland.
But I can say to the noble Viscount that, although I had an extremely busy Department under my care at that time, I take full responsibility for the release of the Sinn Fein prisoners on the eve of the Convention. I confess that although the results of that experiment seem to have been as disappointing as they could be, although the experiment seems to have exicted no degree of gratitude, no spark of appreciation, but, rather added to the insolence and audacity of these lawless men, in the circumstances of that day I cannot say that the decision was not a wise one; and of all others I should have hoped the noble Viscount would have conceived that this was a point of view which was at least fairly debatable. It will not be forgotten that the Convention was about to meet immediately, and I say without hesitation that whatever

811
mistakes we may have made—whatever mistakes we have made—in the last five years in relation to Ireland, the calling together of that Convention was not a mistake. I think the noble Viscount, who played a very considerable part there, will not dissent from that view. While I make that statement I add this qualification. I was never one of those who were very sanguine that the Convention would produce a real result. I had hardly any hope the moment it appeared that Sinn Fein had definitely reached the decision not to be represented there, because it seemed to me, when we cast about to see what results were likely to follow, that it was inconceivable that a satisfactory result should follow. If, apart from Ulster, which knew its own mind, and apart from the Unionists of the South of Ireland, whose position is notoriously and extraordinarily difficult, and who (if the noble Viscount will allow me to say so) sometimes knew their own mind better perhaps than they did at others—if, apart from these two sections, nobody else was represented in Ireland who had any support or who represented any opinion, it seemed unlikely in these circumstances that any valuable conclusion would be reached.
It was nevertheless not only right, but in my view it was indispensable, that the Convention should be held then, and I will tell your Lordships why. It was my fortune, while the Convention was sitting, to go to the United States of America, and, as your Lordships may recollect, in a very rapid visit I addressed, I suppose, some 130,000 or 140.000 American citizens. It was at a time when, of all others, it was not only desirable but vital that the enlightenment, cordiality and admiration of the United States in regard to the exertions which we had made in this war should be untinged by even the slightest feeling of bitterness in relation to any avoidable or subordinate issue. During the whole of that time I addressed meetings in many towns in which there were numbers of Irish, and I made the acquaintance in private life of many distinguished Irishmen who had risen to positions of mark in the United States, but I do not recall one single Irishman who did not think that, by the calling together of that Convention, by making it plain to the whole world that the difficulty was real and fundamentally an Irish one, and by offering to place on the Statute Book any result in relation to which a unanimous conclusion proved possible, Great Britain
812
at that moment had placed herself completely in the right; and, certainly, we exhibited what must always be our object in this matter, the extraordinary and fundamental difficulty of all—that of dealing with Ulster. It was exhibited by the very course of those discussions. There was not the slightest hope that the Sinn Feiners would have attended while large numbers were in gaol. We may condemn the Government for having been bad prophets. I think they were. But I know enough of Ireland to be sure that it is an extremely difficult country in relation to which to make any prophecies at all. Such were the circumstances in which the Convention was held.
The noble Viscount, very reasonably and moderately, said that he could not expect that a considered statement of policy could be made to-night; but the noble Viscount indicated that he hoped very much that, if and when Peace was signed, one of the first activities of the reconstituted Cabinet would be to reach and announce a clear statement of policy on the subject of Ireland. I think that is a very reasonable expectation, and, indeed, the noble Viscount is entitled to go further than that. It is a necessary step on behalf of any Government, because, as the noble Lord indicated, the Statute Book at the present moment contains such legislation in regard to Ireland that the matter has to be dealt with one way or the other.
For any further statement of policy and for such indications as the noble Lord (who made so interesting a speech a moment ago) asked me, I can only reply in a very guarded manner. What is the true situation to-day? There is no use closing our eyes to the fact that a great majority of Irishmen to-day are in open rebellion against the people of this country. Murder is not only common, bet it is commonly approved. It excites no reprobation among an overwhelming number of the supporters of the Sinn Feiners. I introduced a Bill not very long ago which had for its object the affording of greater protection to the Police and Constabulary, and making more generous provision for their widows and children in case they were murdered while doing their duty; and the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who added a few observations in the course of the debate, said he thought that on the whole I had exaggerated the mischiefs which exist in the present day in Ireland. I think he used the phrase that there had been some

813
what of a tendency to the extreme left. I do not recall his exact words, and I have not refreshed my memory. The interval which has elapsed—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I correct the noble and learned Lord? I do not think I said that the noble and learned Lord exaggerated the magnitude of the evil. What I said was that he exaggerated it as a new thing. I pointed out that the existence of a party of the same character as the extreme Sinn. Feiners was no novelty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. There is no difference between us on this point, because I understand that he did not take the view that I exaggerated the dimensions of the mischief. How great they are can only be realised when we notice what the official bodies boldly say. This is the definition of membership of Sinn Fein—
"Membership shall be open to adults of Irish birth or parentage, irrespective of sex, class, or creed, who accept the constitution of Sinn Fein, save that no member of the British Armed Forces nor pensioner thereof, nor any person who has taken the oath of allegiance to the British Government, shall be eligible."
Nobody who has served in the British Armed Forces or who has taken the oath of allegiance is eligible for membership. Under this fostering guidance, let us make no mistake, innocent and brave men, the solitary custodians of the cause of law and order in Ireland, have been done to death by murderers and cowards. When the noble Lord says he wonders if any statesman will arise to come to Parliament, including your Lordships' House, with a scheme and say, "I am going to recommend and press this scheme on the people of Ireland "—when he says that, I try to understand a little and. I try to anticipate what the fortunes of that statesman will be. When he has produced a Bill and gone to the Irish people, I think his fortune must adapt itself somewhat to the following position. First of all, the Sinn Feiners, all of them, will say with one accord, "We want nothing but an Irish Republic; we will accept nothing but an Irish Republic. Your Bill gives us nothing that we care for, and you may take it away." I think, in the second place, when he comes to the Ulster men, who are secure in repeated pledges which can never be broken and which will never be broken, Ulstermen will
814
say, "We have received from two successive Prime Ministers "—I think I might say from three successive Prime Ministers—"clear and definite assurance that under no circumstances, in order to impose Home Rule upon us, shall we be coerced." What is left? If the Sinn Feiners will accept nothing but an Irish Republic—and the Ulstermen will never go into an Irish Republic; if neither party wants partition, and the Sinn Feiners will not accept partition, as most assuredly they will not, then however great may have been the reputation which plays so rosy a part in the noble Lord's dreams when his statesman began drafting Home Rule, his reputation will suffer a considerable eclipse by the time he comes to this country. As far as I am concerned, and I believe it represents the views of the Government, I am persuaded that at this moment the only policy which it is proper to announce, until a reconstituted Cabinet has given a collective decision, is that we will, by the assertion of any degree of force that may be necessary, protect life in Ireland and maintain order. If errors have been made—if this was an error, as I think it was, to which so much attention has been given to-night, yet we have derived both instruction and experience from it. It is all error little likely in a conspicuous or an inconspicuous form to be repeated.
I do not take quite the same despairing view as some speakers have taken in this and recent debates. I am the last person on this question to attempt to recur even remotely to any of the animosities and bitterness of the past, but I think I should be allowed without criticism to remind your Lordships that when Mr. Bissell first went to Dublin as Chief Secretary he informed the House of Commons that for sixteen years Ireland had been almost completely peaceful, and that it never was more peaceful than at that moment. Let no one think I am criticising any one. I am only attempting to establish this conclusion, that while it is true, as the noble Marquess pointed out, that this movement in its fundamental features is a recrudescence of an older movement—the mind of England was inflexible, when confronted by that older movement, that wrong doing and crime should be put down with an iron hand. I believe that is the policy which needs to be pursued. There are alternatives which no reasonable person will dismiss, but which no one at this moment will propose.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I move that the House do now adjourn.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I had intended to make a few observations in connection with the Question which was put to the Government by the noble Viscount, but if I am out of order in doing so I must, of course, refrain from making them. What I would say would be confined to a very small compass.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I moved the adjournment of the House and understood the Motion to be agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Motion, unfortunately, was put by me from the Chair, assented to by your. Lordships, and so announced by me. I greatly regret that we have not had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 21.]
MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the

Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [H.L.]

ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:

British and Continental Bank

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:

Bedwellty Urban District Council

Workington Corporation

Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board

ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.